Measure J Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist with Attachments CY 2022 & 2023 - Reduced.pdf — Pleasant Hill City Council, March 17, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Annual Collisions by Severity ....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Collision Hot Spots ........................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3: Top 10 Intersections and Corridors ............................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Collision mode share by Severity ................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5: Collisions by Type ........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor – Street Corridors ........................................................... 12 Figure 7: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor - At Intersections ............................................................ 13 Figure 8: Pedestrian Related Collisions ...................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: Bicycle Related Collisions............................................................................................................ 15 Figure 10: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions near Schools ........................................................................ 16 Figure 11: Collisions in Dark ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 12: DUI Related Collisions ............................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13: Unsafe Speed Collisions ............................................................................................................. 19

Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 2 I. Introduction
The City of Pleasant Hill is committed to improving transportation safety of all its roadway network users. This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads to create a prioritized list of issues, risks, actions, and improvements that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Pleasant Hills’s local road network. The LRSP has been prepared in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The LRSP has been developed in collaboration with engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency service strategies.

What Is An LRSP?
Adoption of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is seen as being consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Vision Zero framework. The process of preparing a LRSP creates a framework to identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements.

Specifically, AMG understands the LRSP shall address a Safe Systems Approach and Equity in the entirety of its approach. The LRSP shall be consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) Vision Zero framework/method and the Countywide Vision Zero Policy and Implementation Guide for Local Agencies and will follow a process that is tailored to the community’s needs and issues.

The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires all local agencies including the City of Pleasant Hill to have an adopted LRSP to be eligible to pursue certain current and future Federal, State, and Regional grant funding opportunities.

Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 3 Safe System Approach
The Safe System Framework strategy requires the following:

I. Anticipating Human Error
Separating Users in Space – separate pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Increasing Attentiveness and Awareness
¾ Increasing Visibility
o “Daylighting” intersections
¾ Increasing Attentiveness
o warn drivers of the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists II. Accommodating Human Injury Tolerance
Reduce Speeds – Changes to roadway designs, traffic calming treatments that reduce speeds
Reduce Impact Forces – Increase crash survivability by reducing the impact forces to include intersection design
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 4 II. Community Engagement
Pleasant Hill City staff engaged stakeholders to participate in a Safe System Approach to address concerns about safety for all modes of transportation. Listed below are stakeholders. Traffic Safety Commission
City Police Department
Contra Costa County Fire District
Mt. Diablo Unified School District
County Connection
511 Contra Costa
Chamber of Commerce
Tourism Improvement District
Downtown Property Owners
City staff hosted a stakeholder meeting on
August 9, 2022. Attendees included
representatives of Traffic Safety Commission,
City Police Department, County Connection,
Chamber of Commerce, and Tourism
Improvement District members. A
presentation was made which explained the
purpose and objectives of the LRSP, reviewed
initial data and preliminary findings. Feedback
from the stakeholder meeting are as follows.

1. Observed pedestrian collisions are
alarming. How often pedestrians were at
fault? Permissive left turns on Contra Costa
Boulevard could be a reason. Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI) could be a
potential countermeasure.

2. Diablo Valley College is an area of concern
for collisions involving pedestrians.

3. Need to identify time-of-day of collisions
involving pedestrian to better understand
the extent school access safety issues.

4. Contra Costa Boulevard and Monument
Boulevard are high collision incident
corridors.

5. Speed is the main reason for collisions on
high collision corridors. Cars often run the
red lights. Redlight cameras could be a
possible solution but it comes with many
legal and administrative challenges.

6. Transit stops on Golf Club Road and on
Viking Drive have very high ridership.

Transit stops are at mid-block and
pedestrians often do not cross at the
nearest controlled safe crossings to reach
their destinations. This creates unsafe
crossing conditions.

7. The LRSP does not meet the requirements
of an Action Plan as defined by the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

City staff received additional stakeholder
feedback by email as follows.

1. Are protected pedestrian lead times long
enough on Contra Costa Boulevard,
Monument Blvd, etc.?

2. The intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard
and Doris Drive needs a traffic signal light,
even though it is in close proximity to two
adjacent signals. Doris Drive serves the
Grocery Outlet shopping center and the
densely populated Gregory Gardens
neighborhood. It is too busy of an
intersection to leave unsignalized. The
crosswalk flashing beacons are obscured by
cars in the turn lane. The left turn out of
Doris Drive is a safety hazard.

Without no signal, the median should
include a pedestrian refuge area. All left
turn movements should be blocked by a
raised median on Contra Costa Boulevard.

3. Installation of flashing crosswalk beacons
should be prioritized by danger level, rather
than by a desire to “complete the pattern”
of uniformly installing beacons at all Canal
Trail crossings. Case in point. The 4-lane
crosswalk on Morello Avenue at Viking
Drive should be given a higher priority than
other locations with shorter, 2-lane
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 5 crossings. The Morello Avenue crossing
serves students attending Valhalla
Elementary School, Valley View Middle
School, College Park High School, and
Diablo Valley College.

4. The City seems to design new roadway
infrastructure without regards for bikes. On
Pleasant Hill Road south of Boyd Road, the
new raised median caused motorists to
swerve away (and into the bike lane) to
avoid a collision. It was a missed
opportunity to create protected bike lanes
on Santa Barbara leading into Pleasant Hill
Middle School, library, new homes, and
park. At the Canal Trail connection on
Taylor Boulevard (south side), bikes and
pedestrians were intentionally prohibited
from using the utility pathway (much lower
stress route) to reach the Mercury Way
intersection to the west. As it is,
pedestrians have to walk along Taylor
Boulevard (south side) or choose to disobey
signs and risk injury climbing the rock
barrier to access the natural attractor of the
pathway that’s set above/apart from Taylor
Boulevard. (I see this a lot.) Bicyclists who
stay on Taylor Boulevard (south side)
sidewalk are forced to ride the wrong way,
and to pick up the Canal Trail on the other
side of the Mercury Way intersection.

Developers should have been made to
provide a public trail connection as part of
permitting or mitigation for the project.

All new projects should be examined from
the bike/ped safety and comfort
perspective before design gets underway.

5. Pleasant Hill school zone speed limits
should be lowered to 20 MPH, like City of
Walnut Creek has done.

6. Lowering speed limits leading up to the
city’s most dangerous intersections should
be examined. The city should actively join
the speed camera lobby for statewide
approval.

A second stakeholder meeting was held on
August 24, 2022. Attendees included
representatives of Traffic Safety Commission,
City Police Department, Contra Costa County
Fire District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District,
511 Contra Costa, and Tourism Improvement
District members. Feedback from the
stakeholder meeting are as follows.

1. What are times when school aged children
are involved in collisions? Would like to
conduct school safety outreach. Will reach
out and coordinate with the school district.

School outreach and training is on going.

2. DUI related collisions are quite high on
Pleasant Hill Road. Should look into
conducting periodic DUI station
checkpoints.

3. With new state law, the City should evaluate
feasibility of implementing 20 mph school
zone speed limit.

4. In addition to spot treatment of high crash
intersections, LRSP should also look into
systemwide treatments.

5. Consider using of flashing No Right-Turn
signs at signals where there is heavy
pedestrian activity. It is used at several
locations in Walnut Creek and is effective.

Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 6 III. Safety Analysis
This chapter summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for the City of Pleasant Hill which will inform project prioritization and countermeasures.

Collision Data Source
Collision data for the five-year period from
January 1, 2017, through December 30, 2021,
was collected from SWITRS. The SWITRS data is
collected and maintained by the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) and contains all the
crashes that were reported to CHP from local
government agencies. SWITRS data was
geocoded using Google Maps to identify
geographic coordinates. The geocoded data was
spatially referenced and mapped in QGIS.

Summary
Collision Trends
This section summarizes the five-year collision
history from 2017 through 2021. Approximately
1,044 collisions were reported between January
1, 2017 through December 30, 2021. Of these, a
total of 39 collisions resulted in a fatality or
severe injury. Annual collisions by severity are
shown in Figure 1.

All = Number of All Collisions
F = Number of Collisions with a Fatality.

SI = Number of Collisions with a Severe Injury
Figure 1: Annual Collisions by Severity
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
All 264 278 195 132 175
F+SI 9 11 4 7 8
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Collisions
Annual Collisions (2017-2021)
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 7 Hot Spot Analysis
The density of collision
occurrences is mapped
in Figure 2 to represent
locations with high
collision occurrences.

Figure 2: Collision Hot
Spots
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 8 Top Collision Locations and Corridors
The key collision locations and corridors (top 10) identified though the hotspot analysis are shown in Figure 3.

ŹContra Costa Blvd and Chilpancingo Pkwy
ŹContra Costa Blvd & Golf Club Rd
ŹContra Costa Blvd & Woodworth Ln
ŹContra Costa Blvd & Gregory Ln
ŹContra Costa Blvd & Taylor Blvd
ŹMonument Blvd & Buskirk Ave-Ramona Dr
ŹMonument Blvd & Contra Costa Blvd
ŹTaylor Blvd & Peasant Hill Rd
ŹTaylor Blvd & Grayson Rd
ŹContra Costa Blvd & Doris Dr
Top 10 Intersections
ŹContra Costa Boulevard
ŹMonument Boulevard
ŹTaylor Boulevard
ŹGregory Lane
ŹPleasant Hill Road
ŹBuskirk Avenue
ŹChilpancingo Parkway
ŹGolf Club Road
ŹViking Drive
ŹCleveland Road
Top 10 Corridors
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 9 O= Top 10 Intersections
= Top 10 Corridors
Figure 3: Top 10 Intersections and Corridors
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 10 Collisions by Mode
Fatality and Severe injury collisions by mode of transportation are shown in Figure 4. Crash data are broken down by mode of transportation. For collisions involving a bicyclist or a pedestrian, the percent of collisions resulting in either a fatality or severe injury is 11% and 13% of all collisions in their respective categories. In contrast, for collisions involving vehicles only, the percent of collisions resulting in either a fatality of severe injury is only 3% of all collision in its own category. This underscores how much more vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians are compared to motorists who are afforded protection by being inside a vehicle.

