Brentwood City Council
February 24, 2026

include, but are not limited to, notifying public agencies and affordable housing developers of the availability of the real properties and providing a 60-day period to consider making an offer to purchase a property or properties, and these actions have been undertaken with respect to the property described below; and WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property located at SEC Harvest Park Drive and Guthrie Lane, Brentwood, California 94513, Assessor Parcel Number 010-150-040, consisting of 125,017 square feet on 2.87 acres (the Property); and
WHEREAS, the City has received an offer to purchase the Property for $700,000 (the appraised value) for the purpose of constructing a 30,000 to 35,000 square foot industrial/office flex building that will support a mix of light industrial companies to lease space resulting in positively impacting the City’s property/sales tax revenues and creation of new jobs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of the Property for the function stated herein conform to General Plan Policy LU 3-9 (“Encourage the retention and expansion of the city’s existing businesses and encourage start-up and home-based businesses by Brentwood residents”) insomuch as the sale of the Property will facilitate its development by a business currently operating within the City, thus encouraging the expansion of local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the sale and planned development of Property will provide fiscal and economic benefits to the City and community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby resolve to approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee to:

1. Execute an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of real property and Joint Escrow Instructions with 2485 Technology Drive, LLC or related entity for the real property located at SEC Harvest Park Drive and Guthrie Lane, Brentwood, CA., 94513, APN 010-150-040 for the purchase price of $700,000, which agreement shall be substantially similar to that attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”; and

2. Perform all necessary actions and execute those agreements as needed to complete the sale.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on 24th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
SUBJECT: Focused Zoning Code Update Direction: Alcohol Sales DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
Jennifer Hagen, Principal Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on potential new regulations within the framework of the Focused Zoning Code Update related to the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the update is included in the Zoning Ordinance Focused Update, CIP Project No. 337-37228, (“Project”) which is included in the 2025/26 – 2029/30 Capital Improvement Program. The majority of the Project is funded by the General Fund, with a minor amount from California Senate Bill (SB) 2 Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant funding.

BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff to reinitiate the City’s Zoning Code Update, including a focused and phased approach, rather than the comprehensive update that was initiated in the summer of 2020. On May 23, 2023, the project scope and budget were finalized when the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with De Novo Planning Group to prepare and complete the Focused Zoning Code Update and Objective Design Standards. The work plan approved by the City Council includes three main tasks to complete:

Task 1: Objective Design Standards;
Task 2: Zoning Code Updates required by State Law and the Housing Element; Task 3: Focused Zoning Code updates.

This agenda item is related to Task 3: Focused Zoning Code updates. This task includes amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code to better reflect the

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
community's values based on feedback from the community and City Council, including changes to some permitted and conditionally permitted uses throughout the city.

On November 14, 2023, the City Council directed staff to address the following uses in the Focused Zoning Code Update efforts and present an initial framework for zoning amendments related to such uses:

1. Automobile service stations/gas stations;

2. Carwashes;

3. Alcohol sales;

4. Self-storage facilities;

5. Short-term rentals; and

6. Drive-through uses.

On June 17, 2024 and July 15, 2024, the City Council’s Land Use and Development Committee (LUD) was presented with information on the six topics and provided direction on each. LUD recommended that staff return to the full City Council for further direction related to alcohol sales, self-storage facilities, and drive-through uses before drafting amendments for review and approval. On September 24, 2024 the City Council was presented with information and provided further direction related to alcohol sales.

Although the Focused Zoning Code Updates were originally envisioned to move forward as one group, the specific uses became separated based on initial LUD and City Council recommended changes, differing staff time needed to amend each section of the Municipal Code based on each use, and the complexity of each topic.

Staff moved forward with each use based on the complexity of each of the topics, as well as the clarity and consistency of the direction given, in order to complete the simplest tasks first before moving forward with the more complex tasks. To date, approximately 15 meetings have been held over the past two years on the Focused Zoning Code Updates and Objective Design Standards, as summarized below.

Meeting
Date
Body Type Topic Result
2024
June 17 LUD Discussion Gas Stations,
Carwashes,
Alcohol
Alcohol
recommended to
full CC
July 15 LUD Discussion Self-Storage,
STR, Drivethrough
Self-Storage and
Drive-throughs
recommended to
full CC

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
Meeting
Date
Body Type Topic Result
Sept 24 CC Discussion Alcohol, Drivethrough, SelfstorageSelf-storage continued
October 15 PC Recommendation Gas Stations,
Carwashes, STRs
Recommended
approval to CC
November 12 CC Discussion Self-Storage
November 12 CC 1
st Reading Gas Stations,
Carwashes, STRs
Approved
Carwashes and
STRs. Continued
Gas Stations
December 10 CC 2
nd Reading Carwashes, STRs Approved
2025
May 19 LUD Intro ODS
June 3 PC Recommendation Self-Storage and
Drive-throughs
Recommended
approval to CC
July 22 CC 1
ST Reading Self-Storage and
Drive-throughs
Approved Selfstorage,
continued Drivethroughs
August 12 CC 2
ND Reading Self-Storage Approved
September 16 PC Recommendation ODS Continued
September 23 CC 1
st Reading Drive-throughs Approved
October 14 CC 2
nd Reading Drive-throughs Approved
October 21 PC Recommendation ODS Continued
To date, staff has completed work related to carwashes, short-term rentals, selfstorage facilities, and drive-throughs. Staff anticipates that completed Ordinances related to State Legislative Updates (Task 2) and gas stations will be presented to the Planning Commission within the next month, in addition to a follow-up on the Objective Design Standards. Staff’s goal is to complete the entirety of the Focused Zoning Code Updates (Tasks 1-3) by the end of the fiscal year.

DISCUSSION
The last time that the City Council provided direction on alcohol-related uses was September 24, 2024. The previous reports related to alcohol that were provided to LUD and the City Council are included in Attachment 2 for the City Council’s reference.

Based on the complexity of the topic, the potential to impact the majority of the City’s commercial areas, and the length of time since last reviewed by the Council, staff is recommending that the Council review staff’s drafted recommendations and provide final direction before moving forward to the Planning Commission and Council for

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
final approval. On September 24, 2024, the City Council provided the following direction:
• No alcohol-related changes to the Downtown, the Innovation Center, or PD-6 (The Streets of Brentwood/Sand Creek Crossings Center) zones, while creating one set of regulations for the rest of the city that would allow for consistency and that would be more easily understood.
• Consider specific regulations for the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption for all properties located within 500 feet of K-12 schools (Private or Public), excluding the three areas referenced above.
• Consider signage related to alcohol sales.
• Consider specific regulations for the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption for those uses within 100 feet of residential properties. • Consider specific regulations for the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption that would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if a restaurant is open after 10 p.m. (explore a tiered system based on proximity to residential properties). • Council did not recommend changes to existing regulations related to the sale of alcohol for off-premise consumption at the time.

Based on the City Council recommendations, staff drafted a preliminary code amendment that provides the following regulations for all properties outside of those located in the Downtown Specific Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan Area (Innovation Center), and PD-6. The initial draft of the new code section is included in Attachment 3 for reference. The proposed standards include:

1. Proximity to Schools. No establishment that sells alcohol for on-premise consumption shall be located within a five hundred (500) foot radius from any existing school (public or private), except within the areas defined as the Downtown Specific Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan Area (Innovation Center), and PD-6. A 500-foot radius map is included in Attachment 4 for reference.

2. Proximity to Residential Uses. If an establishment that sells alcohol for onpremise consumption is within one hundred (100) feet of any existing residential zoning district or use, then a conditional use permit shall be required.

3. Hours of Operation in addition to Proximity to Residential Uses. If an establishment that sells alcohol for on-premise consumption is within three hundred (300) feet of any existing residential zoning district or use and open after 10:00 P.M., then a conditional use permit shall be required. This would

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
effectively require those between 100- and 300-feet, open past 10:00 P.M., to require a CUP since those less than 100-feet automatically require a CUP.

If a property does not meet any of the above three criteria, then the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption in combination with an approved restaurant use would be allowed by right. Below is a summary of the changes that would apply:

Proximity Standards Regulations
Restaurants within 500’ of a School On-Premise alcohol sales would not be permitted
Restaurants within 100’ of a residential
property
On-Premise alcohol sales would require
a CUP
Restaurants within 100’-300’ of a
residential property
On-Premise alcohol sales would require
a CUP if open later than 10:00 p.m.

Restaurants greater than 300’ from a
residential property
On-Premise alcohol sales would be
permitted in conjunction with a
restaurant.

Staff also looked into additional regulations for window signage. While the City may not explicitly prohibit signage related to the sale of alcohol, it may impose regulations on the time, place, and manner of the signage to ensure public order and safety.

After review of the City’s current Ordinance, the advertisement of alcohol products is only permitted as window signage defined as follows:
"Window sign" means a permanent sign that is painted or mounted onto a windowpane, or that is hung directly inside a window solely for the purpose or effect of identifying any premises from the sidewalk or street, or a temporary sign that advertises special sales, events, or products. This definition includes any interior sign that is located within five feet of the applicable window.

Based on the current Code, window signage is limited to not more than twenty-five percent of the aggregate window area and may not to be located within an area between three feet and five feet above grade. Since window signage is already identified within the Code, and limited to only 25 percent of window area, staff does not recommend amending the sign regulations at this time. However, if the City Council would like to place additional regulations on the time, place, and manner of window signage to ensure public order and safety, staff would recommend amending the Code so that the regulations would apply to all window signage and not specifically to the sale of alcohol. If the Council would like to move forward with this, staff could provide examples to bring forward separately or with the final ordinance.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.4
02/24/2026
Once Council has provided final direction on alcohol-related uses, staff will finalize the draft ordinance to bring forward for Planning Commission and City Council consideration within the new two to three months.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
The following are alternative options that the City Council may consider:

1. Direct staff to make changes to the proposed amendments and direct staff to return to the Planning Commission and the City Council with the revised ordinance.

2. Do not move forward with amending the Zoning Code related to alcohol uses at this time.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Previous Action

2. September 24, 2024 Agenda Report and Attachments

3. Draft Amendments

4. 500-Radius Map from all Schools

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous City Council actions related to this agenda item are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On November 16 and 17, 2017, the City Council held workshops to discuss, deliberate, and direct staff on priorities and the allocation of financial resources for the development of a Strategic Plan initiative. The City Council directed staff to initiate a comprehensive zoning ordinance update.

On February 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-21, to approve the FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20 City of Brentwood Strategic Plan, including Strategic Initiative 4.1.c, preparation of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update which has been continued over the past few years into the current Strategic Plan FY 2022/23 – FY 2023/24 (Focus Area 4: Land Use Planning, Goal 1: Implement Zoning Ordinance update).

On June 9, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020-73, the City Council adopted the City’s 2020/21 – 2024/25 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”), which included the Zoning Ordinance Update, CIP Project No. 337-37228.

On January 24, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff on reinitiating the City’s Zoning Code Update, including a new focused and phased approach scaled down in size and focused into specific tasks.

On May 23, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with De Novo Planning Group to prepare and complete the Focused Zoning Ordinance Update and Objective Design Standards.

On November 14, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff on including updated regulations pertaining to automobile service stations/gas stations, carwashes, alcohol sales, self-storage facilities, short-term rentals, and drive-through uses as part of the Focused Zoning Code Update efforts and directed staff to present the Land Use and Development Committee with an initial framework for each of the topics prior to moving forward with comprehensive and formal amendments.

On September 24 and November 12, 2024, the City Council was presented with information on and provided further direction related to alcohol sales, self-storage facilities, and drive-through uses.

On November 12, 2024, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the first reading of the Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment (RZ 24-005) to the Brentwood Municipal Code to update regulations related to automobile service stations/gas stations, carwashes, and short-term rentals. Following the public hearing, the City Council voted to approve the provisions of Ordinance related to carwashes, and

short-term rentals and continue the amendments related to automobile service stations/gas stations to move forward separately at a later time.

On July 22, 2025, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the first reading of the Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment (RZ 24-006) to the Brentwood Municipal Code to update regulations related to self-storage and drive-through facilities. Following the public hearing, the City Council voted to approve the provisions of Ordinance related to self-storage facilities and continue the amendments related to drive-through facilities to move forward separately at a later time.

On September 23, 2025, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the first reading of the Ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment (RZ 24-006) to the Brentwood Municipal Code to update regulations related to drive-through facilities.

Following the public hearing, the City Council voted to approve the provisions of Ordinance related to drive-through facilities.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
SUBJECT: Focused Zoning Code Update Direction: Alcohol Sales, Selfstorage facilities, and Drive-through uses DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
Jennifer Hagen, Senior Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on potential new regulations within the framework of the Focused Zoning Code Update related to the following land uses: Alcohol sales, selfstorage facilities; and, drive-through uses.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the update is included in the Zoning Ordinance Focused Update, CIP Project No. 337-37228, (“Project”) which is included in the adopted and amended 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program. The majority of the Project is funded by the General Fund, with a minor amount from SB 2 grant funding.

BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2023, the City Council provided direction on reinitiating the City’s Zoning Code Update, including a new focused and phased approach. On May 23, 2023, the project scope was finalized when the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with De Novo Planning Group to prepare and complete the Focused Zoning Code Update and Objective Design Standards. The plan approved by the Council includes three main tasks to complete:

Task 1: Objective Design Standards;
Task 2: Zoning Code Updates required by State Law and the Housing Element; Task 3: Focused Zoning Code updates.

This agenda item is related to Task 3: Focused Zoning Code updates. This task includes amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code to better reflect the community's values based on feedback from the community and City Council, including changes to some permitted and conditionally permitted uses throughout the City.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
On November 11, 2023, the City Council provided direction on the following uses to be considered as part of the Focused Zoning Code Update efforts and directed staff to present the Land-Use and Development Committee (LUD) with an initial framework for each of the topics prior to moving forward with comprehensive and formal amendments:

1. Automobile service stations/gas stations

2. Carwashes

3. Alcohol sales regulations

4. Self-storage facilities

5. Short-term rental regulations

6. Drive-through uses
On June 17th and July 15th, LUD was presented with and provided direction on the six topics. LUD recommended that staff return to the full City Council for direction related to alcohol sales, self-storage facilities, and drive-thru uses to obtain further direction before drafting amendments for review and approval. Staff received clear recommendations from LUD on amendments related to automobile service stations/gas stations, carwashes, and short-term rental regulations, which will be first presented to the Planning Commission and then returning to City Council for review and approval in the near future. Both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings will be public hearings and will be noticed in the local paper.

DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared the attached individual reports on the topics. Each report has been formatted to provide the following information, if applicable:

1. Background – a discussion of the use and relevant information

2. Analysis
A. General – a discussion on the existing uses in operation throughout the City. Within the alcohol sales report, staff has also included attachments 2A and 2B, that includes a list of all active on-sale and off-sale retail licenses for general background and reference purposes.

B. Existing Regulations – a discussion on whether there are currently any regulations on the subject use, including whether they typically are permitted or conditionally permitted.

C. Locations – a discussion of what zones identify the subject use as permitted or conditionally permitted.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
D. Potential Development and Design Standards – a discussion of potential development and design standards related to the identified uses for consideration to be incorporated into a future focused zoning code amendments.

E. Potential Operational Requirements – a discussion of potential operational requirements related to the identified uses for consideration to be incorporated into a future focused zoning code amendments.

Subsequent to the LUD meeting, staff added two new sections to the summaries:
 a “LUD Summary and Further Discussion” section at the end of each report that includes a summary of the LUD conclusions, additional consideration and/or discussion points, and recommended City Council direction; and  a “Potential Economic Impact” section that provides information on the potential impacts new standards or regulations may have on the existing and/or future economic growth and welfare of the City.

Staff is presenting the City Council with recommendations on the final three land uses and the requested direction for each, as summarized below. A full discussion of each land use can be found in each of the attached individual reports (Attachment 2 – Alcohol Sales, Attachment 3 – Self- Storage Facilities, and Attachment 4 – Drivethrough Facilities.) Alcohol Sales
In order to move forward with a focused update related to alcohol sales, staff needs direction on the recommended development standards and operational requirements for alcohol sales throughout the City. Staff has provided recommendations below and is requesting direction on the following:

1. Individualized and General Regulations: Overall, staff recommends that the City Council consider requiring individualized regulations for specific areas such as the Downtown, the Innovation Center, and PD-6 (Streets of Brentwood/Raley’s Center), while potentially creating one set of regulations for the rest of the City that would allow for consistency and more easily understood regulations.

2. Definitions: In addition, staff recommends that new definitions be created within alcohol-regulating provisions for the following:
• Day Care Center, Children

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
• Private Educational Facilities
• Public School Facilities
• Food and Beverage Stores – Convenience Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Grocery Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Liquor Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Specialty Food & Wine
• Food and Beverage Stores – Neighborhood Market

3. No further restrictions for on-sale license: Staff does not recommend further restricting on-sale licenses within the City unless they are located adjacent to, or within a distance as recommended by City Council, to a Public School Facilities or a Private Educational Facility only.

4. Separation Requirements: Staff does not recommend implementing separation requirements from Child Day Care Centers at this time. Staff also recommends that all that the incidental sale of alcohol at all grocery stores, specialty food and wine stores and neighborhood markers be permitted by-right where the use is allowed in the underlying zone.

5. CUPs: Staff recommends that all convenience stores and liquor stores be conditionally permitted where the use is allowed in the underlying zoning.

City Council Options
The following outlines the options for Council when considering the options for alcohol sales:

1. Support Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports staff’s recommendations, staff will draft final language to be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

2. Modify Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports modifying staff’s recommendations, such as recommending additional sensitive uses, or alternative location based zoning suggestions, the City Council would need to provide clear and concise direction on the proposed changes. Staff would then draft final language to be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

Self- Storage Facilities

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
At this time, staff supports including a clear definition for self-storage in the Zoning Code in order to assist in regulating establishments within the City. However, staff does not recommend expanding or modifying zones where self-storage facilities are currently permitted; therefore, only allowing self-storage facilities in the zones identified in Table 1 in the attached.

City Council Options
The following outlines the direction that staff is requesting from the Council:

1. Support Staff Recommendation. Does the City Council support not expanding or modifying zones where self-storage facilities are permitted and clearly defining self-storage facilities? This would result in retaining the ability for selfstorage facilities in the zones identified in Table 1 to continue, expand or redevelop, and would preclude new self-storage facilities in all other zones that are not identified in the zones listed in Table 1.
 If the City Council supports this option, staff recommends that clear design criteria be established that would regulate the expansion, addition, and renovation of the existing self-storage facilities within the zones in Table 1, as well as new facilities within these zones. Potential regulations would include, but are not limited to, building design, street fronting articulation, massing, setbacks, landscaping, site maintenance, storage of hazardous materials, etc. If the City Council supports staff’s recommendations, staff would draft these design criteria and bring them to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in early 2025.

2. Modify Staff Recommendation. Does the City Council support prohibiting all future self-storage facilities or expansions of existing facilities in all zones, including those listed in Table 1? This would cause all existing facilities to become legal non-conforming uses. They would thus be allowed to remain as they are currently constructed, but the facilities would not be able to add on or expand in the future. If the City Council supports modifying staff’s recommendations, such as prohibiting all future facilities, staff would draft language to be included in the Zoning Ordinance that would be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in early 2025.

Drive-through Facilities

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
In order to move forward with a focused update related to drive-through facilities, staff needs direction on the attached development standards and operational requirements for future drive-through establishments. Overall, staff recommends that the City Council consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all future drivethrough establishments. In addition to requiring a CUP, staff recommends that new development standards be drafted and implemented that include the following items:
• Residential Setbacks.
• Queuing Analysis.
• Separate Waiting Lane.
• Vehicle Stacking.
• Pedestrian Access and Circulation.
• Building Design.

Staff does not recommend prohibiting future drive-through uses at this time or modifying zones where drive-throughs are currently conditionally permitted, beyond imposing the standards identified above. Staff believes that with incorporation of the development standards related to the above mentioned items, as well as vetting through the CUP process (including increased public hearing notice requirements of a 1,000 foot radius being brought forward for City Council approval separately) for all future drive-thru facilities, that potential negative impacts of future drive-through uses would be mitigated and adequately addressed during the entitlement process.

City Council Options
The following outlines the options for Council when considering the attached standards:

1. Support Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports staff’s recommendations, staff will draft final language to be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

2. Modify Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports modifying staff’s recommendations, such as adjusting the required residential setbacks or prohibiting all future drive-throughs, the City Council would need to provide clear and concise direction on the proposed changes. Staff would then draft final language to be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.3
09/24/2024
Conclusion
Staff is recommending that each topic be presented and discussed, as well as receive public comment individually, in order to get clear and concise direction before moving on to the next topic. Once Council has provided final direction on the final three focused zoning code items, staff will begin to draft final ordinances to bring forward for Planning Commission and City Council consideration in early 2025.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2022/23 – FY 2023/24 Focus Area 4: Land Use Planning, Goal 1: Implement Zoning Ordinance update to maintain compliance with State law, including developing objective design standards (SB 330 compliance).

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Previous Action

2. Alcohol Sales
a. Brentwood Off-Sale ABC Licenses
b. Brentwood On-Sale ABC Licenses

3. Self-storage facilities

4. Drive-through uses

Alcohol Sales 1

FOCUSED ZONING CODE UPDATE

1. Alcohol Sales
Background
A. Types of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses in California
To sell beer, wine, or liquor in the State of California, a business must acquire a license through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). There are two main types of alcoholic beverage licenses: on-sale retail and off-sale retail.

On-sale Alcohol License
On-sale alcohol licenses grant privileges for on-site consumption. There are two main groups of on-sale retail licenses: beer and wine (Type 41 and Type 42) and full on-sale general liquor (Type 47 and Type 48). These two main groups are then narrowed down to the specific type of business. Type 41 and Type 47 are incidental to food service and commonly used for full-service restaurants. The business applying for a Type 41 or Type 47 must have a kitchen and all age groups are welcomed to be on the premises. For Type 42 and Type 48, no food service is required; these licenses are commonly used for bars or taverns. Due to the business nature of a Type 42 or Type 48 license, only adults age 21 and over are allowed on premise.

Off-sale Alcohol License
Conversely, off-sale alcohol licenses grant privileges for customers to purchase the alcohol to consume off-premise. There are only two main alcohol licenses that grant off-sale privileges: Type 20 (beer and wine) and Type 21 (beer, wine, and spirits). These two types of off-sale retail alcohol licenses are commonly used by service stations, convenience stores, grocery stores, etc.

B. Licensing vs. Zoning
Prior to ABC issuing an alcoholic beverage license, the Department requires an applicant to demonstrate that the business location has zoning in place that permits the sale of alcohol. Per Section 23790 of the Business and Professions Code, ABC cannot issue a retail license contrary to a city’s valid zoning ordinance.

The applicant must therefore submit a Zoning Affidavit stating that the city’s zoning permits the intended use, and if a conditional use permit (CUP) is needed, then a copy of the CUP (or its receipt) is to be included.

Depending on the jurisdiction and the type of alcoholic beverage license, the sale of alcohol may be permitted ministerially (i.e., by right) or through a conditional use permit. For example, some cities require a CUP for all alcohol sales while others may allow the ministerial approval of beer and wine sales (Type 41 license)

Alcohol Sales 2
for bona fide restaurants but require a CUP for bars and taverns and for off-sale retail licenses.

Analysis
A. General – On-sale and Off-sale Alcohol Licenses: As shown in Attachments 2A and 2B, the City of Brentwood has 96 active on-sale retail licenses and 37 active off-sale retail licenses. The on-sale licenses range in use to include fullservice restaurants, fast casual restaurants (e.g., Chipotle), sports bars, Brentwood Golf Club, etc. Note that some businesses have multiple on-sale retail licenses for the same location. Tailgaters Sports Bar & Grill, for example, has a Type 47 (On-Sale General – Eating Place), Type 58 (Caterer’s Permit), Type 68 (Portable Bar License), and Type 77 (Event Permit). Likewise, off-sale licenses include such uses as grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, and gas stations.