All = Number of All Collisions
F = Number of Collisions with a Fatality.

SI = Number of Collisions with a Severe Injury
Figure 4: Collision mode share by Severity
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 11 Collisions by Type
Figure 5 shows the common types of collisions during the five-year analysis period. Rear-end (27%), broadside (21%) and sideswipe (20%) are the most common type of collisions in Pleasant Hill.

Figure 5: Collisions by Type
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 12 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrates collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) on key collision corridors and intersections. The PCFs are the driving action which best describes the primary or main cause of the collision. As shown below, the most common PCFs are unsafe speed, improper turning, unsafe lane change, and traffic signal and sign violations.

Figure 6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor – Street Corridors Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 13 Figure 7: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor - At Intersections Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
Pedestrian and bicycle collisions are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Bicyclists and pedestrians are most vulnerable in collisions, and whose safety require special attention and considerations.

Pedestrian Collisions
Figure 8: Pedestrian Related Collisions
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 15 Bicycle Collisions
Figure 9: Bicycle Related Collisions
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 16 Figure 10: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions near Schools Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 17 Collisions In Dark
At night, sight visibility may be limited and motorists may not be able to react in time to a potential roadway hazard to avoid a collision. Collisions that occur in the dark are shown in Figure 11. Street lighting and illumination should be improved for some of these deficient locations.

Figure 11: Collisions in Dark
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 18 DUI Involved Collisions
Collisions involving driving under the influence (DUI) remain a concern citywide as shown in Figure 12.

Non-engineering interventions will be needed as the primary means to address challenges associated with this collision profile, but they may be supplemented with appropriate engineering countermeasures which can make roadway designs more forgiving in general.

Figure 12: DUI Related Collisions
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 19 Collisions - Unsafe Speed
Unsafe speeds are most common on major arterials such as Contra Costa Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard and Monument Boulevard especially during the evening commute periods when these arterials serve both local traffic as well as cut-through traffic. These collisions are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Unsafe Speed Collisions
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 20 IV. Emphasis Areas and Strategies
The emphasis areas describe priority issues where there are opportunities to improve based on crash data from the past five (5) years (2017 to 2021). The development of the emphasis areas are based on the crash data, stakeholder input, and citizen complaints.

Citywide safety emphasis areas are as follows:

Emphasis area 1: Pedestrian improvements
Emphasis area 2: Bicycle improvements
Emphasis Area 3: Traffic Signal Improvements
Emphasis area 4: Safety lighting improvements
Emphasis Area 5: Intersection Geometric Design
Emphasis Area 6: Signs and Markings

Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 21 V. Collision Profiles and Countermeasure
Toolbox
To address the safety concerns identified above, this Plan leveraged data-driven collision analyses with proven countermeasures. Countermeasures can be engineering-based physical improvements, many of which have low-cost or quick-build versions, but they can also be non-engineering strategies in areas such as education, enforcement, and outreach.

Countermeasures identified in this Plan are based primarily on Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)1 as well as other proven effective countermeasures. The engineering countermeasures contained in LRSM include a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), if applicable, to indicate their relative effectiveness. In contrast to the infrastructure-focused engineering countermeasures, non-engineering countermeasures do not have an associated CRF. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the 9th edition of Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices in 2017, and this document serves as a guide for practitioners in selecting effective evidence-based countermeasures for traffic safety problems such as DUI and drug impaired driving, speeding and speed management, and pedestrian and bicycle safety.

It is important to note that the effectiveness of any countermeasure varies immensely depending on its implementation, level of community support, and adequate funding.

Top 5 Collision Corridors
Some countermeasures from the LRSM identified for five of the major corridors as shown below.

Contra Costa Boulevard
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor.

DUI involved collisions is high at 14%.

Potential Countermeasures
(R22) Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting
(R26) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
(R32PB) Complete bike lane gaps as feasible
(NS23PB) Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)
Traffic signal improvements including Dilemma Zone
Add Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) phase as
appropriate
DUI awareness and enforcement programs
1 Local Roadway Safety, April 2020
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 22 Monument Boulevard
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor.

Right-of-way violations is high at 9%.

DUI involved collisions is high at 8%.

Potential Countermeasures
(R01) Add segment lighting
(R22) Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting
(R26) Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
(R32PB) Complete bike lane gaps as feasible
Traffic signal improvements including Dilemma
Zone
Taylor Boulevard
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor.

Right-of-way violations is high at 14%.

DUI involved collisions is high at 12%.

Potential Countermeasures
(R22) Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting
(R26) Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
(R33PB) Install separated bike lanes
Traffic signal improvements including Dilemma
Zone
Pleasant Hill Road
Unsafe lane change is the main Primary Collision
Factor. Unsafe speed is high at 18%.

DUI involved collisions is high at 19%.

Potential Countermeasures
(R22) Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting
(R26) Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
(R34PB) Install sidewalk/pathway
(NS08) Install RRFB
Traffic signal improvements including Dilemma
Zone
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 23 Gregory Lane
Right-of-way violations at 28% is the main
Primary Collision Factor.

Speeding is high at 24%
Potential Countermeasures
(R22) Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting
(R26) Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
(R32PB) Install bike lanes
(NS08) Install RRFB
Traffic signal improvements including
Dilemma Zone
Top Collision Intersections
Some countermeasures from the LRSM identified for several top collision related intersections as shown below.

Contra Costa Blvd & Chilpancingo Pkwy/Concord Avenue
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor (24%).

DUI is at 11%.

Potential Countermeasures
(S01) Add intersection lighting
(S02) Improve signal hardware
(S03) Improve signal timing
(S08) Convert signal to mast arm
(S09) Install Raised Pavement Markers and
Striping
(S17PB) Install Pedestrian Countdown
Signal Heads
(S21PB) Modify signal phasing to
implement an LPI
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 24 Monument Blvd & Buskirk Ave
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor (34%).

Improper turning and fail to yield-auto right-of-way is at 9%.

Potential Countermeasures
(S02) Improve signal hardware
(S03) Improve signal timing
(S10) Install Flashing Beacons as Advanced Warning
(S21PB) Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI
Contra Costa Blvd & Golf Club Rd
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor (54%).

DUI is at 9%. Highest collision time seemed to occur around noon and again from 4 PM to 6 PM.

Potential Countermeasures
(S02) Improve signal hardware
(S03) Improve signal timing
(S21PB) Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI
Contra Costa Blvd & Gregory Lane
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor (32%).

Failure to yield right-of-way is at 21%.

Potential Countermeasures
x (S01) Add intersection lighting
x (S02) Improve signal hardware
x (S03) Improve signal timing
x (S09) Install Raised Pavement Markers and Striping
x (S17PB) Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
x (S21PB) Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 25 Contra Costa Blvd & Woodsworth Lane
Speeding is the main Primary Collision Factor (40%).

DUI is at 16%. Highest collision time seemed to begin from 3 PM and ends at 6 PM.

Potential Countermeasures
x (S01) Add intersection lighting
x (S02) Improve signal hardware
x (S03) Improve signal timing
x (S09) Install Raised Pavement Markers and Striping
x (S10) Install Flashing Beacons as Advanced Warning
x (S17PB) Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
x (S21PB) Modify signal phasing to implement an LPI
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 26 VI. Funding, Implementation &
Evaluation Strategies
This chapter identifies funding and implementation considerations that will be important to City staff as they pursue funding opportunities to implement the recommended safety projects.

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
There are variety of regional, state, and federal
sources to fund safety improvements.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Implementation of the LRSP is a vital step in
the process where identified strategies and
projects are executed. Successful
implementation requires sustained and
coordinated support from project stakeholders,
elected officials, safety partners and City staff.

ŹEstablish a committee to oversee
the implementation of the LRSP
ŹCoordination and partnership with
stakeholders throughout the life of
LRSP
ŹPursue funding opportunities and
submit competitive projects
ŹContinued communication with
stakeholders and community
members
ŹPrioritized list of countermeasures
and projects with near-term, midterm, and long-term
implementation goals
Implementation Strategies
ŹCongestion Mitigation And Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement
Program
ŹHighway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
ŹActive Transportation Program
(ATP)
ŹSB-1 Transportation Funding
ŹMTC One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Program
ŹCaltrans Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grant Program
ŹCalifornia Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS)
ŹAffordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC)
ŹCommunity Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program
Funding Opportunities
Pleasant Hill Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Final Report | Page 27 Evaluation Strategies
This LRSP Final Report is a living document
that is recommended to be updated every
three to five years to utilize the latest data and
safety trends. Collision data can be used to
evaluate the success of the plan. It is
recommended that City staff update this LRSP
Final Report in consultation with the project
stakeholders and safety partners, and monitor
the implementation of the plan and strategies
in each emphasis area.
.