B. Existing Regulations: The Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) does not have citywide development or operational standards regulating alcohol sales establishments. The BMC does, however, specify where alcohol sales establishments are allowed to operate in the City. Overall, the City’s zoning is not consistent on whether on- and off-sale alcohol sales are required to be approved by way of a conditional use permit, which would provide the City with discretionary review ability. For example, in the Downtown, most on- and off-sale alcohol sales (excluding bars) are permitted by right to sell alcohol up to 10:00 p.m. and then requires a Conditional Use Permit for sales after 10:00 p.m. In addition, all bars (Type 42 and Type 48 licenses) within the Downtown would require a Conditional Use Permit. In comparison, PD-6, Subarea RC (which governs properties in and around the Streets of Brentwood), allow for bars and restaurants as permitted uses with no hourly restrictions. Note that the BMC largely uses the term “liquor sales” to mean any business required to obtain an alcoholic beverage license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the purpose of selling alcoholic beverages for consumption either on- or off-site.

C. Locations: Alcohol sales establishments are allowed in most commercial zoning districts and in certain Planned Development Zones. Below are two tables, with brief descriptions of the requirements for each zoning district allowing alcohol sales. The first table lists the zoning districts that allow on-sale and off-sale licenses without a Conditional Use Permit as an automatically permitted use. The second table lists the zoning districts that require a Conditional Use Permit for either on-sale or off-sale licenses.

Alcohol Sales 3
Table 1 – Permitted by Right
Zoning Requirement
Downtown Specific Plan
(all areas)
Specialty off-sale liquor, including wine shops and
wine tasting, and restaurants serving alcoholic
beverages until 10:00 p.m. are permitted.

Brentwood Boulevard Specific
Plan (COIR, COI, and General
Commercial areas)
Restaurants operating between the hours of 7:00
am and 10:00 pm, including those that sell alcohol
for on-premise consumption, are permitted.

PD-3 (Subarea A) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-3 (Subarea B) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-5 (Subarea B) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-6 (Subarea RC) Bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, and sit-down restaurants
PD-36 (Subarea B) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-38 (Subarea A) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-38 (Subarea F) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-40 Restaurants, cafés, delis, sports bars, less than 10% of an individual building
PD-55 (Commercial Subareas 1
and 2) Supermarket, drugstore, restaurant, or similar use PD-56 (Subarea A) Restaurants and incidental microbrewery PD-56 (Subareas B and C) Microbreweries
PD-67 (Subareas A and D) Supermarket and drugstore
PD-67 (Subareas B and C) Supermarket, drugstores, and microbreweries Table 2 – CUP Required
Zoning Required for which types of sales
C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) All on- and off-sale licenses C-2 (General Commercial) All on- and off-sale licenses
C-3 (Thoroughfare Commercial) All on- and off-sale licenses CR (Commercial Residential) All on- and off-sale licenses

Alcohol Sales 4
Zoning Required for which types of sales
COB (Commercial
Office/Business) All on- and off-sale licenses
Downtown Specific Plan
All on-site and off-site alcoholic beverage sales
after 10:00 p.m. in addition to all bars and
nightclubs
Brentwood Boulevard Specific
Plan (COIR, COI, General
Commercial)
All on-site alcoholic beverage sales after 10:00
p.m. in addition to all off-site sales
Innovation Center/PA-1 (ECLI) All on- and off-sale licenses Innovation Center/PA-1 (TV/MU
and RC)
Off-sale liquor and on-sale bars and nightclubs,
and tasting rooms
PD-6 (Subarea RC) Off-sale convenience/liquor stores
PD-10 (Subareas A-C) All on-sale licenses and off-sale liquor stores PD-12 (Subarea A) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-16 (Subarea A) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-17 All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-18 All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-20 All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-34 All off-sale licenses and restaurants over 5,000 sq. ft.

PD-35 (Subarea B) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-36 (Subarea A) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-36 (Subarea B) Off-sale for liquor stores, and bars and lounges PD-38 (Subareas A and F) All off-sale liquor stores
PD-38 (Subareas B and E) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-41 (Subareas A-D) All on- and off-sale licenses
PD-42 (Subareas B, C, E, and F) All on-sale licenses
PD-49 (Subareas A and C) All on-sale licenses
PD-55 Off-sale liquor stores, and sports bar, lounge,
nightclub and similar establishments

Alcohol Sales 5
Zoning Required for which types of sales
PD-67 (Subareas A, B, C and D) On-sale and liquor stores PD-69 All on- and off-sale licenses
D. Potential Development Standards: As indicated above, there are no citywide development or operational standards regulating alcohol sales establishments in the Municipal Code. Only when a CUP is required has the City been able to consider applications on a case-by-case basis through the discretionary review process, but there are no regulations codified that City staff can apply during the review of a CUP or business license for alcohol sales. The development standards described below are some that are commonly employed by other cities.  Separation from Sensitive Uses. Cities will often require a minimum separation distance from sensitive uses, particularly for off-sale alcohol sales establishments like liquor stores. Sensitive uses may include schools (public and private), established churches or other places of worship, hospitals, convalescent homes, public parks, playgrounds, and/or other similar uses. A jurisdiction may adopt a distance separation standard for sensitive uses to make sure drinking establishments are not too close to schools or youth facilities to prevent access to alcoholic beverages by minors.

At the state level, Business and Professions Code § 23789 authorizes, but does not require, ABC to deny issuance of a retail license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of churches and hospitals, and within 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds, and/or nonprofit youth facilities.

One question to consider regarding schools as a sensitive use is if nursery schools and preschools should be treated in the same manner as K-12 schools.

On the one hand, the negative impacts from having a bar or liquor store in close proximity to a preschool or elementary school are the same (e.g., public intoxication, advertisement of alcohol use, etc.), but on the other hand, where K-12 schools are typically limited to residential or institutional zones, nursery schools and preschools are often permitted in a broader area, including the commercial zones where alcohol sales establishments are also allowed.

Furthermore, where K-12 schools are perhaps more fixed in their locations, nursery schools and preschools can spring up with greater frequency, given their ability to open in more areas of a city. With that in mind, should nursery schools and preschools be allowed to locate at a given site if the proposed location is too close to an existing on- or off-sale alcohol sales establishment for risk of making the alcohol sales establishment nonconforming due to proximity?
 Separation from Other Alcohol Sales Establishments. A city may adopt a distance separation standard between businesses that sell alcohol to prevent

Alcohol Sales 6
an oversaturation of bars or night clubs in a particular area or a concentration of off-sale alcohol sales establishments like liquor stores and convenience stores that sell alcohol. Separation distances vary in other jurisdictions from 300 feet to 1,500 feet, and the separation requirement could be reduced for off-sale establishments like grocery stores where the sale of alcohol is incidental to the primary retail use.
 Hours of Operation. For any retail sales establishment with an ABC license, including restaurants, bars, grocery stores, pharmacies, liquor stores, etc., the sale of alcohol is prohibited from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily. Specifically, Business and Professions Code § 25631 states that “Any on-sale or off-sale licensee, or agent or employee of that licensee, who sells, gives, or delivers to any persons any alcoholic beverage or any person who knowingly purchases any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2 o’clock a.m. and 6 o’clock a.m. of the same day, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
The City may wish to further regulate the operating hours of certain alcohol sales establishments like liquor stores. Alternatively, a provision could be applied whereby the City could restrict a specific off-sale establishment’s hours of operation if the business in deemed to be in violation of any conditions of its CUP or for other reasons determined to be good cause.

E. Survey of Other Cities
City Distance Separation
Requirements Exceptions
Antioch 500 feet from any other onsale or off-sale liquor establishments or any
school, public park,
playground, recreational
center, day care center, or
other similar use
 Retail markets having a
minimum 10,000 square feet
of floor area that devote no
more than 5% of such floor
area to the sale of alcohol
 Restaurants that derive a
minimum of 51% of their
gross receipts from the sale of
meals
 Special event functions such
as neighborhood or
community festivals
Livermore N/A N/A
Martinez Bars shall be an
“appropriate” distance from
religious facilities, schools,
public parks and
playgrounds, and other
similar uses
N/A
Oakley N/A N/A

Alcohol Sales 7
City Distance Separation
Requirements Exceptions
Pittsburg N/A N/A
Stockton 500 feet from any:
 Public or private academic
school for students in
kindergarten through 12th
grade, nursery school,
preschool, or day-care
facility
 Public park, playground,
recreational area, or
youth facility
 Supermarkets and drug stores
that do not sell alcoholic
beverages as their principal
business
 Full-service restaurants
 Establishments where the onsite consumption of alcohol is an incidental or secondary
use, e.g., membership clubs,
social, veterans, or fraternal
organizations
 Established businesses prior
to effective date of ordinance
Walnut Creek N/A N/A
LUD Summary and Further Discussion
Overall, LUD recommended that staff bring the discussion forward to the entire City Council since the topic was so wide ranging and had the potential to impact a large number of businesses throughout the City. In addition, LUD requested that when the item be presented to the City Council that additional information and considerations be presented including the following:
• Provide suggested definitions that provide separate distinctions between K-12 schools, preschool, and after school care.
o Consistent with the recently approved Innovation Center Specific Plan definitions, staff recommends using the following definitions within alcoholregulating provisions for consistency:
 Day Care Center, Children means a facility (excluding residential childcare facilities) of any capacity that provides care and other services in a group setting during a portion of the day for children and licensed as such by the state of California.
 Private Educational Facilities means any privately owned and operated elementary school, middle school, secondary school, high school, or other institution providing academic instruction for students from kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade pursuant to the California Education Code.
 Public School Facilities means any publicly owned and operated elementary school, middle school, secondary school, high school, or

Alcohol Sales 8
other institution providing academic instruction for students from kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade pursuant to the California Education Code.

These definitions were requested by LUD to assist further discussion related to potential separation from sensitive uses. If the City Council wishes to consider adding separation requirements, then these uses would need to be better defined.
• Provide suggested definitions for markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, specialty markers with off-sale licenses.
o Consistent with the recently approved Innovation Center Specific Plan definitions, staff recommends using the following definitions for consistency:
 Food and Beverage Stores – Convenience Store means easy-access retail stores of 5,000 square feet or less in gross floor area that carry a range of merchandise oriented to convenience and travelers’ shopping needs. These stores may be part of a service station or an independent facility. Also see “Food and Beverage Stores – Neighborhood Market” and “Food and Beverage Stores – Grocery Store” for larger stores or stores oriented toward the daily shopping needs of residents.  Food and Beverage Stores – Grocery Store means a retail business of more than 15,000 square feet in size, where the majority of the floor area open to the public is occupied by food products packaged for preparation and consumption away from the site of the store. These fullservice businesses do not typically have limited hours of operation. See separate but related listings for “Food and Beverage Store – Neighborhood market” and “Food and Beverage – Convenience store.”  Food and Beverage Stores – Liquor Store means a retail establishment that has fifty (50%) percent or more of the shelving or gross floor area devoted to the public display and sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption.
 Food and Beverage Stores – Specialty Food & Wine means a retail store characterized by a limited number of high quality specialty food items and/or beverages typically including premium wine and beer.  Food and Beverage Stores – Neighborhood Market means a pedestrian-oriented grocery/specialty market store offering food products packaged for preparation and consumption away from the site of the store and oriented to the daily shopping needs of surrounding residential areas. Neighborhood markets are more than 5,000 square feet and less than 15,000 square feet in size and operate less than 18 hours per day. For larger stores, see “Food and Beverage Store –

Alcohol Sales 9
Grocery Store.” Neighborhood markets may include deli or beverage tasting facilities that are ancillary to the market/grocery portion of the use.

These definitions were requested by LUD in order to make sure proposed amendments do not negatively impact potential economic growth and attraction of large merchants to the City. LUD recommended allowing offsite sales related to larger grocery stores, specialty food and wine stores and neighborhood markets while requiring Conditional Use permits for convenience markets where appropriate.
• Window Signage. For off-site retail establishments, stricter window signage regulations should be considered for advertisements of alcoholic beverages. • Location based Zoning. Consider individualized regulations for specific areas such as the Downtown, the Innovation Center, and PD-6 (Streets of Brentwood/Raley’s Center), while potentially creating one set of regulations for the rest of the City that would allow for consistency and more easily understood regulations.

On-Sale Licenses
Such regulations for the remaining areas of the City could include allowing byright on-sale restaurants to sell alcohol if they are not directly adjacent to sensitive uses. Uses adjacent to sensitive uses could potentially be permitted by-right if they maintain established hours of operation and close by a certain hour. Operations outside of the established hours would require Conditional Use Permit approval.

Off-Sale Licenses
New consistent regulations outside of the specified areas could also provide clarification and constancy related to off-site sales related to larger grocery stores, specialty food and wine stores and neighborhood markets, and convenience markets. Staff would recommend allowing by-right grocery stores, specialty food and wine stores, and neighborhood markets, while requiring a conditional use permit for all convenience stores and liquor stores.

A potential downside to these strategies however would be the potential to place new regulations on businesses and uses within the City in the zones identified in Table 1 that currently do not have operating restrictions, making many of the existing uses throughout the City non-conforming.

Alcohol Sales 10
Requested Council Direction
In order to move forward with a focused update related to alcohol sales, staff needs direction on the recommended development standards and operational requirements for alcohol sales throughout the City. Staff has provided recommendations below and is requesting direction on the following:

1. Individualized and General Regulations: Overall, staff recommends that the City Council consider requiring individualized regulations for specific areas such as the Downtown, the Innovation Center, and PD-6 (Streets of Brentwood/Raley’s Center), while potentially creating one set of regulations for the rest of the City that would allow for consistency and more easily understood regulations.

2. Definitions: In addition, staff recommends that new definitions be created within alcohol-regulating provisions for the following:
• Day Care Center, Children
• Private Educational Facilities
• Public School Facilities
• Food and Beverage Stores – Convenience Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Grocery Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Liquor Store
• Food and Beverage Stores – Specialty Food & Wine
• Food and Beverage Stores – Neighborhood Market

3. No further restrictions for on-sale license: Staff does not recommend further restricting on-sale licenses within the City unless they are located adjacent to, or within a distance as recommended by City Council, to a Public School Facilities or a Private Educational Facility only.

4. Separation Requirements: Staff does not recommend implementing separation requirements from Child Day Care Centers at this time. Staff also recommends that all that the incidental sale of alcohol at all grocery stores, specialty food and wine stores and neighborhood markers be permitted byright where the use is allowed in the underlying zone.

5. CUPs: Staff recommends that all convenience stores and liquor stores be conditionally permitted where the use is allowed in the underlying zoning.

City Council Options
The following outlines the options for Council when considering the options for alcohol sales:

1. Support Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports staff’s recommendations, staff will draft final language to be brought to the Planning

Alcohol Sales 11
Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

2. Modify Staff Recommendation. If the City Council supports modifying staff’s recommendations, such as recommending additional sensitive uses, or alternative location based zoning suggestions, the City Council would need to provide clear and concise direction on the proposed changes. Staff would then draft final language to be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation before being brought back to the City Council for final approval.

Potential Economic Development Impacts
Maintaining the current guidelines and ability for on-sale and off-sale of alcohol sales by supermarkets, restaurants, wine tasting, bars and night clubs in the Downtown, Innovation Center and PD-6 (Streets of Brentwood/Sand Creek Crossing) is important to the economic vitality of the city and enables such establishments to maximize the ability to be successful in areas that are highly visible and help attract other businesses to the City. Other than the Downtown, the Innovation Center and PD-6 are both located near the Highway 4 Bypass and offer businesses the ability to cater to both locals and visitors alike. In addition, such establishments are partially buffered from existing residential districts due to the proximity of the highway.

Elsewhere in the city, permitting on-sales establishments to sell alcohol unless they are directly adjacent to sensitive uses enables restaurants to sell with meals, maximizing their potential to bring in new customers in an economic market that has shown to be difficult in recent years. In addition, creating consistency across all other zones helps to provide more assurances to new business that may be “on the fence” about opening up a new restaurant under difficult market conditions. In addition, requiring a Conditional Use permit for all convenience markets and liquor stores also helps to minimize the proliferation of such uses across the city. This includes both gas stations and convenience stores, where the sale of alcohol should be based on securing a Conditional Use Permit.

ATTACHMENT B - ACTIVE OFF-SALE ALCOHOL LICENSES
License Number Status
License Type Business Address Business Name
380602 ACTIVE 21 2400 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7058Census Tract: 3032.09 RALEYS 336391425 ACTIVE 21 1125 2ND ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 SAFEWAY STORE #1234397515 ACTIVE 21 3110 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.10 SAFEWAY INC #2621413431 ACTIVE 21 6700 LONE TREE WY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.09 WINCO 52415234 ACTIVE 20 5591 LONE TREE WY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.07 CHEVRON 210444431872 ACTIVE 21 5451 LONE TREE WAY, SHOP J-1,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.07 TRADER JOES438199 ACTIVE 20 2155 ELKINS WAY, # C,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 TAMAYO FAMILY VINEYARDS475109 ACTIVE 21 7351 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE G,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7318Census Tract: 3031.05 J K MARKET INC477690 ACTIVE 21 3171 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2962Census Tract: 3032.04 CVS PHARMACY STORE 4283477696 ACTIVE 21 1175 2ND ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2213Census Tract: 3031.07 CVS PHARMACY STORE 9511485146 ACTIVE 20 8560 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1654Census Tract: 3031.07 LA CHARRITA MARKET503569 ACTIVE 20 6570 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5257Census Tract: 3032.09 WALGREENS 09978522515 ACTIVE 21 2271 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-4923Census Tract: 3032.06 WALGREENS 9102524099 ACTIVE 21 7820 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1039Census Tract: 3031.06 DOLLAR GENERAL #13586547684 ACTIVE 20 7920 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1004Census Tract: 3031.06 BRENTWOOD PETROLEUM557549 ACTIVE 20 6481 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5367Census Tract: 3032.09 STRAUCH & COMPANY559816 ACTIVE 20 2325 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7173Census Tract: 3032.09 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET #404564021 ACTIVE 21 8750 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 #3046 565143 ACTIVE 20 6031 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5382Census Tract: 3032.09 JEFFREY WAL SHELL603825 ACTIVE 20 6970 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2122Census Tract: 3031.06 SUNSET AM PM614586 ACTIVE 21 7610 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 GROCERY OUTLET 616939 SUREND 20 5931 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5573Census Tract: 3020.09 7 ELEVEN 38737A619199 ACTIVE 21 6700 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5725Census Tract: 3031.06 EXTRAMILE622317 ACTIVE 21 6750 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2120Census Tract: 3031.06 BRENTWOOD GAS & MORE623032 ACTIVE 21 6935 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5403Census Tract: 3032.02 TRI CITY AUTO PLAZA624595 ACTIVE 20 7460 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 7 ELEVEN 38723A 628352 ACTIVE 21 3940 WALNUT BLVD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1229Census Tract: 3032.02 QUIK STOP MARKET #550149631658 ACTIVE 21 2250 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-4926Census Tract: 3040.01 HARBOR PETROLEUM INC634686 ACTIVE 21 336 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1363Census Tract: 3031.07 H&S ENERGY PRODUCTS, LLC STORE #3082637498 ACTIVE 20 6860 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.09 ROTTEN ROBBIE #68638363 ACTIVE 21 8401 LONE TREE WY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2103Census Tract: 3031.04 NXT LVD, BRENTWOOD LIQUOR, BRENTWOOD FOOD MART642014 ACTIVE 21 2371 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.06 CHEVRON #1761642602 ACTIVE 21 4461 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1557Census Tract: 3032.04 FOOD MAXX #480643257 ACTIVE 20 3940 WALNUT BLVD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1229Census Tract: 3032.02 QUIK STOP MARKET #149643337 ACTIVE 21 5931 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5573Census Tract: 3020.09 7-ELEVEN #38737654034 ACTIVE 20 190 GRIFFITH LN,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.11655317 ACTIVE 21 50 SAND CREEK RD, STE 36,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2092Census Tract: 3031.05 LOS MEXICANOS FAMILY MARKET INC.

ATTACHMENT A - ACTIVE ON-SALE ALCOHOL LICENSES
License Number Status
License Type Business Address Business Name
349751 ACTIVE 47 144 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 CAPS OAK ST BAR & GRILL380602 ACTIVE 41 2400 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7058Census Tract: 3032.09 RALEYS 336397515 ACTIVE 86 3110 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.10 SAFEWAY INC #2621413431 ACTIVE 86 6700 LONE TREE WY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.09 WINCO 52426828 ACTIVE 77 8065 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 6,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1169Census Tract: 3031.05 TAILGATERS SPORTS BAR & GRILL426828 ACTIVE 58 8065 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 6,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1169Census Tract: 3031.05 TAILGATERS SPORTS BAR & GRILL426828 ACTIVE 47 8065 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 6,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1169Census Tract: 3031.05 TAILGATERS SPORTS BAR & GRILL426828 ACTIVE 68 8065 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 6,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1169Census Tract: 3031.05 TAILGATERS SPORTS BAR & GRILL436258 ACTIVE 41 2013 ELKINS WY, STE A1,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7380Census Tract: 3031.06 SCOTTIES436339 ACTIVE 41 5401 LONETREE WY, STE 150,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.07 LONETREE THAI CUISINE438651 ACTIVE 47 801 FOOTHILL DR,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3040.01 DEER RIDGE GOLF CLUB454032 ACTIVE 47 6580 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5257Census Tract: 3032.09 MELOS PIZZA & PASTA459565 ACTIVE 47 2270 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3040.01 VIC STEWARTS461425 ACTIVE 42 633 1ST ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1322Census Tract: 3031.07 BRENTWOODS CO CO COUNTY WINE COMPANY470880 ACTIVE 47 2385 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7173Census Tract: 3032.09 RED ROBIN BURGER & SPIRITS EMPORIUMS480954 ACTIVE 41 5411 LONE TREE WAY, # 110,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5351Census Tract: 3032.07 KINDERS MEATS DELI BBQ BW481065 ACTIVE 47 1700 TRILOGY PKWY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3551.12 CLUB LOS MEGANOS483435 ACTIVE 41 6680 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5308Census Tract: 3032.09 STRAW HAT PIZZA486304 ACTIVE 41 8383 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2185Census Tract: 3031.04 LONE TREE DRIVE IN511387 ACTIVE 41 5401 LONE TREE WAY , STE 100,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5361Census Tract: 3032.07 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL511501 ACTIVE 41 2540 SAND CREEK RD, STE A-5,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7091Census Tract: 3032.07 BEACH HUT DELI511507 ACTIVE 47 2365 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7173Census Tract: 3032.09 BJ'S RESTAURANT518615 ACTIVE 47 6051 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5382Census Tract: 3032.09 BUFFALO WILD WINGS525051 ACTIVE 47 2355 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.09 BLACK ANGUS530273 ACTIVE 41 1185 2ND ST, STE M,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2299Census Tract: 3031.05 MOUNTAIN MIKES PIZZA532162 ACTIVE 41 3120 BALFOUR RD, STE F,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5514Census Tract: 3032.10 EXTREME PIZZA536438 ACTIVE 41 1135 SECOND ST, #A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2291Census Tract: 3031.07 DADS'S CAFE540746 ACTIVE 47 100 SUMMERSET DR,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-6426Census Tract: 3032.10 GOLF CLUB AT BRENTWOOD THE540746 ACTIVE 68 100 SUMMERSET DR,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-6426Census Tract: 3032.10 GOLF CLUB AT BRENTWOOD THE540746 ACTIVE 58 100 SUMMERSET DR,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-6426Census Tract: 3032.10 GOLF CLUB AT BRENTWOOD THE541280 ACTIVE 41 5611 LONE TREE WAY, STE 120,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5315Census Tract: 3032.07 CHAMAN KABOB RESTAURANT548216 ACTIVE 58 311 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1338Census Tract: 3031.07 311 OAK STREET PUB548216 ACTIVE 47 311 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1338Census Tract: 3031.07 311 OAK STREET PUB550462 ACTIVE 47 6611 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2173Census Tract: 3031.04 EL CAMINO RESTAURANT552151 ACTIVE 41 5411 LONE TREE WAY, STE 100,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5356Census Tract: 3032.07 MOD PIZZA561500 ACTIVE 48 613 1ST ST, STE 107,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1397Census Tract: 3031.07 CROWN & CROW

561621 ACTIVE 47 2525 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7175Census Tract: 3032.09 AMC BRENTWOOD 14 567978 ACTIVE 47 613 1ST ST, STE 100,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1316Census Tract: 3031.07 ZEPHYR GRILL & BAR568605 ACTIVE 47 5601 LONE TREE WAY, STE 150,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5378Census Tract: 3032.07 MARISCOS ACUARIO SEAFOOD AND GRILL569243 ACTIVE 41 5401 LONE TREE WAY, STE 130,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.07 H2O INVESTMENT, INC (BLUEFIN SUSHI)572442 ACTIVE 47 8335 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE B,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1100Census Tract: 3031.07 JALISCO'S RESTAURANT573809 ACTIVE 47 2485 SAND CREEK RD, STE 140,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7179Census Tract: 3032.07 ATTRAVERSIAMO573809 ACTIVE 58 2485 SAND CREEK RD, STE 140,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7179Census Tract: 3032.07 ATTRAVERSIAMO573915 ACTIVE 47 71 SANDCREEK RD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.05 LA HACIENDA GRILL583374 ACTIVE 41 8610 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE G,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5657Census Tract: 3031.07 CHINA GARDEN RESTAURANT589462 ACTIVE 47 3850 BALFOUR RD, STE Q,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1661Census Tract: 3032.11 CHAPALA MEXICAN RESTAURANT590500 ACTIVE 47 642 1ST ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1309Census Tract: 3031.07 LA FUENTE MEXICAN RESTAURANT & BLUE IGUANA BAR594947 ACTIVE 41 4550 BALFOUR RD, STE E & F,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1515Census Tract: 3032.11 AMECI PIZZA KITCHEN BRENTWOOD, INC.600133 ACTIVE 47 3111 BALFOUR RD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2891Census Tract: 3032.04 CHIANTI'S600596 ACTIVE 47 2505 SAND CREEK RD, # 108,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7183Census Tract: 3032.09 CREASIAN WOK AND ROLL601360 ACTIVE 41 234A OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1337Census Tract: 3031.07 BRENTWOOD CRAFT BEER AND CIDER601936 ACTIVE 41 3101 BALFOUR RD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2998Census Tract: 3032.04 KYUZOU603858 ACTIVE 41 6660 LONE TREE WAY, STE # 5,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5310Census Tract: 3032.09 EL TACO FACTORY604485 ACTIVE 42 2545 SAND CREEK RD , # 136,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7189Census Tract: 3032.09607097 ACTIVE 47 380 W COUNTRY CLUB DR, STE J, K, L,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-4235Census Tract: 303 MISAKA SUSHI-RAMEN-BAR608041 ACTIVE 42 2411 EMPIRE AVE, STE 101 & 102,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5301Census Tract: 3020.09HOP ASYLUM 609259 ACTIVE 41 7876 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 CIELO MAR TIERRA609500 ACTIVE 41 622 1ST ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1323Census Tract: 3031.07 CHELSEA613951 ACTIVE 41 41 SAND CREEK RD, STE C,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7321Census Tract: 3031.05 TAQUERIA EL TARASCO614459 ACTIVE 41 3101 BALFOUR RD, STE F,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-2998Census Tract: 3032.04 TAQUIZA LIMON614693 ACTIVE 41 380 W COUNTRY CLUB DR, STE A & B,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-4235Census Tract: 303 MOUNTAIN MIKE'S PIZZA615925 ACTIVE 47 6367 LONE TREE WAY,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5313Census Tract: 3032.09 SHIRASONI JAPANESE RESTAURANT616068 SUREND 41 8540 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 EL GALLITO DRIVE INN617283 ACTIVE 77 2010 ELKINS WAY #120,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.03 FOUR LEGS BREWING617415 ACTIVE 41 2500 SAND CREEK RD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7059Census Tract: 3032.07 SUN KITCHEN ASIAN BISTRO625791 SUREND 47 2505 SAND CREEK RD, STE 120,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.09 FIRE WINGS BRENTWOOD626014 ACTIVE 41 2540 SAND CREEK RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3032.07 ROUND TABLE PIZZA626108 ACTIVE 40 8300 BRENTWOOD BLVD, # B&C,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1172Census Tract: 3031.07 PINE STREET COUNTRY CLUB626777 ACTIVE 41 6670 LONE TREE WAY, STE 5,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5391Census Tract: 3032.09 NEKO SUSHI627702 ACTIVE 41 2300 SAND CREEK RD, STE G1,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5651Census Tract: 3032.09 YUMMY HOUSE628227 ACTIVE 47 5000 BALFOUR RD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 HARVEST PARK BOWL628461 ACTIVE 41 7710-7760 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE 7760-E,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 303AHZEETU KOREAN BISTRO629317 ACTIVE 41 4441 BALFOUR RD A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1409Census Tract: 3032.02 ENISHI KITCHEN630060 ACTIVE 47 235 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1336Census Tract: 3031.07 RUBIANOS634070 ACTIVE 41 729 1ST ST, STE C,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1303Census Tract: 3031.07 BOONDOGGIES, LLC634348 ACTIVE 41 2390 FAIRVIEW AVE, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5572Census Tract: 3032.02 TAQUERIA CHAPALA

634719 ACTIVE 41 2261 BALFOUR RD, STE C,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-4946Census Tract: 3032.02 MI JALISCOS TAQUERIA 634870 ACTIVE 58 6670 LONE TREE WAY, STE 1 & 2,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5391Census Tract: 3032.09 WENCE HOUSE CALIFORNIA CUISINE634870 ACTIVE 47 6670 LONE TREE WAY, STE 1 & 2,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5391Census Tract: 3032.09 WENCE HOUSE CALIFORNIA CUISINE635556 ACTIVE 41 609 1ST ST, STE B,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1322Census Tract: 3031.07 STICKY CHICKEN & RIBS636500 ACTIVE 47 220 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1337Census Tract: 3031.07 LOUNGE ON OAK ST THE637617 ACTIVE 41 741 2ND ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1352Census Tract: 3031.07 DINO'S SANDWICH SHOP637940 ACTIVE 47 401 W COUNTRY CLUB DR,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5058Census Tract: 3032.06638762 ACTIVE 41 5611 LONE TREE WAY, STE 160,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5379Census Tract: 3032.07 M&C RESTAURANT639213 ACTIVE 41 335 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1331Census Tract: 3031.07 LA COSTA TAQUERIA643060 ACTIVE 47 2475 SAND CREEK RD, UNIT 112,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7178Census Tract: 3032.07 VINE AND GRAIN644549 ACTIVE 41 8610 BRENTWOOD BLVD, STE F,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5657Census Tract: 3031.07 TORO VIEJO TAQUERIA645418 ACTIVE 41 561 1ST ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1320Census Tract: 3031.07 EMPORIUM THE645688 ACTIVE 41 655 1ST ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1322Census Tract: 3031.07 MJ'S DOWNTOWN CAFE646478 ACTIVE 41 2505 SAND CREEK RD, # 112,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-7183Census Tract: 3032.09 DUMPLING HOURS647785 ACTIVE 41 6700 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5725Census Tract: 3031.06 CHICAGOS PIZZA WITH A TWIST648208 ACTIVE 41 6061 LONE TREE WAY, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-5262Census Tract: 3032.09 CHUCK E. CHEESE'S648464 ACTIVE 41 7580 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL STORE #3928648726 ACTIVE 41 4411 BALFOUR RD, STE A,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1526Census Tract: 3032.04 ALADINOS PIZZA650661 ACTIVE 47 301 OAK ST,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.07 LOCANDA CAPRI656366 ACTIVE 41 7400 BRENTWOOD BLVD,BRENTWOOD, CA 94513Census Tract: 3031.06 DENNY'S

Chapter 17.695 ALCOHOL SALES ESTABLISHMENTS

17.695.001 Intent and purpose of chapter.

A. Intent. This chapter is intended to provide special provisions and development standards to regulate on-sale alcohol sales in order to minimize the negative secondary effects associated with alcohol sales and consumption which can be brought about by the concentration of alcohol sales establishments in close proximity to each other or in proximity to other incompatible uses, including schools (public and private) and residentially zoned districts or uses. This chapter shall be applicable to all properties in the City except for properties within the Downtown Specific Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan Area (Innovation Center), and PD-6. Regulations for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan Area (Innovation Center), and PD-6 shall be found in each of their respected Code sections.

B. Purpose. It is, therefore, the purpose of this chapter to:

1. Establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the concentration of alcohol sales establishments or their close proximity to incompatible uses, while allowing the location of alcohol sales establishments in certain areas; and

2. Regulate alcohol sales in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city.

17.695.002 Definitions.

The following terms and phrases are defined for the purposes of this chapter:
“Private educational facilities” means any privately owned and operated elementary school, middle school, secondary school, high school, or other institution providing academic instruction for students from kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade pursuant to the California Education Code.
“Public school facilities” means any publicly owned and operated elementary school, middle school, secondary school, high school, or other institution providing academic instruction for students from kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade pursuant to the California Education Code.

17.695.003 Minimum proximity to schools.

No on-sale alcohol sales establishment shall be located within a five hundred (500) foot radius from any existing school (public or private), except within the areas defined as the Downtown Specific Plan, the PA-1 Specific Plan Area (Innovation Center), and PD-6 for which no minimum separation distance from schools shall be required. The distance between a proposed on- or off-sale alcohol sales establishment

and an existing school shall be measured from the nearest exterior wall of the facility housing the alcohol sales establishment or proposed alcohol sales establishment to the nearest property line where the school is located, along a straight line extended between the two points.

17.695.004 Conditional use permit and proximity to residential uses.

No conditional use permit shall be required for an on-sale alcohol sales establishment except for the following:

A. Within 100 feet of a residential zoning district or use. If an on-sale alcohol sales establishment is within one hundred (100) feet of any existing residential zoning district or use then a conditional use permit shall be required. The distance between the proposed on-sale alcohol sales establishment and a residential zoning district or use shall be measured from the nearest exterior wall of the facility housing the alcohol sales establishment or proposed alcohol sales establishment to the nearest property line included within a residential zoning district or property in current residential use, along a straight line extended between the two points; or
B. Within 300 feet of a residential zoning district or use and open after 10:00 P.M.

If an on-sale alcohol sales establishment is within three hundred (300) feet of any existing residential zoning district or use and open after 10:00 P.M. then a conditional use permit shall be required. The distance between the proposed on-sale alcohol sales establishment and a residential zoning district or use shall be measured from the nearest exterior wall of the facility housing the alcohol sales establishment or proposed alcohol sales establishment to the nearest property line included within a residential zoning district or property in current residential use, along a straight line extended between the two points.

C-2
PD-63
R-3
PF
PD-41
PD-38
C-3
PD-59
PD-65
PD-29
R-1-8
PD-35
R-1-10
PD-36
PD-26
PD-4
R-1
PD-62
CO
PD-2
PD-25
R-1-10
R-2
PD-5
PD-8
PD-43
PF
R-3
PD-17
PD-24
PD-12
PD-13
PD-16
PD-47
PD-69 C-1
R-1-8 PD-7
PD-34
R-1-E
PF
PD-49
PD-21
R-1
PD-14
PD-3
PD-33
PD-31
CO
PD-20
PD-64
PD-18
PD-67
PD-22
R-1-E
PD-9
PF
PD-1
PD-15
PD-44
R-1-6
PD-11 PD-61
PD-30
R-1
PD-45
PD-50
PF
PD-56
PD-28
PD-71
PD-40
PD-55
PD-58
BBSP
PD-42
C-2
RE
R-2
PD-23
PD-46
PD-60
PD-37 PD-39
R-1-10
PD-66 R-1-E
PD-10
PD-27
PD-19
PD-54
PD-68
R1-12
R-1-12
PD-72 DT
PF
PD-6
PA-1
PD-53
R-2
Shady Oak Dr
Sterling Hill Dr
Prewett Ranch Rd
Fawn HillWay
Europena Dr
Groves Dr
Ventura Dr
R id
g
e
v
ei
w
D
r
Harvest Park Dr
McFarlanRanch Dr
Summerwood Dr
Prominent Dr
Randy Way
Deerspring Way
CrispinDr
Fremont Peak Dr
Solera St
Double KR
d
California Trl
Coral
B
ell W
a
y
Breakwater Way
St Augustine Dr
Gamay Way
Palomin
o
Way
Brown Rd
Eagle Rock Ave
Douglas Rd
Marina Way Winesap Dr
Elkins Way
Milford St
Atherton Blvd
F
ra
n
klin
Dr
Hill Ave
Prewett Ranch Dr
Jubilee Dr
Pomona
Dr
Catanzaro Way
Meadow Brook Dr
Latour Ave
D
y
n
asty Dr
Hudson
D
r
Wa
tervilleDr
Upton Pyne
Dr
Big Basin Dr
Neroly Pvt Rd
Castellina Dr
Torrey
Pines Dr
Ro
u
ndhill
D
r
Kent Dr
Braemar St
S
e
t
w
a
r
W
t
ay
SummerfieldDr
Mills Dr
O'Hara Ave
Corte Vista
S
t
Anastasia Dr
S
u
mme
rs
e
t
D
r
Armstrong Rd
Simoni Ranch Rd
Slatten
Ranch
Rd
Arlington Way
Reserve Dr
Miwok Ave
Daffodil Dr
Claremont Dr
Putter Dr
1st St
Stonewood
D
r
Redhaven St
Vintage Cir
Trl
St Regis Ave
Spanish Bay Dr
E Country
C
ul
b Dr
Highland Way
Dainty Ave
Main St
Vintage Dr
Centennial Dr
2nd St
Marjoram Dr
John
M
ui
r
Pkwy
Diablo Way
P
e
b
ble
B
e
ach Dr
Apricot Way
M
o
u
n
t
ain
View D
Ame
r
rican Ave
Valley Green Dr
Laurel Rd
Regent Dr
Spruce St
McClarren Rd
Walnut Blvd
Crescent Dr
Baldwin Dr
Rut
h
e
rford
C ir
Country Hills Dr
Sycamore Ave
Malicoat Ave
Central Blvd
Palmillia Dr
Spyglass Dr
Canada Valley Rd
Continente Ave
Sunset Rd
Presidio Dr
Walnut Ave
Oak St
Lakeview Dr
Heidorn Ranch Rd
Brownstone Rd
WCountry Club Dr
Ohara Ave
Grant St
C
re
e
k
Rd
Delta Rd
Fairview Ave
Old Sand Creek Rd
Sand Creek Rd
Chestnut St
Foothill
Dr
Carpenter Rd
Marsh Creek Rd
Neroly Rd
A
p
ple
Hill D
r
Empire Rd
Garin Pkwy
Vista
G
r
a
n
d
e
D
r
Vineyard Pkwy
E
m
pir
e
Av
e
Balfour Rd
Hillcrest Ave
Vasco Rd
San Jose Ave
M
a
rs
h
Creek Trl
Saint Andrews Dr
Eureka Ave
Minnesota Ave
Payne Ave
S
t
a
t
e
R
t
e
4 Marsh
Cre
e
k
R
e
g
oi n
al Trl
Briones Valley Rd
Concord Ave
Lone Tree Way
Brentwood Blvd
Sellers Ave
0 1,000 2,000
US Feet
±
Source: City of Brentwood. Map date: May 28, 2025.

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
School Locations with 500-ft Buffer
LEGEND
School
School 500-ft Buffer
Brentwood City Limits
City of Brentwood Zoning
BBSP
C
CO
DT
PD
PF
R
R1
RE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
02/24/2026
SUBJECT: 2026 Community Day of Service and Amendment to the 2025/26 General Fund Operating Budget
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Harith Aleem, Director of Parks and Recreation
Thien Nguyen, Recreation Manager
Amanda Chaney, Recreation Supervisor

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends formally adopting the Community Day of Service as the City of Brentwood - Community Day of Service by:
1) appointing Mayor Susannah Meyer as a liaison to work with Parks and Recreation staff and community members on the 2026 event, 2) amending the 2025/2026 General Fund Operating Budget in the amount not to exceed $3,000, and
3) annually funding the event from the General Fund Budget.

FISCAL IMPACT
Depending on direction from the City Council, City staff has developed cost estimates for the Community Day of Service. Over the past two years, while the event was externally organized, the City supported it by waiving $1,811 in facility rental fees and providing staff time from a Recreation Supervisor to support the event. If the event is formally adopted as a City-sponsored event moving forward, staff is recommending an annual General Fund allocation of $3,000 to cover staffing, supplies, and marketing estimates of $2,880 for the event (Attachment 4).

If staff is directed to move forward with the event, an amendment to the FY 25/26 General Fund Operating Budget in the amount of $3,000 will be required.

Additionally, if directed, staff will include costs for the Community Day of Service event in the draft 2026/27 – 2027/28 General Fund Operating Budget to be presented for City Council consideration at the Operating Budget workshop in May of 2026.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
02/24/2026

BACKGROUND
The City of Brentwood has a long history of supporting community service initiatives.

These events have provided residents with opportunities to volunteer while enhancing public spaces and fostering community pride.

In 2023, then-Council Member Meyer proposed expanding these efforts by establishing a Community Day of Service. The inaugural event was collaboratively organized by Council Member Meyer, a City staff representative, and two community members. Together, they coordinated service project identification, volunteer recruitment, and overall event logistics. City staff supported the effort by reserving facilities, assisting with marketing, and coordinating with multiple City departments to ensure successful implementation (note these costs, as they were allocated in 2023, are highlighted in gray in Attachment 4)
Over the past two years, the Community Day of Service has operated as a collaborative effort without a single organization formally owning or leading the event. While this approach has been effective during the event’s early stages, the continued growth in participation, number of service projects, and overall scope has increased the level of logistical coordination required. As the event continues to expand, certain operational and organizational functions may be more appropriately and efficiently managed by the City.

With the City taking ownership of the event, some operational changes would be needed to comply with existing City policies and procedures. This could include requiring insurance for non-City-owned project host organizations, increasing the number of City and City partner project locations, and handling registration in-house to protect the personal information of registrants. Participant waivers would also be needed. The event’s coordination would still include community partners and local residents.

For the 2026 event, staff recommends the Parks and Recreation Department internally establishing a Community Services Committee composed of residents passionate about volunteerism. This allows members of the Brentwood community to participate in the preparation, planning and day-of operations for the Community Day of Service, and to ensure the event has connections and relevance to community groups and residents. By working with past organizers, this would minimize disruption and drastic changes to the event as it is known to the community. For continuity and organization, staff is also recommending Mayor Meyer work with staff as a liaison for the Committee and event for 2026.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
02/24/2026
Funding for the event is recommended to come from the General Fund. Staff intends to work with the Community Service Committee and local organizations to seek funding, donations, and grants to offset General Fund expenditures after the April 18, 2026 event. Staff intends to work with the Community Service Committee and local organizations to seek funding, donations, and grants to offset General Fund expenditures.

As a part of researching this event, staff benchmarked against other local cities on their processes and procedures for similar Community Day of Service type events (Attachment 3).

Staff recommends formally adopting the Community Day of Service as the City of Brentwood - Community Day of Service by:
1) appointing Mayor Susannah Meyer as a liaison to work with Parks and Recreation staff and community members on the 2026 event, 2) amending the 2025/2026 General Fund Budget by $3,000, and 3) directing staff to provide annual funding for the event from the General Fund Operating Budget.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 5: Parks & Recreation Services:

4. Expand and enhance recreation opportunities by increasing programming for seniors, youth, and teens

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.5
02/24/2026

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation to adopt and host the Community Day of Service as a City of Brentwood event. Currently the City partners with the event organizes to have this event annually and may jeopardize the event continuing in 2026 and in future years.

2. Provide feedback and alternative suggestions to City participation in the event.

3. Direct staff to come back with specific information and return to City Council for consideration at a future meeting.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Benchmarking

4. Estimated Costs

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On November 9, 2021 Council Member Meyer requested an Annual Community Service Day be considered at the December 1, 2021 Strategic Plan Workshop.

On December 1, 2021, Council discussed which day would be best to have a Community Service Day (preferred a weekend) and Council Member Meyer suggested staff look at the City of Walnut Creek as an example.

On May 9, 2023, Council provided direction to staff to work on a Day of Service in April 2024 involving the Parks and Recreation Department, the Brentwood Leadership Roundtable be involved, a newsletter article be created, and there be outreach efforts.

On January 27, 2026 City Council Adopted Resolution 2026-05 amending the 2025/26 Operating Budget and receive an update of the ten-year General Fund Fiscal Model (“Fiscal Model”).

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD TO FORMALLY ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY DAY

OF SERVICE AS THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD - COMMUNITY DAY
OF SERVICE BY:
1) APPOINTING THE MAYOR SUSANNAH MEYER AS A LIAISON

TO WORK WITH PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THE 2026 EVENT,
2) AMENDING THE 2025/2026 GENERAL FUND OPERATING
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000, AND
3) PROVIDING ANNUAL FUNDING FOR THE EVENT FROM THE

GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, then-Council Member Meyer requested an Annual Community Service Day be considered at the December 1, 2021 Strategic Plan Workshop; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff to work on a Day of Service in April 2024 involving the Parks and Recreation Department, the Brentwood Leadership Roundtable be involved, a newsletter article be created, and there be outreach efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City has participated as a liaison for facility waivers and City services such as Parks access, solid waste disposal, marketing and facility usage for the Day of Community Service Event on April 27, 2024, and April 19, 2025; and WHEREAS, the past two years, the Community Day of Service has operated as a collaborative effort without a single organization formally owning or leading the event; and
WHEREAS, the event continues to expand, certain operational and organizational functions may be more appropriately and efficiently managed by the City and City staff as a City of Brentwood event; and
WHEREAS, staff would like to establish a Community Services Committee composed of residents passionate about volunteerism. This would allow members of our community to participate in the preparation, planning and day-of operations for the Community Day of Service, and to ensure the event has connections and relevance to community groups and residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby formally adopt the Community Day of Service as the City of Brentwood - Community Day of Service by:
1) appointing the Mayor Susannah Meyer as a liaison to work with Parks and Recreation staff and community members on the 2026 event; 2) amending the 2025/2026 General Fund Budget in the amount of $3,000; and 3) providing annual funding for the event from the General Fund Operating Budget.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

Community Day of Service
Research/Benchmarks
City and Department Partners/Cohosts
Who decides on
projects?
Who does
registration?
Are there
Waivers?
Do they collect insurance
from project hosts?
Do they have
sponsors?
Do the volunteers get any
swag ?
Livermore, City Manager's Office Livermore Area Park
District (LAPD) &
Livermore Valley Joint
Unified School District
Each host agency submits
a list of projects The City Yes
No, this has led them away
from branching out on the
type of projects/
orangizations that can submit
events.

Yes, typically local
restaurants will donate
lunch. They also have
funding for tables,
chairs, and shade
rentals since their
event is in September
Yes. In the past they have
done shirts or hats
Pleasant Hill, Community Relations Pleasant Hill,
Community Relations
Manager
Community groups submit
projects, they do a lot of
school and park projects.

The City
(Signup Genius) Yes
No, they would assume the
site host of the project has
their own.

Walnut Creek- does not host Walnut Creek Civic
Pride Foundation
The City provides the
foundation a list of projects
and is not involved beyond
that.

Dublin Dublin
City- Sites are City Parks
and Facilities The City Yes N/A
Breakfast, lunch and season
pass to their water park

Expenses
Facility Permit Costs (Unearned Revenue)
Veteran Park (All Four Picnic Areas/Day) $ 560.00
Brentwood Senior Activity Center (Full Facility Rental) $ 1,251.00 Subtotal
Staffing Costs
*FTE - Supervisor (1 Staff * Hourly Rate+Benefits *Hours) $ 3,289.92 LTDS Staff (6 Staff * Hourly Rate * Hours) $ 380.48
Subtotal
Supplies
Trash bags, trash grabbers, gloves, hand sanitizer, water bottles, and permits for breakfast, shovels, rakes, buckets, paint, paint brushes, etc.. $ 1,500.00
Subtotal
Marketing
Newspaper Ads, Social Media boosts, etc. $ 1,000.00
Subtotal
Total General Fund Cost
*this was allocated following CC direction in 2023

Subtotal Costs Total Cost
$ - $ 1,811.00
$ 380.48 $ 3,670.40
$ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
$ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
$ 2,880.48
Event Cost $ 7,981.40

Number of Staff 1 6
Hourly Rate + Benefits if applicable 137.08 23.78
Hours 24 16
Total Cost $3,289.92 $380.48
Facility Rental $140
Veteran Park Picnic Area 4
Number of Picnic Areas $560
BSAC Full Facility/Day $1,251

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026
SUBJECT: Informational Report on Brentwood Traffic Operations and Status Reports on Valley Green Drive and Lone Oak Road Updates DEPARTMENT: Engineering
STAFF: Anju Pillai, Engineering Manager
Allen Baquilar, Director of Engineering/City Engineer

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Receive an Informational Report on Brentwood Traffic Operations and a status report regarding resident-reported vehicle cut-through and safety traffic concerns on Valley Green Drive and Lone Oak Road.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

BACKGROUND
The City of Brentwood regularly receives traffic-related concerns from residents regarding speeding, cut-through traffic, and neighborhood safety. These concerns are an important source of community input and help the City identify locations where further evaluation may be warranted.