ŹUpdate the Plan periodically (every
three or five years)
ŹIdentify Target Metrics and Measure
Goal Performance in Priority Areas
ŹContinue Engagement with
Stakeholders and Safety Partners
Evaluation Strategies

ATTACHMENT (E)

4. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES
Sonder Creek Academy – 100 Ellinwood Way

SONDER CREEK ACADEMY,

PLEASANT HILL

TRAFFIC STUDY
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

Sonder Creek Academy
860 Bancroft Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Prepared By:
1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
Monterey Park, CA 91754
(323) 260-4703
JC11114
v2c
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Study Area....................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Study Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Intersection Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.5 Queuing Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Existing Roadway System ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................................... 16

2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 19

3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 21

3.3 School Operations and Circulation ................................................................................................................... 21

3.4 Project Trip Assignment ......................................................................................................................................... 22

4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 26

4.1 Existing With Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................... 26

5.0 NEAR-TERM WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 28

5.1 Ambient Growth ....................................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Related Projects ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

5.3 Near-term Without Project Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................... 32

6.0 NEAR-TERM WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 34

6.1 Near-term With Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................................. 34

7.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 36

7.1 Growth Rate ................................................................................................................................................................ 36

7.2 Cumulative Without Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 36

7.3 Cumulative With Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................ 39

8.0 PROJECT LOCAL CIRCULATION IMPACTS .......................................................................................................... 41

8.1 Determination of Trafic Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 41

8.2 Traffic Impacts – Existing With Project Conditions ..................................................................................... 41

8.3 Traffic Impacts – Near-term/Opening With-Project Conditions ........................................................... 43

8.4 Traffic Impacts – Cumulative With-Project Conditions ............................................................................. 44

8.5 Study Intersection Queuing and Traffic Controls ........................................................................................ 45

9.0 PICK-UP/DROP-OFF AND PARKING .................................................................................................................... 49

9.1 Pick-up/Drop-off Operations .............................................................................................................................. 49

9.2 Parking .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

10.0 CEQA VMT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 52

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 – Project Site Plan and circulation ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1.2 – Study Intersection Locations ................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.1 – Existing Intersection Geometry (Page 1 of 2) ................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.1 – Existing Intersection Geometry (Page 2 of 2) ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 2.2 – Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.3 – Existing - Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 18 Figure 3.1 – Project Trip Distribution Percentages ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.2 – Project Trip Assignment – Weekday AM/PM Peak, PROJECT Opening .............................................. 24 Figure 3.3 – Project Trip Assignment – Weekday AM/PM Peak, Future project ...................................................... 25 Figure 4.1 – Existing With Project – Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ 27 Figure 5.1 – Locations of Related Projects .............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 5.2 – Near-Term/Opening – Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ 33 Figure 6.1 – Near-Term/Opening with Project – Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 35 Figure 7.1 – Cumulative Without Project – Weekday AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................. 38 Figure 7.2 – Cumulative with-Project – Weekday AM/PM Peak, Future Project ...................................................... 40

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 – Study Intersections ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 1.2 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ........................................................................................ 9 Table 1.3 – Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................ 10 Table 2.1 – Existing Transit Service Summary ........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 2.2 – Intersection Performance- Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 19 Table 3.2 – Project Opening Year Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 20 Table 3.3 – Project Future Year Trip Generation ................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.2 – Geographic Trip Distribution Percentages ....................................................................................................... 21 Table 4.1 – Intersection Performance- Existing With Project Conditions.................................................................... 26 Table 5.1 – Related Projects Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 29 Table 5.2 – Intersection Performance- Near-term Without Project Conditions ....................................................... 32 Table 6.1 – Intersection Performance- Near-term With Project Conditions .............................................................. 34 Table 7.1 – Intersection Performance- Cumulative Without Project Conditions ..................................................... 37 Table 7.2 – Intersection Performance- Cumulative With Project Conditions ............................................................ 39 Table 8.1 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts- Existing Conditions .................................................... 42 Table 8.2 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts- Near-Term Conditions .............................................. 43 Table 8.3 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts – Cumulative Conditions ........................................... 44 Table 8.4 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts – Cumulative Conditions with Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 48

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix B – Existing Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix C – Existing With Project Level of Service Worksheets Appendix D – Area/Cumulative Projects Volumes
Appendix E – Near-Term/Opening Year Level of Service Worksheets Appendix F – Near-Term/Opening Year with-Project Level of Service Worksheets Appendix G – Future Buildout Year Level of Service Worksheets Appendix H – Future Buildout Year with-Project Level of Service Worksheets Appendix I – Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix J – All-Way Stop Sign Control Warrant Volume Summaries Appendix K – Intersection Queuing Analysis Worksheets
Appendix L – Student ZIP Code Distribution Map used for VMT Analysis Appendix M – Project Scoping Document
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Project
The project site is located at the former site of John F. Kennedy University at 100 Ellinwood Way in the City of Pleasant Hill, now mostly vacant, located to the northeast of the intersection of Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way. The project proposes to accommodate a maximum enrollment of 200 students at the time of project opening, with a later potential expansion to up to 470 students. Previous project plans envisioned a school of up to 750 students, but based on project planning and initial traffic impact analysis efforts, the school student number was reduced to a maximum buildout of 470.

The proposed use is relocating Sonder Creek Academy from its current locations, with 100 students in total, into the existing building at the project site and expanding up to 200 students in its opening year.

The school will evaluate and, as needed, implement staggered start times, a carpooling program, and a potential busing program. All of these measures will be evaluated by the project operator and based on implementation there is a potential for further trip reduction results. Project impacts have not been identified, however, that would justify specific mitigation measures at either project opening or the planned future buildout of the project.

Project access will be provided via two driveways on Ellinwood Way, and vehicle flows on the site will be divided into two:
x Half of arriving vehicles will be directed to enter at the south end of the site via the southern driveway (at the Longbrook Way/Ellinwood Way intersection), and exit at the northern driveway (at the Ellinwood Way/Treehaven Court intersection). x The other half of arriving vehicles will be directed to enter at the northern driveway (Ellinwood Way/Treehaven Court) and exit via the southern driveway (Longbrook Way/Ellinwood Way).

A staffing plan for the management of pick-up/drop-off operations has been defined. The northern site driveway will also provide access to staff/faculty and visitors.

Local Circulation Analysis Methodology
The study area includes seven signalized study intersections and seven unsignalized intersections.

Per the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (June 2020), traffic impacts associated with the development of the proposed project were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The analysis scenarios included within this study and, under which project impacts were identified, are listed below:
x Existing (2021) conditions;
x Existing (2021) With Project conditions
x Opening year (2022) conditions
x Opening year (2022) with-Project conditions
x Cumulative (2027) conditions
x Cumulative (2027) with-Project conditions
Executive Summary
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-2 Future conditions were defined for the near-term opening year by annual ambient growth and trip generation from area planned (cumulative) projects for the year 2022. A longer-term growth rate was determined via the use of a model from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the future project buildout year of 2027.

Based on the General Plan and County traffic study guidelines, signalized study intersections that are forecast to degrade to LOS E or F were considered to be cumulatively deficient intersections. The significant impact standard applied in this traffic study was an increase in delay of five seconds due to the project at intersections operating or forecast to operate at LOS F. The level of service of the study intersections was also qualified by additional analysis including signal warrant analysis, all-way stop sign warrant analysis, and queuing analysis for specific turning movements.

Trip Generation
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th edition rates for land use 530, Private School K-8, were used to determine project trip generation.

The project trip generation for the project initial opening enrollment of 200 students is a total of 822 daily trips, including 202 weekday AM peak hour trips (113 inbound trips and 89 outbound trips) and 120 weekday PM peak hour trips (56 inbound trips and 64 outbound trips).

The future buildout of the school will be at a capacity of 470 students. The project trip generation at buildout would be would be a total of 1308 daily trips, including 475 weekday AM peak hour trips (266 inbound trips and 209 outbound trips) and 282 weekday PM peak hour trips (133 inbound trips and 149 outbound trips).

Former land use credits for the JFK college campus operations were included in the trip generation analysis as well, reducing the total trips analyzed.

Level of Service and Circulation Impacts
Under an existing conditions analysis, based on existing intersection lane and control configurations, all study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, with one intersection operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour.

With the addition of project traffic under the existing conditions scenario, study intersection LOS values would not worsen.

With the addition of area annual ambient traffic growth to the near-term/opening year of 2022, LOS values would not worsen.

With the addition of project traffic to the opening year conditions, LOS values would not worsen.

In the future/cumulative scenario for the year 2027, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions, except for the following:

Executive Summary
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-3 x Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard - LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours x Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza - LOS E during the AM peak hour x Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane - LOS E during the PM peak hour.

At most of the study intersections that are operating at a deficient LOS value, the increase in delay resulting from the project does not exceed 5 seconds. However, the project would create a deficient LOS impact at Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way (north site driveway), with worsening of operations from LOS B to LOS F and worsening of average vehicle delay of more than five seconds due to the project. The project would therefore cause a substantial local circulation impact under cumulative conditions with 470- student school operations.

It is recommended that all-way stop-sign control be implemented at the intersection of Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way as a mitigation measure, after which the intersection would operate at LOS B.

CEQA Impacts and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The average anticipated trip length for parent drivers is 6.5 miles, with a round trip value of 13 miles. The residential VMT mitigation target for the City of Pleasant Hill is 14.7 miles and the per service population VMT mitigation target is 25.5.

The 6.5-mile average trip distance for travel to and from the school is not considered a significant VMT impact, based on the residential trip and total service population VMT standards of the City. The impacts of student and parent travel to and from the proposed school site is assumed therefore to be less than significant.

The VMT per employee for the local transportation analysis zone (TAZ) of the project site, according to the County travel demand model is 12.4. The mitigation target is 13.2, and therefore the per-employee VMT is not expected to exceed this value and the VMT impacts of employee trips to and from the proposed school are assumed to be less than significant.

School Site Operations and Vehicle Queuing
A queuing analysis was conducted for the proposed school pick-up/drop-off operations, based on trip generation, the planned on-site pick-up/drop-off operations, random arrivals calculations, and an expected processing time per vehicle.