Traffic concerns are typically reported to the City through resident service requests, direct communication with Council Members, neighborhood meetings, or City staff.

Upon receipt, concerns are logged, reviewed, and prioritized based on location, reported issues, and potential safety implications.

The City’s approach is to evaluate concerns using data-driven methods and established traffic engineering practices to ensure that any actions taken are effective, equitable, consistent citywide and reflect the City Engineer’s application of his or her best professional judgment.

How the City Reviews Traffic Concerns
When a traffic concern is reported, staff may take the following steps:

1. Initial Review
o Confirm location and nature of the concern
o Review any prior history of complaints or studies in the area

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026
o Determine if the concern relates to a neighborhood street or arterial roadway

2. Data Collection
o Traffic volume and speed
o Collision history review
o Field observations by staff

3. Assessment
o Compare collected data to established engineering standards and applicable thresholds
o Evaluate roadway characteristics (lane widths, sight distance, connectivity, nearby schools/parks, etc.)
o Consider whether the issue is localized or system-wide Guiding Principles and Standards
In determining appropriate Engineering responses, the City generally relies on the following guiding principles:

1. Data-Driven Decision Making
Actions are based on objective data rather than anecdotal reports alone. This helps ensure fairness, consistency, and effective use of public resources.

2. Safety First
The primary consideration is improving safety for all roadway users, including drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities.

3. Use of Established Standards
The City applies recognized industry standards and best practices, such as:
o California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) o Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines o Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) best practices o Applicable City policies and ordinances
 2014 General Plan
 Strategic Plan FY 2022/23 – FY 2023/24
 Local Roadway Safety Plan (Attachment 1)

4. Context-Sensitive Solutions
Not all streets function the same. Residential streets, collectors, and arterials serve different purposes and are evaluated accordingly.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026

5. Balanced Approach
As a part of the evaluation of potential solutions the City seeks to balance the considerations for neighborhood livability, emergency vehicle access, traffic circulation needs, cost effectiveness and community input.

Response
The City recognizes that traffic concerns may be addressed through enforcement and/or engineering measures led by the Police Department and Engineering Department, respectively. These are summarized in the following table:

PD Enforcement Engineering
 Portable trailers with speed feedback signs  Modified/additional signage  Targeted speed enforcement  Signal timing adjustments  DUI enforcement  Fixed speed feedback signs
 Complaint-based patrols  Traffic calming measures (when warranted)
 Striping modifications
 Roadway design changes
Enforcement by the Police Department is typically the first step in addressing traffic concerns and can be effective for short-term behavior change and at locations with clear violations. Enforcement also provides valuable insight and data that feeds into formulating appropriate Engineering measures that may be needed. Engineering measures are evaluated carefully because they can have broader impacts, costs, and long-term implications.

Fiscal Years 24/25 & 25/26 Engineering Outcomes
To provide additional context regarding the City’s responsiveness, implementation efforts, and ongoing commitment to traffic safety and mobility, Attachments 2 and 3 summarize Engineering Department activities over the past two fiscal years.

Attachment 2 includes a table outlining program-level accomplishments undertaken to enhance safety, accessibility, and multimodal mobility throughout Brentwood.

These efforts reflect continued progress toward regional traffic safety goals, infrastructure improvements, and interagency coordination initiatives.

Attachment 3 includes a table documenting traffic-related inquiries received from residents and stakeholders, along with the corresponding staff evaluations, actions taken, and outcomes. Collectively, these records demonstrate the Department’s

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026
proactive approach to addressing community concerns, applying established engineering criteria, and implementing data-driven solutions where warranted.

Valley Green Status Report
Staff received reports from residents regarding traffic concerns on 1) Valley Green Drive between Central Boulevard and Minnesota Avenue, 2) Central Boulevard between Valley Green Drive and Minnesota Avenue, and 3) Minnesota Avenue from Central Boulevard to Balfour Road.

In response, the Police Department followed up with residents to gather information and deployed radar speed trailers in front of 799 Valley Green Drive facing eastbound on 01/15/2026 through 02/10/2026. A second radar trailer was placed facing westbound across the street on 01/20/2026 through 02/10/2026. In addition, Police performed targeted enforcement on Central Boulevard between Valley Green Drive and Minnesota Avenue, resulting in a total of 20 citations over 7 operations.

Engineering staff also performed a review of the existing street signage and striping on Valley Green Drive, a residential street with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). As a result, Public Works staff installed 7 additional speed limit signs on Valley Green Drive. Staff also gathered traffic counts and a speed data over 7 consecutive days from 01/27/2026, to 02/02/2026.

The data was evaluated in accordance with the City’s standardized speed hump placement criteria and multi-way stop warrant methodology; the findings do not justify speed hump installation or additional all-way stop controls on Valley Green Drive. Attachment 8 summarizes the speed hump evaluation based on existing speed, volume of traffic and geometry of the roadway. Additionally, Central Boulevard and Minnesota Avenue are arterial roadways each with a speed limit of 35 mph.

Pedestrian crossing across Central Boulevard and Minnesota Avenue is provided at the nearby signalized intersections at Fairview Avenue and Minnesota Avenue along Central Boulevard.

Lone Oak Status Report
Additionally, staff received reports from a resident on Lone Oak regarding cutthrough traffic and speeding on Lone Oak Road and Caper Drive. Both streets are classified as residential streets with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Staff conducted a townhall meeting on 01/16/2025, to discuss traffic-related concerns in the vicinity of Marsh Creek Elementary, Vineyards Academy, and the surrounding neighborhoods. At that time, concerns were primarily related to the new

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026
Orchard Grove and Orchard Grove North subdivisions, which are expected to add a total of 85 homes with access onto Adams Lane.

A review of traffic circulation conducted at that time did not meet the criteria for speed humps on Lone Oak or Caper; however, staff indicated that staff would rerun analysis as the nearby development progresses to consider any changes in traffic conditions. Following the town hall, staff also coordinated with Marsh Creek Elementary School to improve pick-up and drop-off circulation and reduce conflicts among pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles on Adams Lane.

In response to recent reports, Police performed two directed enforcement details on Lone Oak Road. The first was on 01/30/2025 between 3:00 and 3:30 pm during school pickup. Only five vehicle were seen traveling this roadway and none were speeding. The second was on 02/04/2026 between 1:40 and 2:55pm during school pickup. Eleven vehicles used this roadway at that time with a top speed of 32 mph.

One citation was issued for a stop sign violation to a citizen who lives on Lone Oak Road.

Engineering staff also performed a review of the existing street signage and striping and as a result is currently working with Public Works staff to install seven additional speed limit signs on Lone Oak Road. Staff also gathered traffic counts and speed data over seven consecutive days from 01/27/2026, to 02/02/2026.

The data was evaluated in accordance with the City’s standardized speed hump placement criteria and multi-way stop warrant methodology; the findings do not justify speed hump installation or additional all-way stop controls along Lone Oak Road or Gracie Lane. Attachment 8 summarizes the speed hump evaluation based on existing speed, volume of traffic and geometry of the roadway.

Conclusion
In summary, City staff responded to the concerns received from residents and followed the City’s established process, including coordination with enforcement for immediate operational issues and conducting data-driven engineering analyses to determine whether traffic control enhancements were warranted. Where supported by adopted criteria, appropriate actions were implemented.

The City recognizes that traffic conditions are dynamic and subject to change over time. Changes in nearby land use, buildout of approved residential subdivisions, shifts in school enrollment or circulation patterns, regional traffic growth, roadway construction projects, or alterations to adjacent traffic controls may all influence

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.6
02/24/2026
traffic volumes, speeds, and driver behavior. As such, locations previously evaluated may warrant future review if conditions materially change or new data indicates that established thresholds are met.

The City remains committed to monitoring conditions, applying objective standards, and revisiting locations as appropriate to ensure continued safety and mobility throughout Brentwood.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Local Roadway Safety Plan

2. Traffic Program Level Activities (Fiscal Years 24-25 and 25-26)

3. Requests and Engineering Actions (Fiscal Years 24-25 and 25-26)

4. Speed Hump Placement Criteria

5. Multi-way Stop Warrant Analysis

6. Valley Green Drive Traffic Data

7. Lone Oak Road and Caper Drive Traffic Data

8. Valley Green and Lone Oak Speed Hump Evaluation

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Prepared for:

City of
Brentwood
Prepared by:

City of Brentwood LRSP ii May 2025

FINAL REPORT

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Prepared for:

City of Brentwood
Engineering Department
150 City Park Way,
Brentwood, California 94513
(925) 516-5420
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

May 2025

City of Brentwood LRSP iii May 2025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Brentwood’s employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this LRSP. The City of Brentwood and Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

City of Brentwood
Anju Pillai (Engineering Manager)
Allen Baquilar (Director of Engineering/City Engineer)
Aman Grewal (Associate Engineer)
Michael Maanao (Police Sergeant)
External Agency Stakeholders
Aaron McAlister (Deputy Fire Chief)
Kristen Jobb (Director, Student Services)
Ron Alderman (Lead Electrician – Traffic Signals)
Community Stakeholders
Norm Cohen (Brentwood Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC))
Consultant Team (Kimley-Horn)
Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1
Zachary Ramalingam, EIT
Zander Dally, AICP

STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

City of Brentwood LRSP iv May 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................10

1.1. Document Organization ...............................................................................................10

2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................12

3. PROCESS .............................................................................................................................14

3.1. Guiding Manuals..........................................................................................................14

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners ..................14

3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual .....................................................................................15

3.2. Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................16

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT...................................................................................................17

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH................................................................................................................18

6. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS..........................................................................................23

7. DATA SOURCES.....................................................................................................................24

7.1. Roadway Network........................................................................................................24

7.2. Intersections ...............................................................................................................24

7.3. Crashes.......................................................................................................................24

8. SAFETY TRENDS ....................................................................................................................25

8.1. Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KA Crashes.........................................25

8.2. California OTS Rankings for Brentwood.........................................................................26

8.3. Severity Level...............................................................................................................26

8.4. Annual Crashes ...........................................................................................................31

8.5. Crash Causes ..............................................................................................................32

8.6. Crash Types.................................................................................................................33

8.7. Lane Departure Crashes ..............................................................................................35

8.8. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes......................................................................35

8.8.1. Aggressive Driving Crashes................................................................................36

8.8.2. Impaired Driving Crashes ..................................................................................37

8.9. Non-Motorized Crashes ...............................................................................................40

8.9.1. Bicycle Crashes ................................................................................................40

8.9.2. Pedestrian Crashes ...........................................................................................40

9. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT...................................................................43

9.1. Framework ..................................................................................................................43

9.1.1. Federal Policies.................................................................................................43

9.1.2. State Policies ....................................................................................................43

9.2. Methodology................................................................................................................44

9.2.1. Underserved Communities................................................................................44

9.3. Demographic and Socioeconomic Assessment ............................................................47

9.4. Crash Data Equity Review ............................................................................................53

10. RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................55

10.1. Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................55

City of Brentwood LRSP v May 2025

10.1.1. Crash Modification Factors .............................................................................55

10.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................................55

10.1.3. High-Severity Crash Locations ........................................................................59

10.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures .......................................................................61

11. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................................63

11.1. Evaluation ................................................................................................................63

11.2. Implementation........................................................................................................63

11.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas ....................................................................63

11.3. Funding....................................................................................................................64

11.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)..................................................64

11.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)...............................................................64

11.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)..................................................64

11.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)...........................................65

11.3.5. California SB 1................................................................................................65

11.3.6. California OTS Grants .....................................................................................65

11.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs ...................................................................66

12. NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................................................67

City of Brentwood LRSP vi May 2025

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix B Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix C Public Comments
Appendix D Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Brentwood

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — Brentwood LRSP Stakeholder Meeting........................................................................17 Figure 2 — Social Pinpoint Public Comments..............................................................................19 Figure 3 — Summary of Feedback Received via Social Pinpoint....................................................20 Figure 4 — Safety Issues Survey (East Sub-Region)......................................................................21 Figure 5 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023)...............................................................................27 Figure 6 — Citywide KSI Crashes (2019-2023) .............................................................................29 Figure 7 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)...................................................................................30 Figure 8 — Annual Crashes (2019 – 2023)....................................................................................31 Figure 9 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019 – 2023)..............................................................................31 Figure 10 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023) ......................................................................32 Figure 11 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023).........................................................................33 Figure 12 — Crashes by Type (2019– 2023)..................................................................................34 Figure 13 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019 – 2023)............................................................................35 Figure 14 — Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes .................................................................36 Figure 15 — Aggressive Driving Crash Map ..................................................................................38 Figure 16 — Impaired Driving Crash Map.....................................................................................39 Figure 17 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes...............................................................................40 Figure 18 — Non-Motorized Crash Map.......................................................................................42 Figure 19 — City of Brentwood 2020 Population by Age and Sex ...................................................44 Figure 20 — Brentwood Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts ...............................46 Figure 21 — Collision Victim Demographics by Race/Ethnicity in the City of Brentwood................47 Figure 22 — Types of Disabilities.................................................................................................48

City of Brentwood LRSP vii May 2025
Figure 23 — Mode Share in Brentwood........................................................................................49 Figure 24 — Severe and Fatal Crashes in the City of Brentwood ...................................................50 Figure 25 — Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in the City of Brentwood............................................51 Figure 26 — All Collisions in the City of Brentwood ......................................................................52 Figure 27 — Crash Victims by Gender .........................................................................................53 Figure 28 — Crash Victims by Gender and Age ............................................................................53 Figure 29 — Vulnerable Road User Crashes by Type of Violation ..................................................54 Figure 30 — CMF Calculation .....................................................................................................55

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Historical Trends: Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes...........25 Table 2 — Brentwood OTS Ranking (2022)...................................................................................26 Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type........................................................................................27 Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023) ...............................................................................28 Table 5 — Brentwood Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox .....................................................56 Table 6 – High-Severity Crash Locations......................................................................................59 Table 7 - Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations....................................................60 Table 8 — Brentwood Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox ...........................................62

City of Brentwood LRSP viii May 2025

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMINOLOGY
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ATP Active Transportation Program
ARIDE Advance Roadside Impaired Enforcement
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEJST Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool
CMAQ California Mitigation and Air Quality
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CTC California Transportation Commission
DAC Disadvantaged Communities
DEV Daily Entering Volume
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EO Executive Order
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
KSI Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual

City of Brentwood LRSP ix May 2025
MEV Million Entering Vehicles
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PD Police Department
PDO Property Damage Only
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RSTP Rural Surface Transportation Program
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
R/W Right-of-Way
SARC School Accountability Report Card
SB Senate Bill
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TCAS Traffic Collision Analysis System (Draft)
TDM Transportation Demand Model
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
US ACS United States Census American Community Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

City of Brentwood LRSP 10 May 2025

1. INTRODUCTION
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies factors associated with the most prevalent vehicle crashes occurring in the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This report identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:
 Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for roadway users of all modes of travel.
 Improve safety at high-crash locations and locations which experience a disproportionately high number of fatal and severe injury crashes.
 Develop safety measures aligning with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Five Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and more favorable severity outcomes.

The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP includes a summary of vision and goals, crash history analysis, the establishment of emphasis areas, an equity assessment, a countermeasure toolbox, and a set of policy recommendations. The information compiled will provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization of safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety equitably for all modes of travel within the City. The expanded implementation section will provide guidance to the City on applying for grant funding from various safety programs.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
 Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
 Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
 Develop lasting partnerships
 Provide support for grant funding opportunities
 Aid in the prioritization of investments in traffic safety

1.1. Document Organization
The LRSP is organized into the following sections:
 Section 1 presents an introduction to the LRSP.
 Section 2 presents the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP.  Section 3 presents the LRSP development process including guidance documents and analysis techniques.
 Section 4 presents the project stakeholders.
 Section 5 reviews City planning documents and policies.  Section 6 contains the LRSP data sources.
 Section 7 provides a summary of safety trends.
 Section 8 includes the City’s crash data equity analysis.  Section 9 includes recommended engineering and non-infrastructure countermeasures.

City of Brentwood LRSP 11 May 2025
 Section 10 summarizes the evaluation and implementation of the safety countermeasures.  Section 11 identifies next steps.
Appendices

City of Brentwood LRSP 12 May 2025

2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES
The Brentwood LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort utilizes historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a list of Proven Safety Countermeasures. The list currently has 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, and LRSPs are included on the list of 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures. Implementation of LRSPs has improved safety in local jurisdictions across the country by providing a guide for local jurisdictions to systematically address the conditions that lead to fatal and severe-injury crashes. They provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Following discussions with Brentwood staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project.

Vision: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and severe injuries for all road users.

Goal Objectives
Goal 1: Identify areas with a high risk for
crashes.
• Evaluate the City’s roadway network for
crash activity.
• Identify intersections and segments in
need of mitigation.
• Identify areas of interest with respect to
safety concerns for pedestrians and
bicycles.

Goal 2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive
safety program and the systematic process.
• Demonstrate the systematic process’
ability to identify locations with higher
risk for crashes based on present
characteristics closely associated with
severe crashes.
• Demonstrate, through the systematic
process, the gaps and data collection
activities that can be improved upon.

City of Brentwood LRSP 13 May 2025
Goal 3: Define safety improvements for the
near-, mid- and long-term, including projects
for HSIP, SS4A and other programs with
funding consideration.
• Create the outline for a prioritization
process that can be used in forthcoming funding cycles. • Demonstrate the correlation between
the proposed safety countermeasures
with the Vision Zero Initiative and the
California State Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP).

Goal 4: Identify emphasis areas to prioritize
countermeasure application.
• Use systematic crash analysis to
identify emphasis areas.
• Prioritize emphasis areas for
countermeasure development.
• Align emphasis areas with City goals &
objectives.
• Align emphasis areas with current City
areas of concern.

Goal 5: Proposed List of Conceptual Priority
Projects for Implementation of
Countermeasures.
• Identify conceptual priority projects for
implementation.
• Identify similar areas where
countermeasures can be
implemented.
• Prioritize these countermeasures for
implementation based on cost, effort,
and timeline.

City of Brentwood LRSP 14 May 2025

3. PROCESS
The primary goal for the City of Brentwood and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for an LRSP.

The FHWA encourages:
 The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing a LRSP  The review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern  The establishment of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:

1. Establish leadership

2. Analyze the safety data

3. Determine emphasis areas

4. Identify strategies

5. Prioritize and incorporate strategies

6. Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the vision, goals, and objectives for the LRSP; existing safety efforts; crash analyses; emphasis areas; the City’s existing countermeasure toolbox; and potential countermeasures for select priority locations. The development of the LRSP recommendations considers the Five Es of traffic safety defined by the California SHSP: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.

3.1. Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within the City at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes as well as active transportation users.

This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described in the following sections.

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners The purpose of Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.7, April 2024) (LRSM) is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while positioning themselves to be eligible for competitive federal, state,

City of Brentwood LRSP 15 May 2025
and local grant programs for project implementation funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.

According to the LRSM, “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for grant funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from the implementation of cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The LRSM suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that consider both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are the peer reviewed product of before-and-after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.

3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, and D) Crash Modification Factors.

Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the network screening process. The network screening process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network as well as identify and rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

The HSM identifies five steps in this process:

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening process. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e. segments, intersections, or geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

City of Brentwood LRSP 16 May 2025

4. Select Screening Method: There are three screening methods described in this chapter:
ranking, sliding window, and peak searching. Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories.

3.2. Analysis Techniques
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
 Number of Crashes
 Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (arterial, collector, minor collector, and local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each subpopulation. The sub-population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are occurring.

The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. The crash type factors were:
 Crash severity - fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
 Crash type - broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, and other
 Environmental factors – lighting and wet roads
 Driver behavior - impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area within the City to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for countermeasure toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety countermeasure toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City.

The EPDO method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location based on the latest Caltrans injury costs. This value is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This value allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (HSM, Chapter 4).

The results of the network screening analysis for both intersections and roadway segments is presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

City of Brentwood LRSP 17 May 2025

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
As part of the LRSP development, project stakeholders were identified and included in the process to ensure the local perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. A stakeholder group comprised of staff from various City and County departments as well as key community members was formed. A complete list is available in the acknowledgements on page iii.

These stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. The stakeholder group met on April 22, 2025 to review the results of the network screening and crash data analysis, provide comments, and ask questions.

Figure 1 — Brentwood LRSP Stakeholder Meeting

City of Brentwood LRSP 18 May 2025

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH
Figure 2 presents a map of the public comments received on the interactive map via Social Pinpoint.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is preparing a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Safety Action Plan (CCTSAP). As part of this plan, CCTA received public comments through Social Pinpoint for the East County subregion. The CCTSAP project also held a tabling event at a Farmers’ Market in Brentwood in late September 2022 that encouraged residents to provide comments along with a discussion with the project team of common issues in Brentwood. In total, 41 comments on the interactive map and 33 survey responses were collected through Social Pinpoint.

City of Brentwood LRSP 19 May 2025
Figure 2 — Social Pinpoint Public Comments

City of Brentwood LRSP 20 May 2025
Figure 3 — Summary of Feedback Received via Social Pinpoint

City of Brentwood LRSP 21 May 2025
Most of the East Sub-Region survey responses and comments focused on walking and transit as a main topic, with some comments surrounding other related issues. There was a large concern related to schools and crossings/crosswalks. Figure 4 presents some of the safety issues identified in the survey responses for the East sub-region. The top five safety issues that the Eastern sub-region mentioned were pedestrian safety, speeding drivers, intersection safety, unsafe routes to school, and bicycle safety.

Figure 4 — Safety Issues Survey (East Sub-Region)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Large Trucks
Street Sideshows
Lighting
Not Enough Separation Between Modes
Pavement Conditions
Unsafe Hazard
Stop Sign/Red Light Violations
Visibility
Bicycle Safety
Unsafe Route to School
Intersection Safety
Speeding Drivers
Pedestrian Safety
What are some of the safety issues you face in this area?

City of Brentwood LRSP 22 May 2025
Online Social Pinpoint comments received within the East Sub-region were largely focused within Brentwood. Some of the most popular comments heard within the East Sub-region can be found below. A list of all the comments received in the City of Brentwood are found in Appendix C.

Top East Sub-Region Comments

1. “I feel like this intersection should have a light that once a cycle all cars stop and it lets all 4 crosswalks go at the same time. This would seriously cut down on who gets to go when. It so frustrating as a pedestrian but even more so as a driver.” 3 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]

2. “The cross walk to go to Brentwood Elementary school is extremely dangerous during drop off every single morning. Need a cross guard and cops. Everyone is always running stop signs and in a rush. Only a matter of time when someone is severely injured.” 3 upvotes. [Brentwood Elementary School]

3. “Trail is on both sides of Lone Tree, but with a stop light only down the way without good path access to the light and too little protection for bikes and pedestrians from such a busy road.” 2 upvotes. [Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing West of Anderson Ln]

4. “4-way crosswalk, only 2 ways protected by a crossing guard during school hours. Heavy traffic at all 4 corners. I have personally almost been hit while walking with my children on the unprotected side of the crosswalk and have witnessed children, walking on their own, almost being hit. The drivers are paying most of their attention to the crossing guard, so the unprotected crosswalks drivers rush through. I have also witnessed the crossing guard while stopping traffic, almost be hit by cars.” 2 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]

5. “4-way crossing for students walking/biking to school unsafe from all corners.” 2 upvotes. [McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln]

City of Brentwood LRSP 23 May 2025

6. REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City were compiled at the start of the LRSP process in order to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. The following plans and documents were reviewed:
Capital Improvement Programs, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 City of Brentwood General Plan, 2014
 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, 2002
 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan Update, 2019 City of Brentwood Emergency Operations Plan, 2013
Contra Costa Countywide Vision Zero Action Plan, 2022
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP): East County Action Plan, 2023
Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan
The City of Brentwood seeks to improve roadway safety by implementing the Safe System Approach. The Safe System Approach, as defined in the Caltrans SHSP, is built upon the following principles1
:
• Death and serious injuries are unacceptable
• Humans make mistakes
• Humans are vulnerable
• Responsibility is shared
• Safety is proactive
• Redundancy is crucial
While engineering countermeasures are a critical part of preventing fatal and severe injury crashes, the City also recognizes that policy plays a key role in safety as well. The city performed a literature review of relevant policies and programs to identify other means by which the Safe System Approach and road safety could be further established.