Project access will be provided via two driveways on Ellinwood Way. Half of the pick-up and drop-off vehicles will enter at the south end of the site via the southern driveway (at the Longbrook Way/Ellinwood Way intersection), and exit at the northern driveway (at the Ellinwood Way/Treehaven Court intersection), while the other half will enter at the northern driveway and exit at the south.

No queuing issues were identified in the review of estimated operations with pick-up/drop-off activities at project opening with 200 students or at the project buildout of 470 students. A total of five loading/unloading spaces across the pick-up/drop-off areas will be needed by the project buildout period.

The school will evaluate ways to improve efficiency of operations to reduce the length of the peak pickup/drop-off vehicle queue if necessary, as the school is expanded fully to 470 students, including staggered schedules for sets of grades, a parent vehicle carpooling program, the promotion of increased use of transit, Executive Summary
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-4 or other vehicle trip reducing measures.

Warrant Analysis and Traffic Controls
All-Way Stop Control
These three study intersections were examined for potential stop-sign control changes, applying all-way stop warrant standards:
x Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
x Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
x Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive
None of these three intersections meet minimum volume thresholds under peak-hour warrant analysis.

All-way stop control is recommended, however, for the Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way intersection, to improve overall vehicle delay and operations with the project in the buildout period. This intersection meets an additional criterion provided by the MUTCD, as it has approaches of multiple neighborhood streets of the same design and operating characteristics where the installation of an all-way stop improves traffic operations.

Queuing
The main signalized access to the local project neighborhood from the south is Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive. In the outbound direction, the main egress point is Contra Costa Boulevard and Ellinwood Drive, due to westbound left-turn movements being prohibited at Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive.

From the north, both Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive and Contra Costa Boulevard and Ellinwood Drive would be used equally for ingress and egress. At Contra Costa Boulevard and Ellinwood Drive, the increase in the westbound left-turn queue during the higher traffic AM peak hour would be approximately two vehicles at the project opening, and an additional four vehicles at project buildout.

The queuing delay at this approach would increase by approximately five seconds per vehicle, between the existing conditions period and the buildout of the project. This would not result in a significant circulation impact at this location, nor are the conditions envisioned to cause sizeable shifts in traffic to the unsignalized intersection to the south at Massolo Drive.

In addition, the left-turn lane pocket extends into the travel lane to the east of the approach and the roadway travel lanes transition directly into the left-turn and right-turn striped pockets. Therefore, the incremental queue length increase are not considered to be substantial circulation impacts. The only traffic movement potentially blocked by the increased queue due to project traffic would be the eastbound left-turn movement into the western driveway of a residential development on the north side of Ellinwood Drive. This driveway is located 200 feet east of the intersection. It is recommended that a “keep clear” area at this driveway intersection be striped to ensure that the queue does not block this movement. Driveway intersections further to the east, including a second access point to the same residential development, would not be blocked by this increased queue.

Executive Summary
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-5 At the Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza intersection, the right-turn pocket for this movement is 200 feet in length in the AM peak hour, back from the intersection crosswalk and limit line. The project incremental impact ranges from a six-foot increase to a 17-foot increase in the future scenario, which at the high range is slightly less than one vehicle. This small incremental increase related to the proposed project is considered to be a less than substantial impact based on the calculations, and these increases would not create any operational impacts to this vehicle movement or the adjacent vehicle movements.

Traffic Signal Warrant
A traffic signal warrant was conducted at the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive.

This intersection does not meet the applied Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) traffic signal warrant standards for peak-hour volumes, based on the scenario volumes and number of approach lanes.

The MUTCD, Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System is also applicable to the operations and peak-hour analysis conducted for these locations. This warrant, however, would not be met as the intersection is less than 1,000 feet from another signalized intersection, Contra Costa Boulevard and Ellinwood Drive.

Project Parking
As defined by the City Municipal Code, all schools require one parking space for each employee, plus one space for 100 square feet of classroom space. The number of employees would be 40 at school buildout.

The required parking per Code therefore is 143 spaces for the classroom area and 40 spaces for employees, or a total of 183 spaces.

The project site would provide 151 off-street parking spaces, and therefore the project site would not meet Code requirements with the planned supply. The project applicant is asking for an exception to the ordinance and related parking requirements. The Municipal Code parking requirements are above and beyond what is needed for daily drop off and pick up and school operations throughout the day. The school will not have any driving-age students.

The parking demand will be generated by the following, based on operations at the existing school sites and operating plans for the proposed site:
x 40 daily staff members - 5 administrative staff and 35 staff/faculty members. x 19 to 57 parent vehicles parking to walk students to building and/or meet with teachers. To allow for overlapping inbound and outbound vehicles, adding a 50 percent increases to these numbers results in a range of 29 to 86 vehicles.

The total typical parking demand will therefore range from 69 (40+29) to 126 (40+86) vehicles, lower than the provided supply of 151 spaces. Parking demand overflow from the site would therefore not occur under typical daily school operations.

Up to four school special events per year would be scheduled for a 400-person capacity. Event times are planned to be within the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. timeframe. The parking demand during events is estimated at 266 vehicles. The subject property has a perpetual parking easement with the property Executive Summary
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE ES-6 immediately to the north, to supplement the site parking supply by 200 spaces during PM peak times (after 4:00 PM) as needed, providing a total of 351 parking spaces for special events.

The project parking supply would therefore be adequate for both daily operations and school special events, and parking deficits are not identified to occur that would create demand overflow from the site onto neighboring on-street parking.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION & ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at the former site of John F. Kennedy University at 100 Ellinwood Way in the City of Pleasant Hill, now mostly vacant, located to the northeast of the intersection of Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way. The project proposes to accommodate a maximum enrollment of 200 students at the time of project opening, with a later potential expansion to up to 470 students. At 200 students, the school will have a staff of 25 adults. In the future at 470-student level, the staffing will be 40 adults.

Previous project plans envisioned a school of up to 750 students, but based on project planning and initial traffic impact analysis efforts, the school student number was reduced to a maximum buildout of 470.

The analyzed project trip generation totals and impact potential on the area circulation network is conservative, as the school will also offer before-school and after-school activities. Students will primarily arrive in the 8:00 AM hour, but approximately 10 percent of the students will arrive in earlier hours. In the evening, up to 25 percent of the students will be involved in aftercare programs.

Project access will be provided via two driveways on Ellinwood Way. Those driving to school will be separated into two groups, based on sets of grade levels or other division:
x Half of the incoming vehicles will be directed to enter at the south end of the site via the southern driveway (at the Longbrook Way/Ellinwood Way intersection) and exit at the northern driveway (at the Ellinwood Way/Treehaven Court intersection).
x The other half will be directed to enter at the northern driveway and exit through the southern driveway.

The northern driveway will also provide access to staff/faculty and visitors. A third driveway of the former JFK University campus, further to the north at Stonebridge Way, is not planned to be used by the proposed project. Circulation on the project site is described in further detail in Section 3 of this report.

The proposed school staffing plan for pick-up and drop-off operations include valet positions to assist with vehicle loading and unloading, reinforcement of walking paths, and internal roadway crossings from the parking lot and secondary loading location. The staffing and assignments are discussed in more detail below.

AM Drop Off Period
The youngest grades will enter the site from the north driveway and drop off at the protected island adjacent to the school building. This is planned to be the route for grades JK thru 3, but this will be adjusted over time as needed to ensure a 50/50 split. The youngest grades will always be assigned this Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 2 route, so that crossing of the on-site roadway is not necessary.

The higher grades of students will enter from the south driveway and will drop off in the parking lot next to the basketball courts. This is planned to be the route for grades 4 thru 8, but this will also be adjusted over time as needed.

The roles of the assigned staff for drop-off operations will be as follows:

A. Open car doors for exiting passengers and ensure passengers are safely on the sidewalk path headed towards the main entrance way.

B. Open car doors for exiting passengers and ensure that students are safely in the middle median, out of traffic.

C. Walks students from the parking lot drop off at location B across the street and towards the main building.

D. Ensure that students are getting into vehicles safely; help stop traffic so that the staff person at location C can help students across as needed.

PM Pick-Up Period
The staff assignments and roles are the same for the pick-up period, but in a reverse order:

A. Help students into cars; use walkie-talkie to alert front desk of students needing to come out B. Help students into cars; use walkie-talkie to alert front desk of students needing to come out C. Help students across the street into parking lot loading zone D. Help stop traffic so that C can help students across as needed The proposed project site plan and the planned circulation and staffing during pick-up/drop-off times is provided on Figure 1.1.

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 3 FIGURE 1.1 – PROJECT SITE PLAN AND CIRCULATION

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 4

1.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA
The project study area was defined in coordination with City engineering staff through the preparation of a scoping agreement. The agreement was revised based on comments received and was resubmitted to the City. This document is provided in Appendix M of this report.

The study area includes seven signalized study intersections and seven unsignalized intersections. The list of intersections is listed in Table 1.1. The study locations and major project trip distribution percentages are depicted on Figure 1.2.

1.3 STUDY SCENARIOS
Per the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (June 2020), traffic impacts associated with the development of the proposed project were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The analysis scenarios included within this study and, under which project impacts were identified, are listed below:
x Existing (2021) conditions;
x Existing (2021) With Project conditions;
x Opening year (2022) conditions;
x Opening year (2022) with-Project condition;
x Cumulative (2027) conditions;
x Cumulative (2027) with-Project conditions

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 5 Table 1.1 – Study Intersections
# Intersection
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way (Driveway #1)
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court (Driveway #2)
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way (Driveway #3)
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth Drive/Doray Drive
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth Lane
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza
Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 6 FIGURE 1.2 – STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 7

1.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
An analysis of existing and future weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections was performed through the use of established traffic engineering techniques. This section outlines the methodologies used to develop traffic conditions for each analysis scenario and techniques used to determine delay and level-of-service (LOS) conditions at the study intersections.