Appendix C presents a summary of local programs, policies, and practices as well as considerations of how they can be improved or enhanced to further support and prioritize road safety.
1 2020-2024 SHSP – Jan 2023 (PDF), Caltrans. January 2023. dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/2023-shsp-full-report-2020-2024-a11y.pdf Source: What Is a Safe System
Approach? USDOT 2022.

City of Brentwood LRSP 24 May 2025

7. DATA SOURCES
The following data was obtained from the City for use in crash data analysis.

7.1. Roadway Network
The crash analysis, which is described in detail in Section 3, requires each corridor within the City to be classified. The City’s roadway network obtained directly from the City was categorized using FHWA’s roadway classification system provided in the roadway network. The roadway network classification was assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either a major arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local road. This was done in order to compare the functional design and capacity to better stratify analysis results, only comparing roadway segment safety performance with similar peer roadways (i.e., only arterials are compared to arterials, etc.) within the City.

7.2. Intersections
The crash analysis also requires each intersection within the City to be classified by control type.

Intersections throughout the City were classified by control type as either signalized or unsignalized (including roundabouts). The safety analysis also only compares intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections are only compared to signalized intersections, etc.) within the City.

7.3. Crashes
Injury collision data for the most recent five-year period (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023) was used for the collision analysis. Using data from the past five-year period is sufficient to identify potential trends in crashes by location and types, while not being so long as to have data that would include long-term technology and cultural changes. The collision data was obtained from UC Berkeley’s SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System. Collision records were allocated to intersection and the roadway network segments.

Knowing the impacts of the crash (the injuries or type of damage which occurred) is a key part of assessing the environment and safety factors around the site of the crash. The TIMS dataset used for this analysis categorizes crashes in the following categories:
• 1 – Fatality
 2 – Severe injury
 3 – Other Visible Injury
 4 – Complaint of Pain
Property damage only or “fender bender” crashes that did not result in any forms of injury are not included in this dataset. This LRSP includes crashes which occurred on the City’s roadway network (including intersections which border City limits). However, crashes along Highway 4 were not included as these belong to Caltrans right-of-way and are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Brentwood. It should be noted that though crashes along Highway 4 are not included in this study, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) is a key stakeholder in the development of this LRSP and is responsible for responding to incidents along Highway 4. CCCFPD’s ability to respond to crashes on Highway 4 is dependent upon the City’s local roadway network and can be impacted by congestion or crashes on local roads.

City of Brentwood LRSP 25 May 2025

8. SAFETY TRENDS
The following sections contain the results of the analysis process which included evaluation of Brentwood fatal and severe injury (KSI) crashes compared to statewide levels, among other evaluations including crashes by severity level, cause, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes.

8.1. Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KA Crashes The California SHSP focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California KSI crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic safety partners around the state. Collisions can be attributed to 13 of the 16 challenge areas. Table 1 presents a summary of City’s historic challenge areas (2013-2022) by comparing KSI crashes to the statewide KSI crashes.

The City of Brentwood was higher than the statewide average in the following eight areas: Aggressive Driving, Impaired Driving, Intersections, Lane Departure, Young Drivers (15-20), Aging Drivers (≥65), Distracted Driving, and Occupant Protection.

Table 1 — Historical Trends: Brentwood KSI Crashes Compared to Statewide KSI Crashes California SHSP Challenge
Area
Brentwood
Comparison to
Statewide
Percentages
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2013-2022)
Differential
Brentwood
Percentages
Statewide
Percentages
Aggressive Driving Higher 51.2% 33.4% 17.8%
Impaired Driving Higher 33.1% 23.9% 9.1%
Intersections Higher 32.2% 24.3% 7.9%
Lane Departure Higher 49.6% 42.1% 7.5%
Young Drivers Higher 17.4% 12.1% 5.2%
Aging Drivers Higher 16.5% 12.8% 3.7%
Distracted Driving Higher 5.8% 4.4% 1.4%
Occupant Protection Higher 13.2% 13.1% 0.1%
Bicyclists Lower 6.6% 7.3% -0.7%
Work Zones Lower 0.8% 1.6% -0.7%
Commercial Vehicles Lower 4.1% 6.7% -2.5%
Motorcyclists Lower 14.0% 20.8% -6.7%
Pedestrians Lower 6.6% 18.9% -12.3%
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (2013 – 2022).

Driver Licensing is based on crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting Service (FARS) (2013 – 2022).

Note: Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained).

City of Brentwood LRSP 26 May 2025

8.2. California OTS Rankings for Brentwood
The California OTS publishes annual reports ranking agencies of similar population by their crash profile. Table 2 presents the City of Brentwood’s 2022 (the most recent) OTS rankings. OTS notes that “Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or ‘worst’” 2 . Compared to other cities of similar
population, Brentwood ranks among the top 50 in Total Fatal and Injury Crashes. Additionally, Brentwood ranks among the Top 50 for crashes involving Drivers under the Influence (< 35), Bicyclists, Composite crashes, Speed Related crashes, Nighttime crashes (9PM-2:59AM), Hit and Run crashes, and DUI Arrests.

Table 2 — Brentwood OTS Ranking (2022)
Crash Category Victims Killed or Injured OTS Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 167 26/104
Alcohol Involved 14 59/104
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 1 48/104
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 8 44/104
Motorcycles 7 54/104
Pedestrians 8 85/104
Pedestrians < 15 1 70/104
Pedestrians 65+ 0 98/104
Bicycle 16 23/104
Bicyclist < 15 4 28/104
Composite 93 29/104
Crash Category Fatal or Injury Crashes OTS Ranking
Speed Related 38 10/104
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 19 27/104
Hit and Run 13 42/104
Type Of Arrests Arrests OTS Ranking
DUI Arrests 76 49/104

8.3. Severity Level
Over the observed five-year time period, there were a total of 636 crashes, 8 of which were fatal and 60 of which resulted in severe injuries, as shown in Figure 5. Nearly two-thirds of all crashes (63.1%) resulted in other visible injuries.
2 City of Brentwood OTS Crash Rankings Results, California Office of Traffic Safety. Accessed March 2025. https://www.ots.ca.gov/rankings/brentwood-2022/

City of Brentwood LRSP 27 May 2025
Figure 5 — Crashes by Severity (2019 - 2023)
UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Eighty-three percent of crashes in the City occurred at intersections, with nearly half of all crashes (43%) occurring at signalized intersections. Table 3 presents the distribution of all crashes, and especially KSI crashes across the City’s various facility types (signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments). Fifty-one percent of all KSI crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, followed by 33.8% signalized intersections and 14.7% at roadway segments.

Table 3 — KSI Crashes by Facility Type
Facility Type Total Crashes Percentage KSI Crashes Percentage Signalized
Intersections 276 43.40% 23 33.82%
Unsignalized
Intersections 255 40.09% 35 51.47%
Roadway
Segments 105 16.51% 10 14.71%
Total 636 100% 68 100%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Total: 8
Total: 60
Total: 401
Total: 167
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Roadway Segments

City of Brentwood LRSP 28 May 2025
Table 4 presents the distribution of all crashes by severity across the City’s facility types. Crashes were more common at signalized intersections, followed by unsignalized intersections and roadway segments.

Table 4 — Crashes by Severity (2019 – 2023)
Severity
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
Roadway
Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 2 0.3% 4 0.6% 2 0.3% 8 1.3%
Severe 21 3.3% 31 4.9% 8 1.3% 60 9.4%
Other Visible Injury 166 26.1% 165 25.9% 70 11.0% 401 63.1% Complaint of Pain 87 13.7% 55 8.6% 25 3.9% 167 26.3%
Total 276 43.4% 255 40.1% 105 16.5% 636 100.0%
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 29 May 2025
Figure 6 — Citywide KSI Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 30 May 2025
Figure 7 — Citywide Crashes (2019-2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 31 May 2025

8.4. Annual Crashes
Figure 8 presents the number of annual crashes on roads in the City of Brentwood beginning in 2019.

The year with the most crashes was 2019, with a total of 150 crashes. Annual crashes trended downwards in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, with 2020 having the least number of crashes. Annual crashes have generally trended upwards since 2020.

It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced crash trends in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the number of daily household trips decreased due to widespread shelter-in-place orders; fewer vehicles on the road could be connected to fewer vehicle conflicts and thus fewer crashes. However, reduced roadway volumes and congestion could also be connected to increased vehicle speeds, a phenomenon that numerous law enforcement agencies have reported. As volumes returned to “prepandemic” levels in 2021, law enforcement agencies in California anecdotally noted that vehicle speeds remained high; it is theorized that this pandemic-era aggressive driving behavior has persisted and is partially contributing to the increase in annual crashes than can be seen since 2020.

Figure 8 — Annual Crashes (2019 – 2023)
Figure 9 — Annual KSI Crashes (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 150
101
126 126 133
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Linear (Total)
14 11
14 10
19 0
5 10
15 20
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total Linear (Total)

City of Brentwood LRSP 32 May 2025

8.5. Crash Causes
As shown in Figure 10, the most frequently identified crash causes were Unsafe Speeds, Improper Turning, and Traffic Signals and Signs. Crash causes that accounted for less than two percent are not pictured in the figure.

Figure 10 — Total Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Unsafe Speed,
186, 29%
Improper Turning,
140, 22%
Traffic Signals and
Signs, 98, 15%
Automobile Right
of Way, 72, 11%
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug, 41, 6%
Unknown, 20, 3%
Pedestrian Right of Way, 17, 3%
Pedestrian Violation, 11, 2% Other, 51, 8%

City of Brentwood LRSP 33 May 2025
The most common crash causes for KSI crashes include improper turning, unsafe speed and DUIs as show in Figure 11. Crash causes which accounted for more than one crash are presented in Figure 11. Improper turning is related to vehicles turning when or where it is unsafe to do so; these crashes mostly included hit-object crashes, bicycles, broadsides and sideswipes.

Figure 11 — KSI Crashes by Cause (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

8.6. Crash Types
According to reported data, approximately 636 injury crashes occurred within the City during the fiveyear study period on city owned and maintained roadways. Figure 12 indicates that broadsides and rear ends were the most common crash type within the City, followed by hit-object crashes. A large proportion of rear ends occurred at signalized intersections, while broadsides occurred most commonly at unsignalized intersections. The most common crash type along roadway segments was rear ends.

Improper Turning,
16, 25%
Unsafe Speed, 12,
19%
DUI, 10, 16%
Traffic Signals and
Signs, 9, 14%
Pedestrian
Violation, 5, 8%
Automobile Right
of Way, 4, 6%
Pedestrian Right of Way, 4, 6%
Other Hazardous Violation, 2, 3% Unknown, 2, 3%

City of Brentwood LRSP 34 May 2025
Figure 12 — Crashes by Type (2019– 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 The most common crash types which resulted in fatal and severe injuries were broadsides and hitobject crashes, followed by crashes involving vulnerable road users (Figure 13). Though crashes involving vulnerable road users (bicycles and pedestrians) accounted for 15% of all crashes, they accounted for a disproportionately higher percentage (29%) of all KSI crashes. 13 34 24 11 11 6 2
Total: 7 Total: 5 Total: 2
77 92
22 22 21 22
16 70
34 35
30 27 26
27 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
Broadside Rear End Hit Object Sideswipe Head On Bike Ped Other Overturned Not Stated Segment Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections

City of Brentwood LRSP 35 May 2025
Figure 13 — KSI Crashes by Type (2019 – 2023)
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Note: The crash marked as “Other” involved a single-vehicle incident where a motorcyclist lost control and crashed.

8.7. Lane Departure Crashes
Caltrans defines crashes involving lane departure as those with crash types listed as ‘Head-On’, ‘HitObject’, or ‘Overturned’. This also includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash. There were 145 lane departure crashes over the study period in the City, with an average of approximately 29 lane departure crashes per year. Of the 145 lane departure crashes, 4 were fatal, 19 were reported with severe injuries, 95 with other visible injuries, and 27 with complaints of pain.

8.8. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Figure 14 summarizes aggressive and impaired driving crashes by intersections and segments.

Additional information is included in the following sections. 2 4
1 2
1 8 4
2 4
2 3
5 7
8 5
5 4
1 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
Broadside Hit Object Ped Bike Head On Rear End Sideswipe Overturned Other Segment Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections

City of Brentwood LRSP 36 May 2025
Figure 14 — Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

8.8.1. Aggressive Driving Crashes
Aggressive driving includes primary collision factors such as unsafe speed, following too closely and violations related to traffic signals and signs. There were 291 aggressive driving crashes between 2019-2023. One of the crashes resulted in fatalities and twenty-one resulted in severe injuries.

Figure 15 illustrates the aggressive driving crashes within the City. A list of intersection segments of in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes due to aggressive driving is shown below:
• Balfour Rd & Summerset Dr to Fairview Ave
• O’Hare Ave & Sand Creek Rd to Town Center Terrace
A list of the intersections in order ofthe highest to lowest number of crashes due to aggressive driving is shown below:
• Sand Creek Rd and O'Hara Ave
• Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way
• Sand Creek Rd and Shady Willow Ln
• Balfour Rd and Claremont Dr
Balfour Rd and Sellers Ave
41 11
171
10 79
20 Total: 291
Total: 41
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Aggressive Impaired
Segment Signalized Unsignalized

City of Brentwood LRSP 37 May 2025

8.8.2. Impaired Driving Crashes
Impaired driving crashes include all crashes where there was evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. Drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted, as Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potential to impact driver responsiveness and decision making. There were 41 impaired driving crashes between 2019-2023, three of which resulted in a fatality and seven of which resulted in severe injuries. Figure 16 depicts the impaired driving crashes within the City. The intersection segment Sand Creek Rd & Fairview Ave to Sandstone Dr was the one segment with a crash due to impaired driving. A list of the intersections in order of the highest to lowest number of crashes due to impaired driving is shown below:
• Lone Tree Way & Brentwood Blvd
• Grant St & Empire Ave
• Grant St & Fairview Ave
• Balfour Rd & Armstrong Way
• Balfour Rd & Rosegate Ave
• Remington St & Walnut Blvd
• Walnut Blvd & McClaren Rd
• Spruce St & Garin Pkwy

City of Brentwood LRSP 38 May 2025
Figure 15 — Aggressive Driving Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 39 May 2025
Figure 16 — Impaired Driving Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 40 May 2025

8.9. Non-Motorized Crashes
There were a total of 54 crashes involving bicycles and 45 crashes involving pedestrians, as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively. Bicycle and pedestrian crashes were most common at intersections, particularly at unsignalized intersections.

Figure 17 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023 Figure 18 illustrates the locations of pedestrian and bicycle crashes at intersections within the City.

Additional information on pedestrian and bicycle crashes is in the following sections.

8.9.1. Bicycle Crashes
There were 48 bicycle-involved crashes in the City over the study period. Of the bicycle-involved crashes, 9 were reported with severe injuries, 35 with visible injuries, and 10 with complaints of pain.

The severe injury bicycle crashes occurred at the following locations:
• Sand Creek Rd & Las Montanas St
• Sand Creek Rd and Minnesota Ave
• Minnesota Ave & Valley Green Dr
• Brentwood Blvd & Central Ave
• Lone Tree Way & Ohara Ave (2)
• Lone Tree Way & Double K Rd
• Medallion Dr & Europena Dr
• Spyglass Dr between Augusta Dr and Monterey Ct

8.9.2. Pedestrian Crashes
Over the study period of 2019-2023, a total of 42 pedestrian-involved crashes occurred in the City.

Of the pedestrian-involved injury crashes, 2 crashes were fatal, 9 were reported with severe injuries, 26 were reported with other visible injuries, and 5 with complaints of pain. 2 5
15 18
25 25
Total: 42
Total: 48
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Pedestrian Bicycle
Segment Signalized Unsignalized

City of Brentwood LRSP 41 May 2025
The fatal pedestrian crashes occurred at the following intersections:
• Brentwood Blvd & Harvest Dr
• Vineyards Pkwy & Solera St
The severe injury pedestrian crashes occurred at the following locations:
• Brentwood Blvd & Maple St
• Griffith Ln & Continente Ave
• Sand Creek Rd & Brentwood Blvd
• Griffith Ln & Shannon Dr
• Blue Bird Ln & Ohara Ave
• Brentwood Blvd & Fir St
• Lone Tree Way & Empire Ave
• Rutherford Circle & Garland Way
• Jennifer St & Garin Pkwy

City of Brentwood LRSP 42 May 2025
Figure 18 — Non-Motorized Crash Map
Source: UC Berkeley SafeTrek Transportation Injury Mapping System 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 43 May 2025

9. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
This LRSP includes a citywide demographic and socioeconomic analysis to better understand how different population groups in the City of Brentwood are impacted by road safety. The framework used to guide the analysis is followed by a summary of the methodology. The equity analysis considers demographics and collisions, followed by general takeaways related to the equity and safety data. The analysis seeks to inform policy and program recommendations for the City in accordance with state and federal equity goals, with the objective of promoting equitable infrastructure investments which will enhance road safety for all road users.

9.1. Framework
This section applies a socioeconomic and demographic approach to the safety analysis conducted for the LRSP to supplement the technical collision data analysis by identifying any correlations between equity and safety data, in accordance with federal and state guidelines. This ensures that vulnerable and disadvantaged populations can benefit from additional safety considerations.

Meeting the needs of equity populations is a critical step in equitable distribution of resources and outcomes. As such, the equity analysis aims to summarize key safety and equity findings.

9.1.1. Federal Policies
Equity analysis in transportation planning became solidified by two key federal policies: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order (EO) 12898 in 1994. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. EO 12898 directs all federal agencies to develop an Environmental Justice Strategy that, “identifies and addresses the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Both policies mandate transportation agencies to identify, address, and serve disadvantaged communities through their work.

More recently in 2021, EO 14008 was signed establishing Justice40 with the goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution. Previously published Justice40 tract maps and tools, specifically the recently archived US DOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer, were utilized in the equity analysis to identify disadvantaged communities. Although the US DOT ETC Explorer has been recently archived, the dataset is critical in identifying historically disadvantaged communities.

9.1.2. State Policies
California SB 535 (2012) directs investments of cap-and-trade funds towards “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs). The SB 535 DAC Map (2022) was established to identify DACs throughout the state of California.

The equity analysis conducted as part of the LRSP initiated with an analysis of the 2022 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) SB 535 DAC Map, a 2022 Justice40 tract map, the US DOT ETC Explorer, and the CEJST to determine if any tracts within the city were considered disadvantaged. The equity analysis identified four disadvantaged communities outlined in the

City of Brentwood LRSP 44 May 2025
recently archived US DOT ETC Explorer. See Figure 20 for Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts in the City of Brentwood.

9.2. Methodology
Equity demographics were analyzed to better understand the population. The equity analysis builds on the crash data analysis from the LRSP and forms the basis for the equity policy and program recommendations provided.

Demographic data for the city’s population was collected from the United States Census American Community Survey (US ACS) 5-year estimates for 2023 for total population by race/ethnicity, age, and income to identify equity communities within the city. Age was included in the demographic data to capture the city’s young and aging populations.

9.2.1. Underserved Communities
Brentwood is located within an urbanized area with a population of approximately 64,2923 as of 2020. Figure 19 displays the 2020 population in the City of Brentwood broken down by age and sex.

Figure 19 — City of Brentwood 2020 Population by Age and Sex Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 DEC Demographic Profile for the City of Brentwood, Accessed April 2025 The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed a list of SS4A Underserved Communities Census Tracts (historically disadvantaged communities). The disadvantaged census tracts identified in this list exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the census tract level using data from the Centre for Disease Control and 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table DP1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics 2020 DEC Demographic Profile, Available at
https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDP2020.DP1?q=profile+brentwood+city&g=160XX00US0608142.

City of Brentwood LRSP 45 May 2025
Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index, Census American Community Survey, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Location Map, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Location Affordability Index, EPA Environmental Justice Screen, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool, and FEMA National Risk Index.

1. Transportation Access disadvantage identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index).

2. Health disadvantage identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).

3. Environmental disadvantage identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality (EPA EJ Screen).

4. Economic disadvantage identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool).

5. Resilience disadvantage identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change (FEMA National Risk Index).

6. Equity disadvantage identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).

City of Brentwood 2025 LRSP 46 May 2025
Figure 20 — Brentwood Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Census Tracts Source: USDOT ETC Explorer, Accessed August 2024.

City of Brentwood LRSP 47 May 2025

9.3. Demographic and Socioeconomic Assessment
The City of Brentwood is home to a diverse population. This section reports on the demographics data of road users in Brentwood as collected from the US Census Bureau and processed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Bay Area Vision Zero (BayVIZ) System. In terms of race and ethnicity, white people make up the largest population of crash victims by race/ethnicity in Brentwood at 48.8% and Hispanic or Latino origin account for 17.4% of crash victims. Persons of black heritage and other/unknown are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes, accounting for 10.8% and 19.7% of fatal and severe injury crashes though they only account for 9% and 6.6% of the population, respectively. Figure 21 below provides a breakdown of populations by race and ethnicity and crash victims by race and ethnicity in Brentwood.

Figure 21 — Collision Victim Demographics by Race/Ethnicity in the City of Brentwood Source: Bay Area Vision Zero (BayVIZ) System, Fall 2023, Accessed April 2025 According to the 2023 American Community Survey, 29.2% of households in Brentwood speak a language other than English at home. Spanish is spoken in 13.0% of households; other IndoEuropean languages and Asian and Pacific Islander languages are spoken in 5.8% and 9.0% of households, respectively4
. In terms of age, approximately 15.1% of the population in Brentwood is 4 United States Census Bureau, Table S1601 Language Spoken at Home 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1601?q=Language+Spoken+at+Home&g=010XX00US_160XX 00US0608142.

City of Brentwood LRSP 48 May 2025
65 years and older, and 26.1% of the population is under 18 years old5. Approximately 10.6% of the population in Brentwood is disabled6
. Figure 22 presents a breakdown of the types of disabilities (there is overlap between categories).

Figure 22 — Types of Disabilities
Source: 2023 American Community Survey, City of Brentwood According to 2023 American Community Survey, approximately 2.1% of workers in Brentwood walk to work and 0.2% commute by bike7
. However, cyclist and pedestrians account for 29.5% of fatal and severe injury crashes recorded during the study period. Figure 23 presents the mode share of trips in Brentwood.
5 United States Census Bureau, Table S0101 Age and Sex 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S0101?g=160XX00US0608142. 6 United States Census Bureau, Table S1810 Disability Characteristics 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S1810?q=disability&g=160XX00US0608142. 7 United States Census Bureau, Table S0801 Commuting Characteristics by Sex 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Available at https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2023.S0801?q=commuting&g=160XX00US0608142.

City of Brentwood LRSP 49 May 2025
Figure 23 — Mode Share in Brentwood
Source: BayVIZ 2025 and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 2019-2023 The City aims to increase the mode share for these active modes of transportation by making the City’s roadway network safer through infrastructure improvements, education, and community engagement. The options available to the City to improve its roadway network identified in the LRSP countermeasure toolbox will benefit residents, students, and individuals who travel across the City to access destinations. Implementing safety improvements will serve to mitigate disparity by increasing the safety for residents that commute via active transportation.

Approximately 19.1% of the total severe and fatal crashes in the City from 2019-2023 occurred within the disadvantaged communities. Figure 24 presents severe and fatal crashes citywide and within disadvantaged communities. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions in the disadvantaged communities account for approximately 35.7% of all citywide pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Figure 25 presents pedestrian and bicycle collisions citywide and within the disadvantaged communities from 2019-2023. Approximately 29.4% of all citywide injury collisions were located within disadvantaged communities from 2019-2023. Figure 26 presents all citywide collisions by severity and identifies the disadvantaged communities. The disadvantaged community census tracts account for approximately 22.7% of the land area within the City (approximately 2,155 acres of land is designated as a disadvantaged community within approximately 9,510 acres of city area) yet disproportionately experience more overall collisions and more pedestrian and bicycle collisions than the rest of the city.

City of Brentwood LRSP 50 May 2025
Figure 24 — Severe and Fatal Crashes in the City of Brentwood Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).