Existing (2021) Conditions
Intersection turning movement counts were collected at the nine signalized study intersections on August 24, 2021. Turning movement counts were collected on a “typical” weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) during the AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) peak periods for the peak hour of the project type (school). For two intersections, Contra Costa Blvd. & Taylor Blvd. and Contra Costa Blvd. & Monument Blvd., historic counts from 2019 were used, and were factored up at a growth rate of 1% per year for use in the traffic study.

Information pertaining to intersection characteristics, such as traffic control devices, approach lane configurations, and on-street parking restrictions, were identified at the study locations. The existing traffic controls, lane configurations, and LOS conditions at the study intersections are summarized later in Section 2 of this report.

Project Trip Generation and Distribution
The project trip generation was calculated based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 11th edition, applying rates from Land Use 530, Private School K8, which was considered the closest matching category to the proposed school.

The planned project opening capacity of 200 students was applied to the existing with-project and nearterm/opening year with-project analysis. The future buildout of the school is planned for 470 students by the year 2027.

The project trip generation was then multiplied by the project trip distribution percentages at the study intersections to determine the project volumes added to turning movements at the study locations. The project trip distribution percentages were derived based on a review of enrolled student home addresses provided by the client.

The methodology used to determine the project trip generation and trip distribution percentages is described in greater detail in Section 3 of this report.

Existing (2021) With Project Conditions
Project-related traffic was added to the intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections to determine the existing with-project traffic volumes. These volumes were then used to analyze intersection operations for this scenario, which are described in Section 4 of this report.

Near-term (2022) Without Project Conditions
The proposed project is anticipated to be completed and operational by the end of 2022. Therefore, this year was selected as the analysis year for the Near-term conditions. In order to account for traffic growth in the study area, an ambient/background traffic growth rate of one percent per year was applied to the Existing traffic volumes. In addition, traffic from related/area projects, including both approved and pending projects, was incorporated into the Near-term baseline traffic volumes. The ambient growth rate, related project traffic volumes, and study intersection LOS conditions for the Near-term (2022) Without Project conditions are discussed in further detail in Section 5 of this report.

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 8 Near-term (2022) With Project Conditions
The traffic volumes for the near-term/opening with-project conditions were determined by adding project volumes to the near-term without-project traffic volumes. The LOS conditions for this scenario at the study intersections were determined using these volumes and are discussed in Section 6 of this report.

Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions
A final analysis was done for future conditions at full buildout of cumulative projects in the year 2027. A growth rate was determined via the use of a model from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Cumulative project volumes were also retained in this scenario. The LOS conditions for this scenario at study intersections were determined using these volumes and are discussed in Section 7 of this report.

Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions
The traffic volumes for the cumulative with-project scenario conditions were determined by adding the project volumes to the cumulative without-project traffic volumes. The LOS conditions for this scenario at the study intersections were determined using these volumes and are discussed in Section 7 of this report.

Intersection Level of Service Definition
For analysis of LOS at both signalized and unsignalized intersections, the City has designated the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology as the preferred method for identifying LOS conditions at study intersections. The HCM methodology determines intersection LOS based on operational delay. For signalized intersections, the operational delay corresponds to the overall delay for all movements at the intersection. For unsignalized two-way stop intersections, the operational delay corresponds to the delay for the stop-controlled movements. The term LOS describes the quality of traffic flow. LOS values of A through C indicate excellent-to-decent traffic flow conditions. LOS D corresponds with fair conditions that may experience substantial delay during portions of the peak hours, but without excessive backups. LOS E represents poor conditions, with volumes at or near the capacity of the intersection and long lines of vehicles that may have to wait through several signal cycles. LOS F is characteristic of failure (i.e., the intersection is overloaded, vehicular movements may be restricted or prevented, and delays and queue lengths become increasingly longer).

The LOS criteria for the HCM methodology are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3 for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively. These criteria were applied to the study intersections for this analysis.

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 9 Table 1.2 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of
Service Definition Average Control Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) A EXCELLENT. No Vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. 0.0 – 10.0
B
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully
utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.

10.1 – 20.0
C
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through
more than one red light; backups may develop behind
turning vehicles.

20.1 – 35.0
D
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the
rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to
permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups.

35.1 – 55.0
E
POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of
waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

55.1 – 80.0
F
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross
streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with
continuously increasing queue lengths.

80.1 or more
SOURCES: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 10 Table 1.3 – Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of
Service Definition Average Approach Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) A EXCELLENT. No Vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. 0.0 – 10.0
B
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully
utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.

10.1 – 15.0
C
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through
more than one red light; backups may develop behind
turning vehicles.

15.1 – 25.0
D
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the
rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to
permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups.

25.1 – 35.0
E
POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of
waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.

35.1 – 50.0
F
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross
streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with
continuously increasing queue lengths.

50.1 or more
SOURCES: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition) Deficient Intersection Impacts
The City General Plan establishes a recommended LOS standard of LOS D or better. For this analysis, signalized study intersections that are forecast to degrade to LOS E or F were considered to be cumulatively deficient intersections.

As defined in the County of Contra Costa traffic study guidelines, impacts should focus on locations of deficient LOS. The significant impact standard applied in this traffic study was an increase in delay of five seconds due to the project at intersections operating or forecast to operate at LOS F.

The level of service of the study intersections was also qualified by additional analysis as follows:
x A signal warrant analysis: Intersection 9, based on project-related queuing change at Intersection 8
x All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis: Intersections 1, 2, 6 x Queuing Analysis: Intersection 8, westbound left; Intersection 14, westbound right

Introduction
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 11

1.5 QUEUING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
A queuing analysis was conducted for the proposed school pick-up/drop-off operations, based on the analyzed project trip generation, random arrivals, and an expected processing time per vehicle. The expected typical peak queuing length for the two on-site pick-up/drop-off vehicle flows was compared to the queuing area that will be provided on site. The ability to keep typical vehicle queues from overflowing onto adjacent public roadways was reviewed based on the queuing analysis and the site roadway layout.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 12

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
The key roadways within the study area are described below. The discussion presented is limited to specific roadways that traverse the study intersections and serve the project site. Figure 2.1 illustrates the existing traffic controls and approach lane geometries at the study intersections.

Contra Costa Boulevard is designated as an arterial in the City’s General Plan. It provides north-south access through the east side of the City. In the project vicinity, the roadway provides two lanes of travel in each direction, with three lanes of travel in each direction while approaching Taylor Boulevard and from Gregory Lane to Monument Boulevard. The roadway has a bike lane on both sides of the street from Taylor Boulevard to Doray Drive/Beth Drive, and a northbound bike lane only from Woodsworth Lane to Doray Drive/Beth Drive. A raised median is present in the center of the roadway and parking is generally not permitted on either side of the street. The roadway has a speed limit of 35 MPH in the project vicinity.

Taylor Boulevard/Sunvalley Boulevard is designated as an expressway in the City’s General Plan. West of Contra Costa Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard provides two lanes of travel and bike lanes on both sides of the street. East of Contra Costa Boulevard, Sunvalley Boulevard provides three lanes of travel in each direction.

On both sides of the intersection, a raised median is present and parking is not permitted. In the project vicinity, this roadway has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH west of Contra Costa Boulevard and 35 mph east of Contra Costa Boulevard.

Ellinwood Drive is designated as an arterial in the City’s General Plan. The roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction, and includes a raised median and bike lanes. Parking is not permitted on either side of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Longbrook Way is a local street. The roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction and permits parking on the west side of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Ellinwood Way is a local street. The roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction and does not permit parking on either side of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Massolo Drive is a local street. The roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction and parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Doray Drive/Beth Drive is designated as a Local Street in the City’s General Plan. In the project vicinity, the roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction, with parking permitted on both sides of the street.

The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Vivian Drive is designated as a Local Street in the City’s General Plan. In the project vicinity, the roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction, with parking permitted on both sides of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Woodsworth Lane is a local street. In the project vicinity, the roadway provides one lane of travel in each direction, with parking permitted on both sides of the street and bike lanes provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 25 MPH.

Existing Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 13 Gregory Lane is designated as an arterial in the City’s General Plan. In the project vicinity, the roadway provides two lanes of travel in each direction and includes a raised median. Parking is not permitted on either side of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 35 MPH in the project vicinity.

Monument Boulevard is designated as an arterial in the City’s General Plan. In the project vicinity, it provides three lanes of travel in each direction, and includes a raised median. Parking is not permitted on either side of the street. The speed limit along this roadway is 30 MPH in the project vicinity.

4 1
2 3
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
U U
U U
U U
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 24 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 25 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 26 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive N
LEGEND
Project Site
1 Study Intersection
1 Driveway
S Signalized Intersection
U Unsignalized Intersection
Stop Sign
FIGURE 2.1- EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY (Page 2 of 2) Existing Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY S
FIGURE 2.1- EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY (Page 2 of 2) Existing Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

S S U S

S S S S
LEGEND
S Signalized Intersection
U Unsignalized Intersection
Stop Sign
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Contra Costa Blvd. & Taylor Blvd. Contra Costa Blvd. & Ellinwood Drive Contra Costa Blvd. & Massolo Dr. Contra Costa Blvd. & Beth Dr./Doray Dr.

Contra Costa Blvd. & Vivian Dr. Contra Costa Blvd. & Woodsworth Ln. Contra Costa Blvd. & Gregory Ln. Contra Costa Blvd. & Monument Blvd./Crescent Plaza
Existing Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 16

2.2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Table 2.1 provides a description of the public transit lines that operate within the study area. These bus lines are those that within a “reasonable walking distance” (approximately one-half mile) of the project site. The existing transit service serving the study area is depicted on Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1 – Existing Transit Service Summary

2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Vehicle turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections on August 24, 2021 from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic turn movement volumes are illustrated on Figure 2.3.

The weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were selected as the highest consecutive four 15- minute count volumes from the morning and afternoon/evening count periods studied.

The traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Agency Line From To Via Peak-Hour
Frequency
County
Connection 9 Diablo Valley College
Walnut Creek
BART Contra Costa Blvd 60 min
County
Connection 14 Walnut Creek BART Concord BART Monument Blvd 30 min County
Connection 16 Martinez Amtrak Concord BART Gregory Ln/Monument Blvd 40 min County
Connection 18 Martinez Amtrak Pleasant Hill
BART Gregory Ln 80 min
County
Connection 20 Concord BART Diablo Valley
College Sunvalley Blvd 15 min
County
Connection 98X Martinez Amtrak Walnut Creek
BART Sunvalley Blvd 30 min
County
Connection 314 Diablo Valley
College Clayton Rd Contra Costa Blvd 30 min
County
Connection 316 Martinez Amtrak Pleasant Hill
BART Contra Costa Blvd 75 min
FIGURE 2.2 - EXISTING TRANSIT
Existing Conditions
CITY OF FONTANA | REAL JOURNEY HIGH SCHOOL | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY N
Project
Location
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
300 / 318 46 / 38 / / 343 / 778 276 / 392
/
/ / /
8 / 24
210 / 238495 / 913
3 / 4
383 / 286
18 / 61
0 92 / 222 15 / 30 / /
/
310 / 366 266 / 190 / /
239 / 137 517 / 205 / / / / / /
77 / 157 374 / 528 /
73 / 184710 / 71427 / 7021 / 191629 / 701382 / 606 / / Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
0 8 / 22
49 / 100
526 / 1070
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 59 / 80 11 / 32 24 / 66 554 / 1046 14 / 27
3 / 3
28 / 53
623 / 1198
20 / 45
0 / 0
0 / 0
576 / 1131
49 / 67
3 / 11
51 / 63
Signal
0 / 0 45 / 103 16 / 41 86 / 117
47 / 105
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 22 / 38
0 / 0 17 / 37 23 / 32 73 / 131 36 / 46 94 / 82 708 / 706 58 / 86 37 / 36 22 / 43 24 / 9
0 / 0828 / 76440 / 3869 / 90767 / 65519 / 3826 / 29845 / 789 Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal
0 / 0
0 / 0
563 / 1106
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
83 / 90
14 / 26 76 / 26 204 / 207 0 / 0 33 / 19 0 / 0
581 / 808
139 / 231278 / 814308 / 529
147 / 91
34 / 41
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
11 / 4
Signal
43 / 73 23 / 13 117 / 232 0 / 0
145 / 157
92 / 101 1 / 0 1013 / 499 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 552 / 343 87 / 61 211 / 393 0 / 0 796 / 755 183 / 188 3 / 1 3 / 3 518 / 369
76 / 620 / 31 / 06 / 38 / 81 / 1197 / 143475 / 530
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal
28 / 48
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Ellinwood Drive
0 / 0
8 / 3 3 / 3 0 / 2 50 / 27 42 / 14 4 / 1
0 / 0
2 / 2
19 / 13
26 / 4
46 / 18 7 / 2 2 / 1 82 / 38
0 / 0
1 / 20 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
0 / 2 12 / 26 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0
14 / 120 / 20 / 01 / 44 / 61 / 20 / 55 / 848 / 1635 / 413 / 30 / 0 0 / 0
Existing Conditions
FIGURE 2.3- EXISTING WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive Existing Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 19

2.4 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
For each of the study intersections, base intersection lane configurations and controls depicted on Figure

2.1, the existing traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 2.3, and signal timing information for the signalized study intersections provided by the City, were applied to an analysis of delay and level of service (LOS) values for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Peak hour factors (PHFs) based on the existing counts were applied at the intersections.

Table 2.2 summarizes the delay and LOS values for existing traffic conditions.

Table 2.2 – Intersection Performance- Existing Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 9.8 A 9.4 A
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 9.1 A 8.8 A
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 10.0 A 9.6 A
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 7.8 A 7.5 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 8.7 A 8.7 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 10.2 B 9.5 A
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 50.3 D 66.2 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 21.0 C 25.2 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 10.9 B 14.9 B
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 25.7 C 51.4 D
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 31.5 C 45.4 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 30.1 C 40.4 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 48.7 D 52.1 D
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 50.1 D 47.7 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 2.2, all study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except for Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard, which is operating at an LOS of E in the PM peak hour.

The existing traffic analysis scenario worksheets are provided in Appendix B of this report.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 20

3.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC
This section defines the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed project. The estimation of traffic volumes is completed through a three-step process, which includes trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment.

3.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th edition for land use 530, Private School K-8. Peak hour of generator rates were used as compared to peak hour of adjacent traffic rates, as for most schools the busiest PM hour takes place in the afternoon during school pick-up, not during the evening rush hour. The following rates were used:
x 4.11 daily trips per student
x 1.01 AM peak-hour trips per student
x 0.60 PM peak-hour trips per student
The recent former JFK University operations at the project site were documented by the site owner as having a permit to operate with 400 maximum students during the PM peak period. This number of students was used to define a trip generation credit, as this use could be re-established within the available vacant space. The proposed project will replace the former college operating space with the proposed private school. The credit applied was based on ITE rates and the 400-student population during the PM peak period that was permitted when the college was operating, and this student number was applied to both analyzed peak hours.

The project trip generation summary for the project’s initial opening enrollment of 200 students is presented in Table 3.1. These trip generation totals are applied to the existing and near-term/opening scenarios, as the school is planned to be opened with an initial enrollment of 200 students. The project would generate a net total of 198 daily trips, including 150 weekday AM peak hour trips (74 inbound trips and 76 outbound trips) and 64 weekday PM peak hour trips (38 inbound trips and 26 outbound trips).

Table 3.2 – Project Opening Year Trip Generation

In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates
534 1 student 4.11 56% 44% 1.01 47% 53% 0.60
550 1 student 1.56 75% 25% 0.13 32% 68% 0.14
534 200 students 822 113 89 202 56 64 120
550 400 students -624 -39 -13 -52 -18 -38 -56
198 74 76 150 38 26 64
Notes:

Rates source is ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition
Peak-hour rates are based on the peak hour of the generator (use). AM peak-hour rates for adjacent streets and peak-hour of generator are the same.

University/College
Total
PM Peak Hour Trips
Private School K-8
University/College
Estimated Trips
Private School K-8
Existing Credits
Land Use
ITE
Code Intensity Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips
Project Traffic
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 21 The future buildout of the school will be at a capacity of 470 students. The project trip generation summary for buildout is provided by Table 3.3. The project net trip generation total would be 1,308 daily trips, including 423 weekday AM peak hour trips (227 inbound trips and 196 outbound trips) and 226 weekday PM peak hour trips (115 inbound trips and 111 outbound trips).

Table 3.3 – Project Future Year Trip Generation

3.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of assigning the direction from which traffic will access the project site. Trip distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the project, local roadway network, and the general locations of other land uses to and from which project trips would originate or terminate. For this project, home zip codes of the currently enrolled students were collected and geocoded using geographic information system (GIS) software. The home locations to and from which the students would travel before and after school were then used to estimate the project distribution of the proposed project.

The overall project geographic trip distribution percentages are summarized in Table 3.2. Figure 3.2 illustrates the detailed project trip distribution at each study intersection.

Table 3.2 – Geographic Trip Distribution Percentages
Direction Percentage
Northeast 20%
Northwest 30%
Southeast 20%
Southwest 30%

3.3 SCHOOL OPERATIONS AND CIRCULATION
As shown on Figure 1.1, project access will be provided via two driveways on Ellinwood Way. Half of pickup and drop-off vehicles will be assigned to enter at the south end of the site via the southern driveway (at the Longbrook Way/Ellinwood Way intersection), and exit at the northern driveway (at the Ellinwood Way/Treehaven Court intersection). The other half will enter at the northern driveway and exit at the southern driveway. This northern driveway will also provide access to staff/faculty and visitors.

In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates
530 1 student 4.11 56% 44% 1.01 47% 53% 0.60
550 1 student 1.56 75% 25% 0.13 32% 68% 0.14
534 470 students 1,932 266 209 475 133 149 282
550 400 students -624 -39 -13 -52 -18 -38 -56
1,308 227 196 423 115 111 226
Notes:

Rates source is ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition
Peak-hour rates are based on the peak hour of the generator (use). AM peak-hour rates for adjacent streets and peak-hour of generator are the same.

PM Peak Hour Trips
Estimated Trips
Existing Credits
Total
Land Use
ITE
Code Intensity Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips
University/College
Private School K-8
Private School K-8
University/College
Project Traffic
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 22 Students will primarily arrive in the 8:00 AM hour, but approximately 10 to percent of the students will arrive in earlier hours. In the evening, up to 25 percent of the students will be involved in aftercare programs. It is assumed that this makes the school representative of the average ITE trip generation rate, which accounts for a variety of schools with differing levels of participation in before and after school activities.

During the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up hours, half of the vehicles will reach the east side of the project building by entering via the southern driveway and then proceeding northward along the main parking lot drive aisle, reaching the pick-up/drop-off area at the back of the site. From this point, vehicles will continue north through the site, and then travel to the west to reach the north driveway at Treehaven Court. The other half of the vehicles will enter at the site driveway at the Treehaven Court, intersection, proceed east and then south, access the pick-up/drop-off area near the main entrance of the building, then continue southward and exit through the southern driveway.