City of Brentwood LRSP 51 May 2025
Figure 25 — Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in the City of Brentwood Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).

City of Brentwood LRSP 52 May 2025
Figure 26 — All Collisions in the City of Brentwood
Source: TIMS Crash Data (2019 – 2023).

City of Brentwood LRSP 53 May 2025

9.4. Crash Data Equity Review
Crash victim demographics from the TIMS dataset were reviewed, particularly gender and age.

Figure 27 presents a breakdown of crashes by gender. From 2019-2023, approximately 48% of crash victims were female, 51% were male, and 1.1% were not stated.

Figure 27 — Crash Victims by Gender
Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023
Figure 28 presents a breakdown of crash victims by age. There were 87 crash victims of age 14 or younger, and 126 crashes where the victim(s) were ages 15-19. There were 213 crashes involving young drivers (age 19 or less). Over the study period, there were approximately 105 crashes where the crash victim was 65 years old or older.

Figure 28 — Crash Victims by Gender and Age
Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023

City of Brentwood LRSP 54 May 2025
Crash data from TIMS ranging from 2019-2023 was reviewed to determine the parties at fault in vehicle-pedestrian/bicycle crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists and is presented in Figure

29. Approximately 82.8% of crashes involving vulnerable road users were due to driver violations.

The most common driver violations were improper turning (turning at a distance unnecessarily far from a curb, turning without using turn signals, or making a type of turn prohibited by signage) and pedestrian right of way violations (making a maneuver from a motor vehicle without respecting the right-of-way of a pedestrian) each account for approximately 17% of vulnerable user collisions.

Followed by traffic signals and signs (collision was caused by inadequate, inconsistent, and/or confusing signage) at 16% and automobile right of way (making a maneuver without respecting the right-of-way of another driver) at 14%. Six percent of crashes involving vulnerable road users were due to pedestrian violations, and 9% were not assigned fault. Pedestrian violations included the following: pedestrian failure to cross at crosswalks between adjacent traffic signal controlled intersections (1%), pedestrian failure to yield ROW when crossing outside of marked and unmarked crossings (4%), and pedestrian failure to follow “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” signals (1%).

Figure 29 — Vulnerable Road User Crashes by Type of Violation Source: TIMS Crash Data, 2019-2023
Improper Turning
17%
Pedestrian Right of
Way, 17%
Traffic SIgnals and Signs
16%
Automobile Right of
Way 14%
Unknown
9%
Unsafe Speed
7%
Pedestrian Violation
7%
Wrong Side of
Road 4%
Other Improper Driving, 3%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence, 2%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian), 2%
Brakes, 1% Other Hazardous
Violation, 1%

City of Brentwood LRSP 55 May 2025

10. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that might address conditions that were observed to contribute to crash activity in the City.

10.1. Engineering Countermeasures
The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.

10.1.1. Crash Modification Factors
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the HSM. CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 30 illustrates the definition of CMFs.

Figure 30 — CMF Calculation
A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. In application, the higher a CRF value is, the more effective the countermeasure is at preventing crashes. The countermeasures proposed in this LRSP were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes, especially those most commonly occurring in the City.

10.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective to be for Brentwood are listed in Table 5, and include a wide range of countermeasures that can be implemented in phases where appropriate. Many of these proposed countermeasures have already been implemented in the City, including but not limited to pedestrian countdown signal heads, conversion of stop-controlled intersections to roundabouts, and installation of retro-reflective backplates on traffic signal heads.

The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid the City of Brentwood in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures. Caltrans funding levels for each countermeasure are also provided to aid the City in determining what the local match would likely be if the City were to pursue grant funding. Most countermeasures are eligible for Caltrans funding up to 90%, though some are lower.

City of Brentwood LRSP 56 May 2025
Table 5 — Brentwood Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Signalized Intersections
Modify signal to provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% X 90% $ Install Left Turn Lane, Add Left Turn Phase 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Pedestrian scramble X 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$
Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Protected left turn phase 0.7 30% X 90% $$
Convert signal from pedestal-mounted to mast arm 0.7 30% X 90% $$$ Install signs with LED borders as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 90% $$ Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Pedestrian countdown signal heads X 0.75 25% X 90% $
Signal ahead warning signs 0.85 15% X N/A $
Retroreflective backplates 0.85 15% X 90% $
Improve signal timing (coordination) 0.85 15% X 50% $$
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle box X X 0.85 15% X 90% $ Install raised pavement markers and striping 0.9 10% X 90% $ Flashing yellow arrow 0.94 6% X N/A $
Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) Varies Varies X 90% $$$ Convert intersection to mini/compact roundabout (from
signal) Varies Varies X 90% $$
Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Unsignalized Intersections
Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.55 55% X 90% $$$ Pedestrian Signal or Pedestrian High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) X 0.45 55% X 90%
$$$
Install all-way STOP control 0.5 50% X 90% $
Directional median openings to restrict turning movements 0.5 50% X 90% $$ Reduced Left-Turn Conflict (R-CUT) intersections 0.5 50% X 90% $$$ Pedestrian refuge island X 0.55 45% X 90% $$
$$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff

City of Brentwood LRSP 57 May 2025
Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 90% $$ Crosswalk lighting X 0.6 40% X X 90% $$
Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 90% $$ Add intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 90% $$
Colored bicycle lanes X 0.61 39% X 90% $
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X N/A $$$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety X 0.65 35% X 90% $$$ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install left-turn lane 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install flashing beacons as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 90% (if beacons are utilized)
$$
Upgrade pavement markings 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Clear sight triangles 0.8 20% X 90% $
Install right-turn lane 0.8 20% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade intersection warning/regulatory signs 0.85 15% X 90% $ Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Convert intersection to roundabout Varies Varies X 90% $$$ Retroreflective strips on sign posts Not Available Not Available X 90% $ Install a raised intersection X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$ Partial street closure or diagonal diverter Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ Full street closure X X Not Available Not Available X X N/A $$ Roadway Segments
Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatment) 0.45 55% X 90% $$$ Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 0.60 40% X 90% $ Remove or relocate fixed object outside of Clear Recovery Zone

0.65 35% X 90% $$$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install bike lanes X X 0.65 35% X 90% $
Add segment lighting 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) X X 0.65 35% X 90%
$$
Install raised pedestrian crossing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff

City of Brentwood LRSP 58 May 2025
Countermeasure
Also Addresses
Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) 0.70 30% X 90% $$ Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 0.70 30% X 90% $$ Install curve advance warning signs 0.75 25% X 90% $
Install impact attenuators 0.75 25% X 90% $$
Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 0.80 20% X 90% $$ Install edge line rumble strips/stripes 0.85 15% X 90% $$ Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory/warning) 0.85 15% X 90% $
Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 0.85 15% X 90% $ Speed feedback signs (mobile or fixed) X X Not Available Not Available X Opportunity for OTS funding
$$
Install lane narrowing treatments (extend curb inward/extend median) X Not Available Not Available X N/A $$
Install a chicane, deviation, or angled slow point Not Available Not Available X N/A $$$ Install speed hump Not Available Not Available X N/A $$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff

City of Brentwood LRSP 59 May 2025

10.1.3. High-Severity Crash Locations
The City identified high-severity crash locations as a result of the network screening analysis. Table 6 presents the locations and contains notes for why these locations were prioritized.

Table 6 – High-Severity Crash Locations
Priority Location Crashes EPDO Notes
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood
Blvd 14 469
3 Severe Injury crashes, 3
Pedestrian crashes, 1 Bike crash, 9
Dark
Balfour Rd and Cortona
Way/Eagle Rock Way 10 431
3 Severe Injury crashes, 6
Broadsides, 7 Aggressive driving
crashes
Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave 10 431 3 Severe Injury crashes (2 involved bicycles)
Brentwood Blvd and Sims Rd 5 363 2 Severe Injury crashes. Most crashes related to Improper turning
Brentwood Blvd from Sims Rd to
Lone Tree Way 4 352 2 Severe Injury crashes (study with intersection above) Balfour Rd from City limits to
American Ave 3 342 1 Fatality, 1 Severe Injury crash, adjacent to Heritage High School 1 Existing signal modification project.

Six project case study locations were selected for further analysis and recommendations. For each of these locations, recommended countermeasures were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. The countermeasures are listed in Table 7.

An additional set of low-cost countermeasures is also recommended for systemic implementation across the City. These improvements include installing retroreflective signage and traffic signal backplates, as well as a recommendation to follow the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 413 to restrict parking within 20 feet of crosswalks on the vehicle approach side with the goal of improving visibility for all road users (also known as daylighting)8 . AB 413 was signed into law on October 10,
2023, with ticketed enforcement being permitted following January 1, 2025. While daylighting may be conducted with low-cost treatments such as signage, painted curbs, or raised delineators, it is recommended that the City also conduct outreach to inform the public about this new law and its impact in removing parking spaces.
8 AB-413 Vehicles: stopping, standing, and parking. October 10, 2023. Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB413

City of Brentwood LRSP 60 May 2025
Table 7 - Countermeasures for Selected Case Study Locations Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood Blvd
Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalks 25% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Refresh limit lines 10% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way
Upgrade to high-visibility crosswalks 25% $$
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Install advanced warning beacons on
approaches 30% $$
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Increased enforcement of speeding and
aggressive driving 5% $
Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave
Install colored bicycle lanes through
intersection 39% $
Upgrade signal heads to incorporate
retroreflective backplates 15% $
Install high-visibility crosswalks on all four
approaches 25% $$
Reduce number of receiving lanes on west
side (road diet) 35% $$$
Upgrade pedestrian push buttons 25% $
Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 60% $
Brentwood Blvd and Sims Rd
Install left turn lane along Brentwood Blvd 35% $$$
Refresh limit line 25% $
Upgrade lighting near intersection 40% $$
Refresh center lines and edge lines 25% $

City of Brentwood LRSP 61 May 2025
Countermeasure
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Cost
Brentwood Blvd from Sims Rd to Lone Tree Way
Install speed feedback signage along
Brentwood Blvd 30% $$
Install center left turn lane 30% $$$
Refresh limit lines and center lines 25% $
Improve lighting along segment 35% $$
Balfour Rd from City limits to American Ave
Increased enforcement during school arrival
and dismissal 5% $
Road diet (reduce to one lane in each
direction) 35% $$$
Install retroreflective backplates 15% $
Implement leading pedestrian interval 60% $
Install speed feedback signage 30% $$
Install colored bike lanes 35% $
Consider reducing the number of receiving
lanes on west side (Road Diet) 35% $$
Citywide Systemic Improvements
Install retroreflective backplates on signal
heads 15% $
Implement intersection daylighting per AB 413 11% $
Install retro-reflective signage and strips at
unsignalized intersections 15% $

10.2. Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based noninfrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 8 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level. Note that while there are several other noninfrastructure countermeasures available, only those which have an effectiveness rating of four stars or higher are presented. Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement is not included in the document but are countermeasures that could also be considered for the City.

City of Brentwood LRSP 62 May 2025
Table 8 — Brentwood Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost to
Implement Use Time to Implement
Aggressive Driving
Automated enforcement systems (red
light camera systems)
*****
Effective $$$† Medium Medium
Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints *****
Effective $$$ Medium Short
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols
(large number of law enforcement
officers patrolling a specific area)
****
Situational $$ High Short
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility enforcement *****
Effective $$$ Medium Medium
Integrated nighttime seat belt
enforcement
(night time seat belt enforcement in
conjunction with High-Visibility
Saturation Patrols for impaired
driving)
****
Situational $$$ Unknown Medium
Distracted Driving
High visibility cellphone/text
messaging enforcement
****
Situational $$$ Low Medium
Effectiveness:
***** Demonstrated to be effective by several high quality evaluations with consistent results **** Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity †
Can be covered by income from citations
Use:

High: More than two-thirds of states, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: Between one-third and two-thirds of states or communities Low: Less than one-third of states or communities
Unknown: Data not available
Time to Implement:

Long: More than 1 year
Medium: More than 3 months but less than 1 year
Short: 3 months or less

City of Brentwood LRSP 63 May 2025

11. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

11.1. Evaluation
The success of the LRSP can be evaluated using the general process outlined below. This process can be useful to monitor progress towards implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, and to determine when updates to the LRSP should be considered.  Law enforcement continues monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways.  Conduct frequent progress meetings (annually or quarterly) betweenCity staff and a working group (i.e. traffic safety committee) to review the latest crash data, including assessing the effectiveness of safety countermeasures implemented, discussing ongoing traffic safety challenges, and tracking progress on plan implementation.  Maintain a list of focus/priority areas where there are transportation safety concerns based on review of crash data. The list of priority and/or top crash locations can be updated as an outcome of review of updated crash data and trends.
 Perform an update to the plan after no more than five years. It is recommended that updates to the LRSP be approved by City Council and made available to the public in accordance with Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Plan guidance.

11.2. Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through development and implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, the establishment of new/updated policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.

With regard to projects, the following section identifies potential focus areas for the City in the nearto-mid-term.

11.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this LRSP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:

1. Aggressive Driving

2. Speeding

3. Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)

4. Intersections with Unconventional Geometries
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes.

City of Brentwood LRSP 64 May 2025

11.3. Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Brentwood. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Brentwood. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

11.3.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The HSIP is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for nonmotorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
 New or upgraded traffic signals
 Upgraded guard rails
 Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
 Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.

11.3.2. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The SS4A Grant Program is a federal program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A total of $5 billion are available from 2022-2026 in the form of planning grants and implementation grants. Grant applications for projects that implement the Safe Systems Approach, such as those related to speed management, improvements in underserved communities, and vulnerable road users, are encouraged. Implementation grant projects must be identified in an applicant’s qualifying Safety Action Plan. The SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet describes the required elements of an Action Plan and can be accessed at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024- 02/SS4A-FY24-Self-Certification-Worksheet.pdf
Additional information about implementation grants can be found at:
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/implementation-grants

11.3.3. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
 Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects

City of Brentwood LRSP 65 May 2025
 Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school)  Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring.

Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/

11.3.4. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years.

The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.

11.3.5. California SB 1
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue:
$26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies, and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
 Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
 Local Planning Grants: $25 million

11.3.6. California OTS Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this LRSP) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
 Alcohol Impaired Driving
 Distracted Driving
 Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
 Motorcycle Safety
 Occupant Protection
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
 Police Traffic Services
 Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program

City of Brentwood LRSP 66 May 2025
 Roadway Safety and Traffic Records

11.3.7. ABAG Regional Funding Programs
ABAG provides funding allocation for various multi-modal transportation projects in the Bay Area.

Projects that are considered for this regional funding program must be eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Rural Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), or STIP funds.

Performance outcomes which are considered for selection include those which:
 Reduce regional VMT per capita
 Reduce regional congest VMT per capita
 Increase multi-modal or alternative travel choices
 Provide long term benefits, sustaining both rural and urban economies  Improve movement of goods, in and through the region
 Improve safety and security
Maintain and improve upon the existing transportation system

City of Brentwood LRSP 67 May 2025

12. NEXT STEPS
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and its overall safety efforts. • Develop investment program to help achieve the City’s crash reduction goals. • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies.
• Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs. • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities.

City of Brentwood LRSP 68 May 2025

APPENDIX A

INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS

Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
Sand Creek Rd and Brentwood Blvd 14 469 0 3 9 2 1 4 3 0 1 0 1 3 1 4 0 9 1 X Lone Tree Way and Shady Willow Ln 12 92 0 0 4 8 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 6 0 2 1 Balfour Rd and Fairview Ave 12 124 0 0 11 1 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 4 1 Sand Creek Rd and Fairview Ave 12 110 0 0 8 4 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 4 0 Sand Creek Rd and O'Hara Ave 12 110 0 0 8 4 1 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 3 2 Balfour Rd and Cortona Way/Eagle Rock Way 10 431 0 3 6 1 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 2 X Lone Tree Way and O'Hara Ave 10 431 0 3 6 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 1 4 0 X Sand Creek Rd and Sand Creek Xing 9 83 0 0 6 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 3 0 Sand Creek Rd and Shady Willow Ln 8 186 0 1 5 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 Central Blvd and Fairview Ave 8 72 0 0 5 3 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 Lone Tree Way and Canada Valley Rd 7 166 0 1 2 4 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 Central Blvd and Minnesota Ave 7 66 0 0 5 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and Claremont Dr 7 70 0 0 6 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 Sand Creek Rd and Minnesota Ave 7 285 0 2 3 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and 2nd Ave 7 70 0 0 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 Walnut Blvd and Balfour Rd 7 171 0 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Brentwood Blvd and Balfour Rd 7 66 0 0 5 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Jeffery Way 6 151 0 1 0 5 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 Balfour Rd and Griffith Ln 6 64 0 0 6 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 Central Blvd and Brentwood Blvd 6 169 0 1 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 Lone Tree Way and Heidorn Ranch Rd 5 31 0 0 0 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Lone Tree Way and Empire Ave 5 145 0 1 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Anderson Ln/Adams Ln 5 49 0 0 4 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Grant St/Sunset Rd 5 158 1 0 3 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and John Muir Pkwy 4 34 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Signalized Intersections

Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Empire Ave and Shady Willow Ln Signalized Intersections 4 143 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Lone Tree Way and Fairview Ave 4 38 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 Central Blvd and Griffith Ln 4 43 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Lone Tree Way and Brentwood Blvd 4 143 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Balfour Rd and Hudson Dr 4 34 0 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Balfour Rd and American Ave 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Grant St and Empire Ave 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Grant St and Fairview Ave 3 142 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Central Blvd and 2nd St 3 32 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Oak St 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 Pine St and 2nd St 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 Balfour Rd and McViking Way 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections
Balfour Rd and Sellers Ave 11 109 0 0 9 2 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 Balfour Rd and Garin Pkwy 7 221 0 1 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 Balfour Rd and Armstrong Way 6 55 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Balfour Rd and Rosegate Ave 5 54 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and E Sims Rd 5 363 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 X Balfour Rd and Guise Way 5 208 0 1 4 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 Lone Tree Way and Double K Rd 4 198 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 O'Hara Ave and Grant St 4 38 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd and Sunrise Rd 4 43 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Balfour Rd and Heritage High School Driveway 3 342 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 X Lone Tree Way and Windy Spring Ln 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Neroly Rd and Lavender Way 3 23 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

Intersection
Injury Crashes
EPDO*
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Case Study Location
City of Brentwood Crash Summary
Central Pkwy and Peachwillow Dr Signalized Intersections 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Dainty Ave and Walnut Blvd 3 23 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brentwood Blvd and Spruce St 3 178 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 Remington St and Walnut Blvd 3 187 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 Brentwood Blvd and Havenwood Ave 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Walnut Blvd and McClaren Rd 3 32 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Spruce St and Garin Pkwy 3 28 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 *Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

City of Brentwood LRSP 69 May 2025

APPENDIX B

SEGMENT NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS

Facility Limits
Injury Crashes
EPDO
2 Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Priority Location
O'Hara Ave Sand Creek Rd to Town Center Terrace 5 204 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Sand Creek Rd Shady Willow Ln to CA-4 Ramps 3 28 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Brentwood Blvd Lone Tree Way to E Sims Rd 4 352 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 X Brentwood Blvd Pine St to Diablo Way 4 43 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 Brentwood Blvd E Sims Rd to Neroly Rd/Delta Rd 4 43 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Minor Arterial
Major Arterial
City of Brentwood Crash Summary

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

City of Brentwood LRSP 70 May 2025

APPENDIX C

PUBLIC COMMENTS

City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
1 Adams Ln and Grant St
Cars always block bike lane or ignore crosswalk pedestrians. I’ve witnessed three close calls to kids on bike or walking getting hit by vehicle when they attempt to make a right turn on grant from adams.
0 2 Amber Ln and Salice Way We need to have a safety crosswalk between Salice Way and Amber Lane to allow kids to cross and attend Pioneer Elementary School safely. 0
3 American Ave and Heritage
High School North Driveway
This should be at the top of the list to fix. 0
4 American Ave and Heritage
High School South Driveway
There is only one way in and out of the access road to Adam’s MS and Heritage HS. During drop off and pick up times traffic is really bad. Creating an alternate entrance/exit would be extreme beneficial.
1 5 Anderson Ln North of
Kenwood Dr
After you leave the Brentwood Park there are no side walks or bike lanes as you approach Lone Tree. It very dangerous to walk or ride your bike on Anderson to Brownstone as well. 0 6 Armstrong Way S of Nunn St
People treat armstrong way like their personal drag race strip at all times of day. The noise is a nuisance and obviously safety is a concern as well. Some sort of traffic calming is in order!
0 7 Ascot Pl West of Dover Ct Many car speed thru Brentwood park around each exit/entrance 0 8 Balfour Rd and Brentwood
Blvd
Only one crossing guard and its a 4 way intersection, the guard stays on one corner by Jamba Juice only. I always see cars running lights and on top of that some kids crossing on foot or on bikes don't look and I've seen some close calls. 0 9 Balfour Rd and Tradition Way History of pedestrians hit by cars here. Needs a stop sign 1 10 Brentwood Blvd and Birch St
Children of all ages cross the street here and there is no crosswalk. The city is well aware that kids cross here with no safety measures in place and has done nothing about it. They are going to continue to cross here because it is simply the only route 2 11 Brentwood Blvd and Birch St Seriously need an over the road pedestrian bridge. 0 12 Brentwood Elementary
School
The cross walk to go to Brentwood Elementary school is extremely dangerous during drop off every single morning. Need a cross guard and cops. Everyone always running stop signs and in a rush. Only a matter of time when someone is severely injured. 3 13 Brentwood Elementary
School
I agree, and the people who park at the church and cross there instead of walking to the crosswalk is a problem. I know the principal goes out there to direct traffic, but it is a nightmare for those of us who live in the area and have to drop kids off. 0 14 Brentwood Elementary
School
The area is a big problem. I walked with my kids to school and drive them to school also.

The problems are drivers parking at the side of the street, parking at bike lanes and at the bus stop and leaving their vehicles unattended. Drivers not stopping, r 2

City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
15 Chestnut St and 3rd St This is a very busy intersection during school hours. My daughter was hit on her bicycle in the crosswalk. 0
16 Foothill Dr and E Country
Club Dr
In Brentwood red lights still mean you can go, this is a huge problem out here. Will not allow my kids to cross the street to walk to school, which doesn’t help with the traffic to the schools that only have one way in and one way out.
0 17 Larkspur Ln
Speeding on Larkspur Lane is out of control. Nearly every car that drives down this street is at least 10 miles over the speed limit, some people drive down this street at 60mph. The city sent out a survey for speed bumps and ‘did not receive enough re 0 18 Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing
West id Anderson Ln
This path is used by neighborhood families to get to Marsh Creek School but there isn’t a safe convenient way to cross Lone Tree Way. This problem will only worsen when the new elementary school construction is complete. We need a safe route for Rose 1 19 Lone Tree Way and Trail Xing
West id Anderson Ln
Trail is on both sides of Lone Tree, but wit a stop light only down the way without good path access to the light and too little protection for bikes and pedestrians from such a busy road. 2 20 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln 4 way crossing for students walking/biking to school unsafe from all corners 2 21 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
4 way crosswalk, only 2 ways protected by a crossing guard during school hours. Heavy traffic at all 4 corners. I have personally almost been hit while walking with my children on the unprotected side of the crosswalk and have witnessed children, walking 2 22 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
I see cars driving through crosswalks while children have not cleared the crosswalk completely, daily. Have almost been hit several times. Crossing guard only crosses two of the 4 crosswalks. The crosswalk linking the new development, Villagio, is unmanned 1 23 McClarren Rd and Griffith Ln
I feel like this intersection should have a light that once a cycle all cars stop and it lets all 4 crosswalks go at the same time. This would seriously cut down on who gets to go when. It so frustrating as a pedestrian but even more so as a driver. 3 24 Mendota St and Garin Pkwy Traffic and walking safety mostly during school release hours 0 25 Minnesota Ave and Sand
Creek Trail
The crossing during school hours needs better signs and lights to make the driver aware of the crossing 1
26 Minnesota Ave and Trail
Hi This road could use a cross walk or a speed bump as it a spot to cross to get to the trail on the other side. We use it often as does many people I see. Its a blind corner as well with the curve....
0 27 Minnesota Ave by Bristow
Middle School
Too many cars park along the school side of the street. Suv, trucks, and cars are in the red zone/yellow zone area preventing visibility for children in crosswalks and along the school sidewalks. Automobiles are trying pull out of the school driveways ha 0

City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025
No. Location Comment Up Votes
28 Oak St and Garin Pkwy Busy intersection with teens crossing without looking. Challenging for vehicles to get through intersection. 0
29 Oak St and Garin Pkwy
Worry about pedestrians first. It’s the drivers responsibility to be on alert for pedestrians.