Staff and volunteer valets will be present at each of the site pick-up/drop-off areas, to assist with loading and unloading of students, and move the process along quickly and allow the queue to move forward.

Parent drivers dropping off and picking up students at the school will be assigned by grade level or other grouping. The assignments will indicate which inbound and outbound driveways to use, and this will be verified by staff valets through tags displayed on the vehicle.

3.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Based on the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions described above, project traffic was assigned to the roadway system. The geographic project trip distribution percentages presented previously in Table 3.2 were disaggregated and assigned to specific routes and intersections within the study area that are expected to be used for project access/egress. The project assignment percentages at the study intersections are shown in Figure 3.1.

These inbound and outbound percentages were then applied to the project trip generation estimates defined in Section 3.1, to calculate the project traffic volumes added to the study intersections.

Figure 3.2 illustrates the project trips at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

0%
0%0%0%0%13%
0%
Project Traffic
FIGURE 3.1- PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 0% 0% 0% 0%
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
50% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%13% 0%0%0%0%
38% 0% 0% 0%
0%
50%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0%
50% 0% 0% 13% 0% 38%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%13%0%0%15%
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal Signal
0% 0% 0% 0%
25%
50% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 20% 50% 0%0%25% 25%
0% 0% 0%
0%0%0%
0%
0%
25%
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
0%
13% 75% 15% 0% 25%0%
0%
15%15%20%
13%
25%
0%0%
0%
25%
5%40%5%5%35%
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal Signal
0% 5% 5% 0%
0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%35% 0%
25% 5% 0%
0%50%25%
0%
0%
35%
16 0
0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 40%0%
0%
0%
35%
0%
0%0%0%
50%
0%
0%
0%5%15% % %
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
00 15% 0% % /
/
0% 0% % /
0% 0% % / % / / /
0% 15% %
15%20%0%
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
0% 0% % /
0%
0%5%0%
%
% % %
20%
0%
0%
0%
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 9 / 5 0 / 0 9 / 5 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
28 / 15 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 38 / 13 0 / 0
38 / 13
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
0 / 0
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
38 / 20 0 / 0 0 / 0 9 / 5 0 / 0 28 / 15
0 / 0
0 / 0
38 / 13
0 / 0
0 / 0
38 / 13
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 09 / 50 / 00 / 011 / 6
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal Signal
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
19 / 7
38 / 13 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 15 / 8 38 / 12 0 / 0 0 / 0 19 / 10 19 / 10
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 00 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
19 / 7
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
0 / 0
9 / 5 57 / 30
19 / 6
11 / 6 0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
11 / 411 / 416 / 6
9 / 5
19 / 6
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
19 / 7
4 / 130 / 104 / 14 / 126 / 9
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal Signal
0 / 0 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 26 / 9 0 / 0
19 / 7 4 / 2 0 / 0
0 / 038 / 1219 / 10
0 / 0
0 / 0
26 / 14
16 0
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 30 / 16 0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
26 / 14
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 00 / 0
38 / 20
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 04 / 111 / 4
/ /
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Gregory Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
0 11 / 6 0 / 0 / /
/
0 / 0 0 / 0 / /
0 / 0 0 / 0 / / / / / /
0 / 0 11 / 6 /
11 / 415 / 50 / 0
FIGURE 3.2- PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK, PROJECT OPENING Project Traffic
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
0 / 0 0 / 0 / / 4 / 2 0 / 0
/
/ / /
0 / 0
0 / 0
15 / 8
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 FIGURE 3.3- PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK, FUTURE PROJECT Project Traffic
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
0 / 0 0 / 0
11 / 6
/ /
0 / 0
/
/ / /
0 / 0
0 / 0
45 / 23
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
00 34 / 17 0 / 0 / /
/
0 / 0 0 / 0 / /
0 / 0 0 / 0 / / / / / /
0 / 0 34 / 17 /
29 / 1739 / 230 / 00 / 010 / 629 / 17 / /
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Gregory Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
79 / 40
16 0
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 90 / 46 0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
79 / 40
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 00 / 0
112 / 58
0 / 0
0 / 0
Signal
0 / 0 11 / 6 11 / 6 0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 68 / 40 0 / 0
49 / 27 11 / 6 0 / 0
0 / 098 / 5857 / 2910 / 678 / 4610 / 610 / 668 / 40
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal
0 / 0
0 / 0
49 / 27
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
0 / 0
28 / 14 169 / 87 34 / 17 0 / 0 49 / 29 0 / 0
0 / 0
29 / 1729 / 1740 / 19
28 / 14
49 / 29
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
49 / 27
Signal
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
49 / 27
98 / 56 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 45 / 23 98 / 58 0 / 0 0 / 0 57 / 29 57 / 29 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 028 / 140 / 00 / 034 / 17
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal
113 / 58 0 / 0 0 / 0 28 / 14 0 / 0 84 / 43
0 / 0
0 / 0
98 / 56
0 / 0
0 / 0
98 / 56
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
98 / 56
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
0 / 0
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
84 / 43 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
0 / 0 98 / 56 0 / 0
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 28 / 14 0 / 0 28 / 14 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Project Traffic
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 26

4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section documents existing traffic conditions at the study intersections and roadway segments with the addition of project-generated traffic. Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding project trips to the existing traffic volumes.

The Existing (2021) With Project traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated on Figure 4.1.

4.1 EXISTING WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 4.1 summarizes the resulting delay and LOS values at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the Existing with-Project traffic conditions. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix C of this report.

Table 4.1 – Intersection Performance- Existing With Project Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 13.0 B 9.9 A
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 9.8 A 9.2 A
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 10.5 B 9.7 A
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 8.0 A 7.6 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 9.2 A 8.9 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 11.5 B 9.9 A
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 51.4 D 67.4 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 22.2 C 25.9 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 11.5 B 15.3 C
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 27.0 C 52.3 D
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 32.1 C 46.5 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 30.4 C 41.0 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 49.0 D 52.3 D
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 50.3 D 47.9 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 4.1, all but one of the study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic under existing conditions.

One intersection, Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard, would operate at LOS E in the PM peak period.
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 14 / 12 0 / 2 0 / 0 1 / 4 4 / 6 10 / 7 0 / 5 14 / 13 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0
74 / 33 7 / 2 2 / 1 82 / 38
0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0 48 / 16 35 / 41 3 / 3 0 / 0
0 / 0 38 / 15 12 / 26
66 / 61
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
46 / 23 3 / 3
42 / 1432 / 16
0 / 2 59 / 32
0 / 0
2 / 2
57 / 26
26 / 4
0 / 0
39 / 15
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
6 / 317 / 131 / 1197 / 143486 / 536
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal Signal
43 / 73 23 / 13 117 / 232 0 / 0
164 / 164
130 / 114 1 / 0 1013 / 499 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 567 / 351 125 / 73 211 / 393 0 / 0 815 / 765 202 / 198 3 / 1 3 / 3 518 / 369
76 / 620 / 31 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
582 / 1113
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
83 / 90
23 / 31 133 / 56 215 / 213 0 / 0 52 / 25 0 / 0
581 / 808
150 / 235289 / 818324 / 535
156 / 96
53 / 47
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
30 / 11
73 / 91797 / 66523 / 3930 / 30871 / 798
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray
Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
Signal Signal
0 / 0 49 / 105 20 / 43 86 / 117
47 / 105
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 22 / 38
0 / 0 17 / 37 23 / 32 73 / 131 36 / 46 94 / 82 734 / 715 58 / 86 56 / 43 26 / 45 24 / 9
0 / 0866 / 77659 / 48
8 / 22
49 / 100
552 / 1084
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 59 / 80 11 / 32 24 / 66 584 / 1062 14 / 27
3 / 3
28 / 53
649 / 1212
20 / 45
0 / 0
0 / 0
576 / 1131
87 / 87
3 / 11
51 / 63
21 / 191633 / 702393 / 610 / /
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 15 0
0 103 / 228 15 / 30 / /
/
310 / 366 266 / 190 / /
239 / 137 517 / 205 / / / / / /
77 / 157 385 / 534 /
84 / 188725 / 71927 / 70
Existing With-Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 4.1- EXISTING WITH-PROJECT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES /
/ / /
300 / 318 46 / 38 / / 347 / 780 276 / 392
/
/ / /
8 / 24
210 / 238510 / 921
3 / 4
383 / 286
18 / 61
0 CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 28

5.0 NEAR-TERM WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section provides an analysis of opening year traffic conditions in the study area with area/related project trips and background growth added, but without project traffic. The year 2022 was selected for analysis of near-term conditions since the proposed project is anticipated to be completed and operational by the end of 2022.

5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH
In order to account for regional population and employment growth outside of the study area, an ambient/background traffic growth of one percent per year was applied to the existing turning movement and ADT counts. As there is only one year until project opening, the growth factor used was 1.01 for the near-term scenarios.

5.2 RELATED PROJECTS
In addition to the application of the ambient traffic growth rate, traffic from related/area projects (approved and pending developments) was also included as part of the Near-term (2022) analysis. A total of 25 related projects in the City of Pleasant Hill were reviewed for inclusion in the traffic impact analysis.

Of these projects, 14 were determined to likely cause some level of increase in traffic to the study intersections at the time of project completion.

Table 5.1 shows the trip generation estimates for the related/area projects identified within the City and the City of Rialto. The location of these projects are illustrated on Figure 5.1. The number of trips expected to be generated by the related projects was obtained from information provided by public agencies, transportation impact analyses, and environmental reports, to the extent available. For related project with incomplete trip generation and/or peak-hour directional (inbound/outbound) distribution information were determined by applying the appropriate trip generation rates and/or directions splits rom the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017).