People speed up and down Larkspur at speeds up to 60 mph. The city is well aware of this problem and has done nothing.
0 30 Oak St East of 4th St Speed bump only 0
31 O'Hara Ave and O'Hara Ln No crosswalk or sidewalk going towards lone tree way. 0 32 Rose Brook Terrace and Ron
Nunn Elementary School
driveway
At this location there is a walking gate to the private gated community, Apple Hill. Parents and students use this gate to enter/exit during drop off and pick up. During pick up after school, parents and students walk straight from this gate across the s 0 33 San Jose Ave and Wildcat Ln Speed bumps or other ways to reduce speed at this intersection. Too many speeders driving way above posted speed limit endangering pedestrians and bikers. 1 34 San Jose Ave between Mill
Creek Way and Wildcat Ln
Need speed bumps or other safety measures on San Jose Ave between Fairview and Hwy 4 underpass. Too many speeders rushing through this street, disregarding crosswalks and children walking to school.
1 35 Shady Willow Ln and Grant St
My daughter and I walk to and from school and we have almost been hit several times while crossing the street (we cross over Shady Willow on Grant). There is no crossing guard before or after school. Cars will turn right from the left hand turn lane due 0 36 Walnut Blvd
Homeless Encampment
History of crime and unlawful drug use near this encampment. Safety hazard for pedestrians walking near by.
1 37 Walnut Rd and Indiana Ave
The real problem is that there is no provided bus service. Every parent in Brentwood is driving their kids to school at the same time. It is a NIGHTMARE. It would be much simpler to have a few neighborhood meetup areas for school bus pick up. I would 0

City of Brentwood LRSP May 2025

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES FOR THE

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (i) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Complete Streets Policy
The City of Brentwood
adopted a Resolution
adopting a Complete Streets
Policy9
. The City of Brentwood
General Plan Circulation
Chapter includes Action CIR
1d encouraging complete
streets to support City
circulation goals10.

It is recommended that the City of
Brentwood continue implementing
Action CIR 1d to promote the
City’s Complete Streets Policy.

Traffic Impact Fees
The City levies traffic impact
fees outlined in the City’s
Cost Allocation Plan11.

Consider dedicating a percentage
of fees for traffic safety
improvements.

Safe Routes to School
Funding
The City does not have a SRTS
program. Contra Costa
Transportation Authority
(CCTA) has a Safe Routes to
School (SR2S) program12.

Seek grant funding opportunities
to create a SRTS plan for the
elementary/middle/high schools
in Brentwood.

Traffic Safety Education The City has a traffic safety
webpage with resources13.

Work with education and PD to
develop traffic safety education
programs in public areas and
schools, including bicycle/
pedestrian components. It is also
recommended that the City
provide opportunities for residents
to request traffic infrastructure
improvements with the Public
Works Department.
9 City of Brentwood, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING A “COMPLETE STREETS POLICY” FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD (“CITY”), Available at https://pubbrentwood.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=4282. 10 City of Brentwood, 2014, City of Brentwood General Plan, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3428/637806072129300000 11 City of Brentwood, 2025, Cost Allocation Plans, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/finance-information-systems/financialdocuments/cost-allocation-plans. 12 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2025, Safe Routes to School (SR2S), Available at https://ccta.net/projects/safe-routes-to-school-sr2s/ 13 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Safety Unit (TSU), Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/traffic-safety-unit-tsu.

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (ii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Program for Reviewing
Crash Activity
The City is responsive to
safety incidents and
coordinates with PD.

Set up formal program for
reviewing crash activity at a fixed
time interval; Update database for
future LRSP analyses & updates.

Crossroads Database
Updates
City of Brentwood PD
maintains an incident log.

Consider integrating the existing
PD crash database with the
crossroads system (or similar) to
ensure accurate geocoding of
crashes and recoding of crash
party and victim information.

City Enforcement on
Bicycle Rules
The City of Brentwood
Municipal Code Chapter

10.12 outlines areas in which
bicycling is prohibited14. The
City of Brentwood PD is also
actively engaging with the
public about bicycle safety15.

City transportation division should
engage with PD in enforcement
and education at strategic
locations based on collision
patterns, community events, and
safety priorities.

Sobriety / Seatbelt
Checks
The City conducts sobriety
checkpoints16.

City Traffic and Transportation
division should engage with PD in
planning and implementing
sobriety and & seatbelt checks
based on collision patterns,
community events, and safety
priorities.

Coordination between
City Law Enforcement
and Adjacent
Jurisdictions
The City has coordinated with
adjacent jurisdictions
regarding investigations of
elder and dependent adult
abuse. No concurrent
jurisdiction responsibility and
agreements are listed in the
Brentwood Police
Department Policy Manual17.

Consider coordination with
adjacent jurisdictions regarding
OTS grants for seatbelt/ DUI
checkpoints or other safety
initiatives.
14 City of Brentwood, 2024, Chapter 10.12: Bicycles, Skateboards, Roller Skates, Motorcycles and Toy Vehicles, Available at https://ecode360.com/43614653.
15 City of Brentwood, 2024, Brentwood PD Bike Rodeo, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/community-youth-outreach/brentwood-pd-bikerodeo#ad-image-0. 16 City of Brentwood Police Department, 2024, Brentwood Police Department DUI/Driver’s License Checkpoint Planned Social Media Post, Available at:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DDX58gyS02I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link. 17 Brentwood Police Department, 2025, Brentwood Police Department Policy Manual, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10472/638771994281330000

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (iii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Speed Surveys The City conducts speed
surveys18 19
Continue to implement regular
surveying as required by California
Vehicle Code; Review new
guidance from Assembly Bill 43.

Speed Limits
Speed Limits are set using
regularly conducted speed
surveys10 11
Continue to update as required by
California Vehicle Code; Exercise
context-based flexibility offered
under Assembly Bill 43.

Traffic Calming Policies
The City General Plan
includes Policy CIR 3-8
outlining traffic management
and calming techniques to
control speeds on residential
streets and collector streets
with residential
developments. The City does
have a Traffic Calming
Program to implement traffic
calming devices if initial
enforcement and engineering
do not resolve speeding
issues20.

Continue implementation of the
traffic calming program to reduce
aggressive driving on local roads.

Transit Vehicles
Accommodation of
Bicycles
Bikes are permitted on Tri
Delta Transit21
Continue to accommodate
bicycles on transit to promote
multi-modal trips.

Coordination of Transit
Providers and City Staff Yes.

Continue coordination; Work to
identify areas for improvements
particularly with first and last mile
connections.
18 City of Brentwood, 2025, Determining Speed Limits, Available at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/determining-speed-limits. 19 City of Brentwood, 2023, Speed Surveys by Street, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3290/638239722663470000. 20 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Calming, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/traffic-calming. 21 Tri Delta Transit, 2024, Bikes on Buses, Available at https://www.trideltatransit.com/fares-guides/appstools-to-ride/bikes-on-buses/.

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (iv) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plans
The City of Brentwood has a
Parks, Trails and Recreation
Master Plan22 and Parks,
Trails and Recreation Master
Plan Update23.

Develop a Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan. The plan can include
an assessment of existing
conditions, bike/ped crash data,
and potential projects. Consider
tracking bike and pedestrian
crashes, and implementing
identified projects with high need
and high feasibility.

General Plan Addresses
Multimodal Traffic Safety
The General Plan has multiple
policies pertaining to
multimodal transportation
included in the Circulation
Chapter2
.

Continue to implement
recommendations under General
Plan; Regularly assess progress
and areas for improvement; Avoid
projects that prioritize operational
improvements over multimodal
safety.

Inventory of Bicycle,
Pedestrian, Parking, and
other facilities
The City of Brentwood has a
Master Plan Trail Map which
provides an inventory of Class
I Bike Paths24. The City of
Brentwood also indicates that
they keep an inventory of
Class II Bike Lanes25. The City
Public Works Department
Street Maintenance Division
monitors sidewalk
maintenance26.

Continue to provide an inventory
of bicycle facilities but consider
providing a map classifying all
bicycle facilities (Class I, II, III, and
IV) citywide. Consider publishing
an inventory of pedestrian,
parking, and other facilities.

Consider performing annual
monitoring of bicycle, pedestrian,
parking, and other facilities.
22 City of Brentwood, 2002, Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, Available at:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8139/638321025674830000 23 City of Brentwood, Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan Update, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3768/637812746114400000 24 City of Brentwood, 2018, Master Plan Trail Map: Trail Connectivity and Circulation Network Diagram, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3762/637812055093170000. 25 City of Brentwood, 2025, Trails - Bike Trails/Lanes, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/parks-recreation/parks-and-trails/trails. 26 City of Brentwood, 2025, Street Maintenance, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/street-maintenance.

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (v) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Traffic Safety Audit
Program
The City has not published
evidence of a formal program,
however, the Traffic and
Transportation Section of the
Engineering Department
oversees responsibility of the
City of Brentwood’s streets,
highways, and transit
systems. The City’s Traffic
Safety Unit (TSU) within the
Police Department
investigates collisions and
participates in traffic
education programs27.

Implement a traffic safety audit
program to regularly review
collision data and respond to
community feedback regarding
traffic safety challenges.

Coordination between
Emergency Response
and City Transportation
Planning
The City Traffic Engineer
serves as the Transportation
Planning staff and is a
member of the Emergency
Management Team as
outlined in the City of
Brentwood Emergency
Operations Plan28 to ensure
proper emergency responses.

Continue engaging emergency
response in transportation
planning processes; Include
membership in project technical
advisory committees where
appropriate.

Coordination between
Local Health Agencies
and City Transportation
Planning
None posted online.

Consider engaging local health
agencies in transportation
planning processes; Include
membership in project technical
advisory committees where
appropriate.

Resident Feedback
Community members can
leave comments using
Brentwood Connect 24/7 to
issue a service request29.

Continue to seek out resident
feedback; Review comments for
trends and patterns that may
suggest opportunities for systemic
safety improvements.
27 City of Brentwood, 2025, Traffic Safety Unit (TSU), Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/traffic-safety-unit-tsu. 28 City of Brentwood, 2013, City of Brentwood Emergency Operations Plan, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8454/638368726787530000. 29 City of Brentwood, 2025, Brentwood Connect 24/7, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/service-request

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (vi) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Maintenance of Roadway
Surfaces
The City of Brentwood Public
Works Department Street
Maintenance Division
maintains local roadways 30.

Continue regular maintenance of
roadway surfaces; integrate safety
improvements such as bike lanes
and advanced stop bars into
roadway resurfacing projects.

Transportation Demand
Management
Policies/Programs
The City General Plan lists
Policy CIR I-16 pertaining to
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM).

Coordinate with the Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority to
review strategies to
implement/improve local TDM
programs.

Use of overlays, specific
plans, redevelopment
areas to encourage infill
development to reduce
VMT
City follows direction in SB
743 regarding VMT31.

Identify areas where infill
development will require safety
improvements; Coordinate with
County to ensure connectivity and
continuation of safety amenities
with other municipalities.

Regular Collection of
Traffic / Bicycle /
Pedestrian Volumes
On a case-by-case basis32.

Require bicycle and pedestrian
counts as part of routine traffic
counting policies for the City when
traffic impact studies or
environmental documents are
being developed.

Program for Installing
Wayfinding Signage Yes (On a project basis).

Utilize solar-powered digital
bulletin boards to advertise traffic
safety best practices or
wayfinding. Coordinate with
Contra Costa County to
implement branded wayfinding
program; Identify key City
destinations and access route.

Warrants for Traffic
Control Devices Uses CA MUTCD10warrants.

Continue to use CA MUTCD
warrants; Where frequent citizen
requests are not covered by
existing warrants, consider
developing local warrants to
facilitate decision making.
30 City of Brentwood, 2025, Street Maintenance, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/public-works/street-maintenance 31 City of Brentwood, 2024, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. I.2 10/22/2024 - Planning Commission request regarding standards and methodology for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Available at https://pubbrentwood.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=23472 32 City of Brentwood, 2024, Traffic Volumes, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/engineering/traffic-transportation/traffic-volumes

City of Brentwood LRSP Appendix C (vii) May 2025
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
School Zone Safety Enforced by PD33.

Continue enforcement of road
safety in school zones; Seek grant
funding opportunities for
additional personnel in school
zones.

Crosswalk Safety
Crossing guard program is
overseen by the City but
managed by a crossing guard
contractor company.

Increase the deployment of
crossing guards at critical
locations along school routes;
review the public comments
received regarding school safety.

Create a webpage on the City
website regarding the City’s
crossing guard program. Increase
enforcement of safe driving and
active transportation behaviors
near busy crosswalk locations;
Update pedestrian crossing design
standards in accordance with
latest best practices. Seek grant
funding for additional
enforcement near high pedestrian
activity locations.
33 City of Brentwood, 2025, School Resource Officer, Available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/police/community-youth-outreach/school-resource-officer

Attachment 2: Traffic Program Level Activities (Fiscal Years 24/25 & 25/26) Fiscal Year Guiding Policies Outcome Description
FY 24/25 General Plan Circulation Element Action 1h Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) On June 24, 2025, The City adopted its strategic, data‐driven Local Roadway Safety Plan to reduce serious injuries and fatalities on local streets. It identifies where and why crashes are happening and outlines prioritized, low‐cost and capital improvements to make roadways safer for everyone—drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities. on‐going General Plan Circulation Element Action 1g
Regional Coordination
with Caltrans and Contra
Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA)
1) City staff serves on the CCTA Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and provides advice on technical matters that may come before CCTA including the implementation of ITS measures. The TCC members also act as the primary technical liaison between the CCTA and the Regional Committees.
2) Staff also serves on the TransPlan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that advises the CCTA on technical, planning, and policy matters related to the countywide transportation plan (TransPlan). The committee brings together staff from local jurisdictions and agencies to review projects, funding priorities, and regional transportation strategies. Its purpose is to provide coordinated, technically informed input to support effective countywide transportation planning and investment.

FY 24/25 and
FY 25/26
General Plan Circulation
Element Action 1f
Inteligent Transportation
System (ITS)
Included in the CIP is the Countywide Smart Signals project that will develop, manage, and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives that improve the safety and efficiency of multimodal mobility, maximize highway and arterial system throughput, and improve operational efficiency, safety, and reduce environmental impact in Brentwood and throughout the county.

FY 24/25 and
FY 25/26
General Plan Circulation
Element Action 1e
Roadway Improvementsthrough CIP
Included in the CIP are two projects that consist of roadway improvements necessary to support buildout of the General Plan: 1) CIP #336‐31701 (Lone Tree Way Roadway Improvements, including widening of Lone Tree Way) and; 2) CIP #336‐ 31620 (Brentwood Boulevard Widening North ‐ Phase I).

FY 24/25 and
FY 25/26
General Plan Ciculation
Element Action 1c
Maintain Roadways and
improve signage &striping
The City of Brentwood’s 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes Project Number 336‐31704 (‘Pavement Management Program – 2025’), which consists of rehabilitation of existing pavement, sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb and gutter. The roadways and walkways are selected based on the City's pavement management system, cost effectiveness, safety, and constraints.

FY 24/25 General Plan Circulation Element Action 1i Secure Grant Funding for Improvements The City was awarded a $80,000 grant by the MTC in 2025 to install The City is proposing to upgrade the existing pedestrian push buttons at 11 signalized intersections with APS (Accessible Pedestrian Signals). These intersections are near schools and/or in downtown. Accessible Pedestrian Signal or APS is a device that provides auditory, tactile, or visual information to assist pedestrians with visual or hearing impairments in crossing the street safely. They essentially translate visual pedestrian information to other sensory formats, enabling people with disabilities to cross intersections safely and comfortably.

FY 25/26 General Plan Circulation Element Action 1i Secure Grant Funding for Improvements The City is applying for a FY 26/27 $231,180 grant by the MTC to install sidewalks, rehabilitate portions of Mokelumne Trail, construct improvements to close gaps between trails on Grant Street and Concord Avenue.

FY 25/26 General Plan Circulation Element Action 1i Secure Grant Funding for Improvements The City is applying for a $16,000 grant from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to purchase and install RRFBs at the intersection of Fairview and Regent Drive/Wolfe Road.

FY 25/26 General Plan Circulation Element Action 1i Secure Grant Funding for Improvements The City will also be purchasing new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) previously awarded by MTC. RRFBs will be installed at key locations in the City around schools.

FY 25/26 California Vehicle Code §22354–22358 Perform Speed Surveys Staff will be completing the Engineering & Traffic Study required for maintaining/updating Speed Limits on 19 roadway segments. on‐going Perform Community Outreach The City regularly meets with the City Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee that provides community input to the City regarding walking and bicycling conditions, plans, and projects. The committee helps identify safety concerns, accessibility needs, and opportunities to improve connectivity for all users.

FY 25/26 General Plan Circulation Goal 2 Proactively support and encourage travel by non‐ automobile modes The City regularly meets with the City Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee that provides community input to the City regarding walking and bicycling conditions, plans, and projects. The committee helps identify safety concerns, accessibility needs, and opportunities to improve connectivity for all users.

FY 25/26 General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2‐1
Recognition for
establishing andmaintaining a system ofinterconnected bicyclefacilities The City of Brentwood was recognized by the League of American Bicyclists as a Bicycle Friendly Community, receiving its bronze status. The Bicycle Friendly America program evaluates communities nationwide based on their efforts in five key areas: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Equity. This action highlights Brentwood's progress in supporting safe and accessible bicycling through thoughtful planning, infrastructure investments, and community engagement.

Attachment 3: Requests & Engineering Actions (Fiscal Years 24/25 & 25/26) Customer Request Description OutcomeResidents & CityCouncil Traffic Townhall On Thursday, January 16, 2025, at 6:00 PM, the City of Brentwood held a virtual town hall.

Community members, families, staff, and neighbors participated in the meeting to discuss traffic‐related concerns around Marsh Creek Elementary, Vineyards Academy, and the nearby neighborhoods.

Staff worked with Marsh Creek Elementary staff to improve circulations for vehicles existing onto Adams Lane.

Resident Stop Signs Resident described unsafe conditions when entering East Country Club Drive from Palm Drive and Palm Place. Staff determined an all‐way stop is not warranted at the intersection and improved sight distance by triming or removing foliage Resident Stop Signs Resident described difficulties in making left turn from Briones Valley Road onto Concord Avenue Staff determined an all‐way stop is not warranted at the intersection and improved sight distance by triming or removing foliage Resident Unsafe conditions Resident reported Concord Avenue is dangerous. Staff restriped Concord Avenue.

Resident Stop Signs Resident described difficulties in making left turn from John Muir Parkway onto Ventura Drive due to sight distance Staff added striping to Ventura Drive to provide defined lane delineation Resident Restricted Left Turns (time based) Resident reported issues with cut‐through traffic during morning drop‐off times, particularly on St. Regis Avenue. Resident asked the City to implement no left‐turn restrictions from San Jose Avenue onto St. Regis Avenue. Public Outreach and additional analysis would be required to measure the impacts to the traveling public, Police resources for enforcement, and impacts to the rest of the traffic circulation network Residents & SchoolDistrictRepresentatives
School Circulation
Improvements
Issues related to congestion in and around the intersection of American Avenue and Balfour Road during school pick‐up and drop‐off times for Adams Middle School and Heritage High School
Congestion near the two schools is largely due to their location and limited access. The City has prioritized safety by adjusting and regularly reviewing signal timing while pursuing a near‐term program with the County and Caltrans to improve flow on Balfour Road. Long‐term plans include extending American Avenue to add another access point, though this would not fully eliminate congestion. The City is coordinating with schools and partner agencies on operational improvements and will continue exploring solutions while keeping residents informed.

School Principal Kids Safety Vehicles are parking close to the crosswalk, ignoring red‐zone, creating potentially unsafe conditions for the kids to cross on Farmington Drive, in front of Mary Casey Elementary School Staff has secured grant funding to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) for the crosswalk.

SchoolRepresentatives Improve Circulation Improve access to Adams Middle School from American Avenue Staff re‐striped lanes to allow for dual lane entry into Adams Middle School from American Avenue.

Residents Stop Signs
The Trilogy community requested the City to install all‐way stop signs at the Triology Parkway/Solera St and Andalucia Lane/Sacred Mountain Lane intersections with Vineyard Parkway (2 locations).

Staff determined an all‐way stop is not warranted at the intersection, improved sight distance by triming or removing foliage, enhancing speed limits with additional signage and pavement markings, and radar speed feedback signs. Staff was also successful in securing funding for an addtional rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). City Council directed staff to install the all‐way stop signs at both intersections.

Residents Flashing Stop Signs Residents reported unsafe conditions when crossing Empire Avenue from Amber Lane.

The intersection qualifies for a traffic signal however there is no funding designated. With the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) adopted, staff will pursue grant funding to fund the traffic signal design and installation. Staff has improved sidewalk visibility through restriping and enhanced the stop bar visibility.

With no noticeable improvements, staff utilized grant funding to purchase and install the flashing stop signs.

Resident Accessibility Issue Resident reported difficulty for a person on a wheelchair to reach and push one of the pedestrian buttons at the intersection of Balfour Road and Brentwood Boulevard. Staff reviewed the issue and worked with the County to determine a solution that resulted in the installation of a button extender to provide access to the button for wheelchair users Resident Mirrors Resident reported difficulty in making turns from Livorno Street and Carrara Street, requested the City install mirrors to allow drivers to see around corners Staff reviewed the issue and is working on adding stop bars and striping to provide better guidance to drivers.

Resident Enhance Safety Crosswalk ‐ Dainty & Walnut Staff reviewed the request and enhanced the existing crosswalks with fresh ladder‐crosswalk striping, yield line markings and additional signage.

Resident Enhance Safety Crosswalk ‐ Cental & Berry Staff reviewed the request and enhanced the existing crosswalks with new rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), fresh ladder‐crosswalk striping , yield line markings and additional signage.

Staff Enhance Safety Crosswalk ‐ McClarren & Griffith Staff enhanced the existing school school crosswalk with new ladder crosswalk markings.

Staff Stop Bars Balfour Road and Sellers Avenue Staff enhanced the existing stop signs by adding reflective bars underneath the signs. This location was identified as high injury location for unsignalized locations in the LRSP Resident Speeding Lone Oak Rd Staff will be installing additional speed limit signs. Staff evaluated the criteria for installing speed humps and determined that the location does not warrant a speed hump.

Residents Speeding Valley Green Drive
Staff installed additional speed limit signs. Staff is planning to add center line striping in the future to provide visual delineation of lanes to drivers. Staff evaluated the criteria for installing speed humps and determined that the location does not warrant.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Speed Bump Placement Criteria
Speeding on residential streets is a concern that is often brought to the attention of the City.

Enforcement is a potential method to address this concern, but limitations on resources cannot guarantee constant presence. Speed bumps are often requested as a possible solution to speeding concerns. Staff has evaluated speed bump policies from numerous jurisdictions and compiled the following policy for the City of Brentwood.

The City will mail ballots to residents and post signs on the proposed street and cross streets.

Informational letters will be sent to residents on neighboring streets.

A. Research has indicated that speed bumps have the following advantages:
1) Vehicle speeds are decreased at the speed bump and at locations between properly spaced speed bumps
a. Once in place, speed and volume modifications tend to remain constant over time
b. Research has also indicated the following disadvantages:
2) Speed bumps will often divert traffic to other streets, especially where the traffic volume is comprised of “cut-thru or short cut” traffic. Consequently, an additional traffic problem or speed bump request is created.
3) Emergency response time will increase
B. Residents may object about the aesthetics regarding the speed bumps, markings and signing required
1) Possible increased noise levels
2) In order to achieve the desired effect, a number of speed bumps are required. A single speed hump will act only as a point speed control. 3) Driving or riding over speed bumps can cause pain or discomfort for persons with certain physical disabilities.

C. Roadways that meet all of the following criteria will be considered for the placement of speed bumps:
1) Lanes width (40 feet maximum)
2) Not a designated truck, bus (school or public) or emergency route 3) Street includes curb and gutter
4) Speed limit is 25 mph
5) Maximum grade is 5%
6) Minimum length of 750 feet
7) Traffic volume is between 500 and 2,000 vehicles per day AP- N Attachment 3: Page 280 of 298
AP- N
D. The factors included in the decision to place speed bumps shall include the following:
1) 85th percentile speed exceeds 32 mph
2) 50% of the vehicles exceed 25 mph
3) 67% of the residents on the street approve of the installation (1 vote per residence)
4) 75% of the property owners adjacent to the hump approve of the installation (1 vote/residence)
E. Other factors to be considered by the City include:
1) Speed related accident history
2) Diversion and possible impacts to neighboring residential streets 3) Approval by emergency service providers
4) Funding constraints
F. If speed bumps are approved they shall be placed in the following fashion:
1) Spacing of 500 feet (+/- 50 feet)
2) 200 feet from any intersection, horizontal or vertical curve 3) Speed bump signs and markings will be included

Location
Yes No
Yes No
2 Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
3 iii.  The 85th percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph
Criteria 2 is met
Five or more reported crashes in a 12‐month period that are susceptive to correction by a multi‐stop installation.
1 iv.  If criteria (iii) is met, does the minimum vehicular volume in criteria (i) and (ii)  satisfy 70 percent of the values required Criteria 1 is met
Multi‐way Stop Warrant is Met
Multi‐Way Stop Warrant Analysis
If neither criteria 1 nor criteria 2 is met, but criteria 1, 2i and 2ii are satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values
Minimum Volumes:

Criteria 3 is met
ii.  The combined vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor‐ street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour
i.  The vehicular volume entering the intersection for the major steet approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day Attachment 4:

Location
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
4 Optional Criteria:

Any Optional Criteria is met
a.  There is a need to control left‐turn conflicts
b.  The location requires controlling vehicle/pedestrian conflicts due to high pedestrian volumes
c.  There is not enough sight distance for conflicting vehicular movements
d.  The location is an intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operation characteristics where multi‐way stop control would improve traffic operation
Multi‐Way Stop Warrant Analysis (Cont'd)

Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
20 955 281 0 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.5% 73.3% 21.6% 0.0% 3.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 821 182 1 40 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

2.1% 76.9% 17.0% 0.1% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42 1,776 463 1 85 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

1.8% 74.9% 19.5% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
Valley Green Dr, Between Wildberry Dr and Shawnee Pl
Eastbound / Westbound
1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
04 Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Eastbound
Westbound
2,370
1,068
1,302
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Attachment 6: Valley Green Drive Traffic Analysis

Location: Valley Green Dr, Between Wildberry Dr and Shawnee Pl Count Direction: Eastbound / Westbound
Date Range: 1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
Site Code: 04
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 37 91 457 551 149 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.8% 7.0% 35.1% 42.3% 11.4% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26 115 341 417 149 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.4% 10.8% 31.9% 39.0% 14.0% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 63 206 798 968 298 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.7% 8.7% 33.7% 40.8% 12.6% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 20.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.4 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 166 12.7%

24.6 mph 10 mph Pace 15.4 - 25.4 mph 5 mph and over 17 1.3%

27.2 mph Percent in Pace 77.6 % 10 mph and over 1 0.1%
50th Percentile (Median) 20.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.2 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 169 15.8%

25.1 mph 10 mph Pace 16.1 - 26.1 mph 5 mph and over 20 1.9%

27.8 mph Percent in Pace 72.9 % 10 mph and over 1 0.1%
50th Percentile (Median) 20.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 20.3 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 335 14.1%

24.8 mph 10 mph Pace 16.0 - 26.0 mph 5 mph and over 37 1.6%

27.5 mph Percent in Pace 75.4 % 10 mph and over 2 0.1%
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Speeding Fact Speed Range (mph)
Direction Total
Eastbound 1,302
Westbound 1,068
Total 2,370
Eastbound Eastbound
Westbound Westbound
Allbound Allbound
Eastbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Westbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Allbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 286 of 298
Location: Valley Green Dr, Between Wildberry Dr and Shawnee Pl Date Range: 1/27/2026 - 2/2/2026
Site Code: 04
EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 3 8 3 1 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 3 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3:00 AM 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4:00 AM 2 2 4 1 5 6 1 4 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 5 5:00 AM 3 8 11 3 3 6 2 6 8 2 4 6 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 5 9 3 6 8 6:00 AM 5 2 7 6 10 16 3 9 12 4 6 10 3 2 5 2 0 2 4 6 10 5 7 12 7:00 AM 8 13 21 8 7 15 10 10 20 8 9 17 2 3 5 4 3 7 9 11 20 9 10 19 8:00 AM 14 12 26 19 13 32 14 12 26 17 11 28 6 3 9 4 10 14 17 12 29 16 12 28 9:00 AM 4 8 12 9 7 16 4 8 12 7 6 13 5 7 12 4 7 11 4 7 11 6 8 13 10:00 AM 5 3 8 11 6 17 7 4 11 9 9 18 9 13 22 13 8 21 6 8 14 8 4 12 11:00 AM 13 9 22 12 15 27 10 6 16 12 8 20 12 13 25 10 8 18 15 12 27 12 10 22 12:00 PM 17 9 26 11 13 24 19 12 31 9 11 20 8 9 17 19 10 29 11 9 20 16 11 27 1:00 PM 14 6 20 18 12 30 7 9 16 9 13 22 19 13 32 12 6 18 18 18 36 13 9 22 2:00 PM 18 23 41 24 14 38 16 17 33 16 18 34 22 11 33 12 7 19 20 14 34 19 18 37 3:00 PM 21 16 37 12 11 23 5 5 10 25 21 46 16 15 31 6 16 22 20 12 32 13 11 23 4:00 PM 12 9 21 20 13 33 4 1 5 18 14 32 12 10 22 11 9 20 13 11 24 12 8 20 5:00 PM 26 12 38 12 7 19 29 14 43 20 9 29 9 8 17 7 10 17 15 19 34 22 11 33 6:00 PM 13 5 18 12 7 19 12 8 20 12 16 28 7 5 12 10 7 17 10 12 22 12 7 19 7:00 PM 12 6 18 8 13 21 13 7 20 6 3 9 13 8 21 3 5 8 6 7 13 11 9 20 8:00 PM 10 4 14 7 6 13 6 4 10 5 3 8 13 14 27 11 0 11 9 3 12 8 5 12 9:00 PM 2 4 6 3 3 6 4 4 8 7 1 8 3 5 8 2 3 5 8 3 11 3 4 7 10:00 PM 3 0 3 6 2 8 5 1 6 4 4 8 4 1 5 0 1 1 5 1 6 5 1 6 11:00 PM 1 1 2 3 2 5 1 1 2 6 0 6 5 0 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 Total 205 152 357 207 170 377 173 144 317 202 169 371 177 145 322 141 115 256 197 173 370 195 155 350 Percent 57% 43% 55% 45% 55% 45% 54% 46% 55% 45% 55% 45% 53% 47% 56% 44% AM Peak 08:00 07:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 14 13 26 19 15 32 14 12 26 17 11 28 12 13 25 13 10 21 17 12 29 16 12 28 PM Peak 17:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 17:00 14:00 17:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 14:00 12:00 15:00 12:00 14:00 17:00 13:00 17:00 14:00 14:00 Vol. 26 23 41 24 14 38 29 17 43 25 21 46 22 15 33 19 16 29 20 19 36 22 18 37

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 1/27/2026 1/28/2026 1/29/2026 1/30/2026 1/31/2026 2/1/2026 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Mid-Week Average 2/2/2026 1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 287 of 298
Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
23 684 251 4 73 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2% 65.4% 24.0% 0.4% 7.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 553 235 4 59 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2.5% 62.9% 26.7% 0.5% 6.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45 1,237 486 8 132 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2.3% 64.3% 25.2% 0.4% 6.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
Lone Oak Rd, Between Grant St and Gracie Ln
Northbound / Southbound
1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
01 Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Northbound
Southbound
1,925
879
1,046
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Attachment 7: Lone Oak Road and Caper Drive Analysis

Location: Lone Oak Rd, Between Grant St and Gracie Ln
Count Direction: Northbound / Southbound
Date Range: 1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
Site Code: 01
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 46 75 198 343 274 91 16 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.4% 7.2% 18.9% 32.8% 26.2% 8.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24 54 146 304 260 72 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.7% 6.1% 16.6% 34.6% 29.6% 8.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70 129 344 647 534 163 28 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.6% 6.7% 17.9% 33.6% 27.7% 8.5% 1.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.7 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 384 36.7%

29.0 mph 10 mph Pace 19.9 - 29.9 mph 5 mph and over 110 10.5%

32.4 mph Percent in Pace 59.3 % 10 mph and over 19 1.8% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.4 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 351 39.9%

28.9 mph 10 mph Pace 19.5 - 29.5 mph 5 mph and over 91 10.4%

32.7 mph Percent in Pace 65.6 % 10 mph and over 19 2.2% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.5 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.0 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 735 38.2%

29.0 mph 10 mph Pace 19.0 - 29.0 mph 5 mph and over 201 10.4%

32.6 mph Percent in Pace 62.1 % 10 mph and over 38 2.0% 85th Percentile
95th Percentile
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Speeding Fact Speed Range (mph)
Direction Total
Northbound 1,046
Southbound 879
Total 1,925
Northbound Northbound
Southbound Southbound
Allbound Allbound
Northbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Southbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Allbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 289 of 298
Location: Lone Oak Rd, Between Grant St and Gracie Ln
Date Range: 1/27/2026 - 2/2/2026
Site Code: 01
NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 5:00 AM 3 6 9 1 2 3 0 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 5 6:00 AM 3 3 6 6 3 9 5 9 14 5 5 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 8 12 5 5 10 7:00 AM 6 6 12 11 9 20 10 10 20 7 7 14 5 7 12 0 1 1 11 10 21 9 8 17 8:00 AM 19 12 31 9 5 14 21 16 37 17 12 29 2 8 10 5 3 8 16 20 36 16 11 27 9:00 AM 5 8 13 8 12 20 8 10 18 8 4 12 13 10 23 9 2 11 13 13 26 7 10 17 10:00 AM 6 4 10 6 12 18 4 8 12 10 4 14 11 7 18 9 8 17 8 9 17 5 8 13 11:00 AM 9 8 17 13 8 21 7 6 13 12 10 22 12 12 24 4 9 13 8 11 19 10 7 17 12:00 PM 5 6 11 11 10 21 7 5 12 13 6 19 19 5 24 8 7 15 4 6 10 8 7 15 1:00 PM 12 3 15 16 11 27 8 10 18 9 7 16 10 8 18 14 7 21 10 9 19 12 8 20 2:00 PM 16 22 38 9 10 19 18 19 37 19 18 37 12 4 16 13 11 24 16 17 33 14 17 31 3:00 PM 23 13 36 18 11 29 18 12 30 24 18 42 10 12 22 5 8 13 22 13 35 20 12 32 4:00 PM 12 10 22 13 11 24 10 7 17 11 13 24 15 7 22 7 10 17 12 16 28 12 9 21 5:00 PM 13 8 21 12 12 24 9 7 16 15 10 25 6 7 13 9 7 16 13 4 17 11 9 20 6:00 PM 6 9 15 12 10 22 5 5 10 11 4 15 5 3 8 5 4 9 4 10 14 8 8 16 7:00 PM 4 3 7 7 4 11 4 5 9 6 7 13 3 5 8 5 3 8 4 3 7 5 4 9 8:00 PM 1 0 1 5 1 6 7 5 12 8 5 13 1 3 4 3 1 4 3 2 5 4 2 6 9:00 PM 4 2 6 3 1 4 3 2 5 4 3 7 2 3 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 5 10:00 PM 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 2 5 2 2 4 1 1 2 4 3 7 2 0 2 11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Total 152 123 275 166 134 300 150 141 291 184 136 320 133 104 237 104 87 191 157 154 311 156 133 289 Percent 55% 45% 55% 45% 52% 48% 58% 43% 56% 44% 54% 46% 50% 50% 54% 46% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 09:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 19 12 31 13 12 21 21 16 37 17 12 29 13 12 24 9 9 17 16 20 36 16 11 27 PM Peak 15:00 14:00 14:00 15:00 17:00 15:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 12:00 15:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 14:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 Vol. 23 22 38 18 12 29 18 19 37 24 18 42 19 12 24 14 11 24 22 17 35 20 17 32

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 1/27/2026 1/28/2026 1/29/2026 1/30/2026 1/31/2026 2/1/2026 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Mid-Week Average 2/2/2026 1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 290 of 298
Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
18 643 214 2 89 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.8% 66.1% 22.0% 0.2% 9.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 536 192 2 58 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.5% 66.0% 23.6% 0.2% 7.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38 1,179 406 4 147 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.1% 66.1% 22.7% 0.2% 8.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
Lone Oak Rd, Between Gracie Ln and Caper Dr
Northbound / Southbound
1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
02 Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Northbound
Southbound
1,785
812
973
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 291 of 298
Location: Lone Oak Rd, Between Gracie Ln and Caper Dr
Count Direction: Northbound / Southbound
Date Range: 1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
Site Code: 02
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 16 62 144 276 309 141 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6% 6.4% 14.8% 28.4% 31.8% 14.5% 2.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13 50 152 281 237 69 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6% 6.2% 18.7% 34.6% 29.2% 8.5% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29 112 296 557 546 210 27 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6% 6.3% 16.6% 31.2% 30.6% 11.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24.3 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 475 48.8%

30.5 mph 10 mph Pace 21.5 - 31.5 mph 5 mph and over 166 17.1%

33.4 mph Percent in Pace 60.8 % 10 mph and over 25 2.6% 50th Percentile (Median) 23.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.2 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 316 38.9%

28.9 mph 10 mph Pace 19.9 - 29.9 mph 5 mph and over 79 9.7%

31.4 mph Percent in Pace 64.2 % 10 mph and over 10 1.2% 50th Percentile (Median) 24.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 23.8 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 791 44.3%

29.8 mph 10 mph Pace 20.0 - 30.0 mph 5 mph and over 245 13.7%

32.7 mph Percent in Pace 61.7 % 10 mph and over 35 2.0% 85th Percentile
95th Percentile
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Speeding Fact Speed Range (mph)
Direction Total
Northbound 973
Southbound 812
Total 1,785
Northbound Northbound
Southbound Southbound
Allbound Allbound
Northbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Southbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Allbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 292 of 298
Location: Lone Oak Rd, Between Gracie Ln and Caper Dr
Date Range: 1/27/2026 - 2/2/2026
Site Code: 02
NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 6 4 10 5 1 6 4 2 6 3 2 5 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 4 7 5 2 7 6:00 AM 2 4 6 3 3 6 4 2 6 3 3 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 8 3 3 6 7:00 AM 4 4 8 6 5 11 4 7 11 6 5 11 5 7 12 0 2 2 7 10 17 5 5 10 8:00 AM 18 10 28 13 8 21 10 9 19 17 10 27 4 6 10 6 3 9 16 11 27 14 9 23 9:00 AM 6 10 16 9 13 22 5 8 13 9 5 14 14 11 25 4 2 6 10 12 22 7 10 17 10:00 AM 7 6 13 5 8 13 4 6 10 6 8 14 5 11 16 7 8 15 6 9 15 5 7 12 11:00 AM 8 12 20 16 9 25 6 5 11 12 7 19 13 8 21 4 2 6 8 11 19 10 9 19 12:00 PM 12 7 19 9 14 23 10 10 20 16 4 20 16 4 20 13 8 21 3 5 8 10 10 21 1:00 PM 8 3 11 19 12 31 9 12 21 11 11 22 9 4 13 12 2 14 10 6 16 12 9 21 2:00 PM 13 17 30 6 11 17 14 15 29 16 14 30 9 4 13 10 9 19 13 22 35 11 14 25 3:00 PM 19 13 32 15 14 29 18 18 36 16 18 34 10 6 16 7 9 16 18 12 30 17 15 32 4:00 PM 14 9 23 15 13 28 11 6 17 12 10 22 8 7 15 7 4 11 10 13 23 13 9 23 5:00 PM 12 9 21 11 11 22 12 4 16 9 5 14 6 7 13 9 9 18 12 7 19 12 8 20 6:00 PM 9 6 15 14 9 23 8 7 15 11 4 15 5 3 8 1 5 6 6 11 17 10 7 18 7:00 PM 3 3 6 7 3 10 4 7 11 4 4 8 3 4 7 6 3 9 4 1 5 5 4 9 8:00 PM 4 1 5 4 1 5 7 3 10 6 2 8 0 1 1 0 2 2 4 3 7 5 2 7 9:00 PM 3 0 3 3 1 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 3 3 6 2 3 5 2 1 3 3 1 4 10:00 PM 2 0 2 3 1 4 3 2 5 6 4 10 3 2 5 1 1 2 3 2 5 3 1 4 11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Total 151 118 269 166 139 305 136 126 262 167 117 284 116 90 206 95 78 173 142 144 286 151 128 279 Percent 56% 44% 54% 46% 52% 48% 59% 41% 56% 44% 55% 45% 50% 50% 54% 46% AM Peak 08:00 11:00 08:00 11:00 09:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 09:00 09:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 Vol. 18 12 28 16 13 25 10 9 19 17 10 27 14 11 25 7 8 15 16 12 27 14 10 23 PM Peak 15:00 14:00 15:00 13:00 12:00 13:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 12:00 15:00 15:00 12:00 16:00 12:00 12:00 14:00 12:00 15:00 14:00 14:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 Vol. 19 17 32 19 14 31 18 18 36 16 18 34 16 7 20 13 9 21 18 22 35 17 15 32

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 1/27/2026 1/28/2026 1/29/2026 1/30/2026 1/31/2026 2/1/2026 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Mid-Week Average 2/2/2026 1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 293 of 298
Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
42 1,166 337 3 132 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.5% 69.3% 20.0% 0.2% 7.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39 1,007 329 4 127 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.6% 66.8% 21.8% 0.3% 8.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 81 2,173 666 7 259 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.5% 68.1% 20.9% 0.2% 8.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
Caper Dr, Between Ceylon Dr and Savory Dr
Eastbound / Westbound
1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
03 Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Eastbound
Westbound
3,189
1,507
1,682
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 294 of 298
Location: Caper Dr, Between Ceylon Dr and Savory Dr
Count Direction: Eastbound / Westbound
Date Range: 1/27/2026 to 2/2/2026
Site Code: 03
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 19 28 111 431 620 374 86 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1% 1.7% 6.6% 25.6% 36.9% 22.2% 5.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 35 191 473 437 275 69 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3% 2.3% 12.7% 31.4% 29.0% 18.2% 4.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 39 63 302 904 1,057 649 155 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2% 2.0% 9.5% 28.3% 33.1% 20.4% 4.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 27.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.8 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 1,093 65.0%

32.3 mph 10 mph Pace 22.4 - 32.4 mph 5 mph and over 473 28.1%

35.4 mph Percent in Pace 66.1 % 10 mph and over 99 5.9% 50th Percentile (Median) 25.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 25.4 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 788 52.3%

31.5 mph 10 mph Pace 20.0 - 30.0 mph 5 mph and over 351 23.3%

35.0 mph Percent in Pace 60.3 % 10 mph and over 76 5.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 26.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 26.2 mph Exceeding Speed Limit 1,881 59.0%

32.0 mph 10 mph Pace 22.0 - 32.0 mph 5 mph and over 824 25.8%

35.2 mph Percent in Pace 62.3 % 10 mph and over 175 5.5% 85th Percentile
95th Percentile
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Speeding Fact Speed Range (mph)
Direction Total
Eastbound 1,682
Westbound 1,507
Total 3,189
Eastbound Eastbound
Westbound Westbound
Allbound Allbound
Eastbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Westbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
Allbound (Post Speed Limit: 25 mph)
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 295 of 298
Location: Caper Dr, Between Ceylon Dr and Savory Dr
Date Range: 1/27/2026 - 2/2/2026
Site Code: 03
EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12:00 AM 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 5:00 AM 5 4 9 5 4 9 4 5 9 4 5 9 0 2 2 2 2 4 3 7 10 5 4 9 6:00 AM 5 7 12 3 8 11 5 6 11 6 6 12 1 2 3 0 0 0 9 8 17 4 7 11 7:00 AM 8 13 21 13 18 31 7 14 21 12 16 28 4 7 11 0 4 4 13 17 30 9 15 24 8:00 AM 25 22 47 20 20 40 18 17 35 19 20 39 5 9 14 5 8 13 21 21 42 21 20 41 9:00 AM 11 19 30 16 20 36 5 16 21 12 9 21 18 17 35 7 11 18 14 19 33 11 18 29 10:00 AM 11 13 24 13 18 31 11 17 28 10 13 23 10 16 26 14 17 31 16 13 29 12 16 28 11:00 AM 13 14 27 22 11 33 17 15 32 25 23 48 19 19 38 12 10 22 11 20 31 17 13 31 12:00 PM 19 8 27 15 23 38 19 18 37 30 10 40 16 8 24 19 13 32 20 15 35 18 16 34 1:00 PM 17 16 33 37 18 55 15 12 27 13 24 37 22 6 28 16 8 24 15 14 29 23 15 38 2:00 PM 19 28 47 15 18 33 22 26 48 26 23 49 16 12 28 16 15 31 21 28 49 19 24 43 3:00 PM 31 25 56 16 14 30 32 24 56 29 30 59 18 13 31 18 19 37 33 27 60 26 21 47 4:00 PM 23 14 37 26 20 46 10 10 20 25 15 40 24 18 42 17 15 32 22 20 42 20 15 34 5:00 PM 19 17 36 18 16 34 19 10 29 14 13 27 17 16 33 15 10 25 18 13 31 19 14 33 6:00 PM 17 5 22 19 16 35 16 14 30 20 8 28 11 7 18 6 7 13 22 14 36 17 12 29 7:00 PM 7 3 10 15 8 23 12 8 20 9 4 13 9 8 17 9 6 15 12 7 19 11 6 18 8:00 PM 5 6 11 6 1 7 9 6 15 8 2 10 5 6 11 2 3 5 4 5 9 7 4 11 9:00 PM 5 1 6 8 6 14 6 2 8 2 1 3 8 6 14 3 4 7 2 1 3 6 3 9 10:00 PM 4 1 5 4 1 5 3 2 5 10 5 15 6 5 11 1 1 2 3 4 7 4 1 5 11:00 PM 1 3 4 2 0 2 1 0 1 7 2 9 4 3 7 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 2 Total 247 220 467 275 243 518 232 223 455 282 229 511 215 180 395 167 157 324 264 255 519 251 229 480 Percent 53% 47% 53% 47% 51% 49% 55% 45% 54% 46% 52% 48% 51% 49% 52% 48% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 25 22 47 22 20 40 18 17 35 25 23 48 19 19 38 14 17 31 21 21 42 21 20 41 PM Peak 15:00 14:00 15:00 13:00 12:00 13:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 12:00 15:00 15:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 12:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 Vol. 31 28 56 37 23 55 32 26 56 30 30 59 24 18 42 19 19 37 33 28 60 26 24 47

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 1/27/2026 1/28/2026 1/29/2026 1/30/2026 1/31/2026 2/1/2026 Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Mid-Week Average 2/2/2026 1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected] Page 296 of 298
Grant Gracie Yes No 289 29 23.5 No
Gracie Caper Yes No 279 29.8 24.2 No
Caper Ceylon Savory Yes Yes 480 32 26.4 No
Valley Green Wildberry Shawnee Yes Yes 350 24.8 20.5 No Lone Oak
Speed Hump Evaluation (Speed, Volume, Geometry)
Average
Daily
Traffic
Street
Width
Segment From To Criteria
Met
Curb &
Gutter
Attachment 8
(Min 40
ft.)
(500-2000
Veh/Day)
85th
Percentile
(>32 mph)
50th
Percentile
(>25 mph)
Speed

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J.1
02/24/2026
SUBJECT: Consider a Request from Council Member Mendoza Regarding Autonomous Vehicles
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
STAFF: G. Harold Duffey, City Manager
Amanda McVey, City Clerk

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and discuss Council Member Mendoza’s request to gauge the City Council’s interest in establishing a policy regarding autonomous vehicles before staff advances related work.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item at this time.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Rule 4.4 (b)(2) of City Council Policy 110-1, this item has been placed on the agenda so that the City Council may discuss it and provide further direction to staff. Per Section 4.4, City Council discussion is limited to whether staff time and City resources should be spent on the item and the time period for scheduling.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable

PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENT(S)
None