For the analysis of Near-term (2022) Without Project and conditions, each related project’s generated trips were distributed and assigned to the study area circulation system, using methodologies similar to those previously described for the project trip distribution and assignment. The individual related project traffic volumes assignments were summed for each project.

The total related project traffic volumes at the study intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are provided in the figures in Appendix D.

Near-term Without Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 29 Table 5.1 – Related Projects Trip Generation
# Name Land Use Intensity Unit Avg
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
1 61 Chilpancingo ParkwayNew Building
Shopping Center 1.7 ksf 64 1 1 2 4 4 7
2 Choice in Aging
Redevelopment
Day Care Center 90 students 368 33 37 70 33 38 71
Senior Adult
Housing- Attached 82 units 303 9 7 16 12 10 21
3 Diablo Valley Plaza
Remodel II Shopping Center 4 ksf 151 2 2 4 8 8 17
4 Starbuck's Coffee Shop
with Drive-Thru
Shopping Center -8 ksf -302 -4 -4 -8 -17 -17 -34
Fast-Food
Restaurant with
Drive-Thru Window

2.5 ksf 1177 52 48 100 42 39 82
5 401 Taylor Blvd. II Single-Family
Detached Housing 31 du 293 14 8 23 19 11 31
6 Kid Time Day Care Day Care Center 36 students 147 13 15 28 13 15 28 Elementary School 12 students 23 4 4 8 1 1 2
7 Downtown Cleaveland
Multi-Family Specific Plan
General Office
Building -38.7 ksf -377 -7 -38 -45 -7 -37 -45
Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise) 189 du 1028 42 27 68 51 32 83
8 Reliez Terraces Residential
Subdivision
Single-Family
Detached Housing 17 du 160 8 5 13 11 6 17
9 Providence Development
'McKissick 4 Lot Minor
Subdivision & 4 New
Homes
Single-Family
Detached Housing 4 du 38 2 1 3 2 1 4
10 PHRPD Accessory
Structure Mini-Warehouse 2.196 ksf 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Oak Park Residential Single-Family
Detached Housing 34 du 321 16 9 25 21 12 34
Near-term Without Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 30 # Name Land Use Intensity Unit Avg
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
12 Manor Place Two- Lot
Minor Subdivision and Two
New Single Family Homes
Single-Family
Detached Housing 2 du 19 1 1 1 1 1 2
13 A Small World Infant &
Toddler Center Addition
and Remodel
Day Care Center 0.499 ksf 24 3 3 5 3 3 6
14 Cambria Hotel
Development Hotel 155 rooms 1296 37 36 73 47 46 93
Note: Avg = Average; ksf = Thousand Square Feet; du = Dwelling Unit Taylor Blvd.

Gregory Ln
Oak Park Blvd
Boyd Rd
Chilpancingo Pkwy
Contra Costa Blvd.
4 1
2 3 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12 13 14
LEGEND
Project Site
1 Study Intersection
1 Driveway
1 Related Project
FIGURE 5.1 - LOCATIONS OF RELATED PROJECTS
Opening Year Without-Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY N
Near-term Without Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 32

5.3 NEAR-TERM WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE The Near-term (2022) Without Project traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated on Figure 5.2.

Table 5.2 summarizes the resulting delay and LOS values at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the Near-term without-Project traffic conditions. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix E of the report.

Table 5.2 – Intersection Performance- Near-term Without Project Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 9.8 A 9.4 A
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 9.1 A 8.8 A
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 10.0 A 9.6 A
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 7.9 A 7.6 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 8.8 A 8.8 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 10.2 B 9.5 A
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 52.7 D 69.1 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 21.2 C 26.1 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 11.1 B 15.2 C
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 26.0 C 51.8 D
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 33.0 C 47.0 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 30.4 C 41.6 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 49.9 D 53.6 D
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 52.0 D 49.0 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 5.2, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under near-term conditions, except for Contra Costa Boulevard, which would operate at an LOS of E during the PM peak hour

Near-term Without-Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 5.2- NEAR-TERM/OPENING- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES /
/ / /
306 / 325 46 / 38 / / 352 / 793 282 / 400
/
/ / /
8 / 24
214 / 242507 / 930
3 / 4
387 / 289
25 / 71
00 95 / 225 15 / 30 / /
/
313 / 370 284 / 212 / /
241 / 138 528 / 214 / / / / / /
78 / 159 381 / 536 /
76 / 188736 / 74227 / 7130 / 301655 / 720389 / 614 / / Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 15 0
8 / 22
49 / 101
540 / 1090
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 61 / 82 18 / 38 24 / 67 576 / 1072 15 / 28
3 / 3
35 / 59
631 / 1214
20 / 45
0 / 0
0 / 0
601 / 1162
49 / 68
3 / 11
53 / 65
Signal
0 / 0 45 / 104 32 / 55 87 / 118
47 / 106
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 22 / 38
0 / 0 18 / 38 23 / 32 74 / 132 36 / 46 95 / 83 736 / 736 59 / 87 37 / 36 25 / 47 24 / 9
0 / 0865 / 80440 / 3870 / 91802 / 69021 / 4241 / 42867 / 814 Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray
Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
Signal
0 / 0
0 / 0
587 / 1135
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
85 / 93
14 / 26 77 / 26 214 / 220 0 / 0 33 / 19 0 / 0
589 / 819
144 / 238296 / 837315 / 537
153 / 99
34 / 41
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
11 / 4
Signal
43 / 74 23 / 13 128 / 243 0 / 0
151 / 164
102 / 111 1 / 0 1027 / 509 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 561 / 349 92 / 66 224 / 403 0 / 0 829 / 791 189 / 195 3 / 1 3 / 3 535 / 380
77 / 630 / 31 / 06 / 38 / 81 / 1210 / 153498 / 554
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal
8 / 3 3 / 3 0 / 2 51 / 27 42 / 14 4 / 1
0 / 0
2 / 2
19 / 13
26 / 4
0 / 0
1 / 20 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
28 / 48
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
46 / 18 7 / 2 2 / 1 88 / 45
0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0 48 / 16 44 / 50 3 / 3 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 2 12 / 26
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 14 / 12 0 / 2 0 / 0 1 / 4 4 / 6 1 / 2 0 / 5 5 / 8 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 34

6.0 NEAR-TERM WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section documents opening year traffic conditions at the study locations with the addition of projectgenerated traffic. Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding project trips to the Nearterm (2022) Without Project traffic volumes.

The Near-term (2022) With Project traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated on Figure 6.1.

6.1 NEAR-TERM WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 6.1 summarizes the resulting delay and LOS values at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the near-term with-project traffic conditions. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix F.

Table 6.1 – Intersection Performance- Near-term With Project Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 13.0 B 9.9 A
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 9.8 A 9.2 A
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 10.5 B 9.7 A
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 8.1 A 7.6 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 9.3 A 9.0 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 11.5 B 9.9 A
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 55.0 D 70.3 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 22.4 C 26.7 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 11.6 B 15.7 C
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 27.2 C 52.6 D
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 33.6 C 48.2 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 30.8 C 42.4 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 50.4 D 53.8 D
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 52.3 D 49.3 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 6.1, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under near-term with-project conditions, except for Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard, which will operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour 1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 14 / 12 0 / 2 0 / 0 1 / 4 4 / 6 10 / 7 0 / 5 14 / 13 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0
74 / 33 7 / 2 2 / 1 88 / 45
0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0 48 / 16 44 / 50 3 / 3 0 / 0
0 / 0 38 / 15 12 / 26
66 / 61
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
46 / 23 3 / 3 0 / 2 60 / 32 42 / 14 32 / 16
0 / 0
2 / 2
57 / 26
26 / 4
0 / 0
39 / 15
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
6 / 317 / 131 / 1210 / 153509 / 560
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal Signal
43 / 74 23 / 13 128 / 243 0 / 0
170 / 171
140 / 124 1 / 0 1027 / 509 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 576 / 357 130 / 78 224 / 403 0 / 0 848 / 801 208 / 205 3 / 1 3 / 3 535 / 380
77 / 630 / 31 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
606 / 1142
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
85 / 93
23 / 31 134 / 56 225 / 226 0 / 0 52 / 25 0 / 0
589 / 819
155 / 242307 / 841331 / 543
162 / 104
53 / 47
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
30 / 11
74 / 92832 / 70025 / 4345 / 43893 / 823
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray
Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
Signal Signal
0 / 0 49 / 106 36 / 57 87 / 118
47 / 106
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 22 / 38
0 / 0 18 / 38 23 / 32 74 / 132 36 / 46 95 / 83 762 / 745 59 / 87 56 / 43 29 / 49 24 / 9
0 / 0903 / 81659 / 48
8 / 22
49 / 101
566 / 1104
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 61 / 82 18 / 38 24 / 67 606 / 1088 15 / 28
3 / 3
35 / 59
657 / 1228
20 / 45
0 / 0
0 / 0
601 / 1162
87 / 88
3 / 11
53 / 65
30 / 301659 / 721400 / 618 / /
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 15 0
0 106 / 231 15 / 30 / /
/
313 / 370 284 / 212 / /
241 / 138 528 / 214 / / / / / /
78 / 159 392 / 542 /
87 / 192751 / 74727 / 71
FIGURE 6.1- NEAR-TERM/OPENING WITH-PROJECT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Near-term With-Project Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
306 / 325 46 / 38 / / 356 / 795 282 / 400
/
/ / /
8 / 24
214 / 242522 / 938
3 / 4
387 / 289
25 / 71
0 CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 36

7.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
This section documents future cumulative traffic conditions at the study locations in the year 2027. To complete this analysis, a growth rate was determine to estimate the volumes in the year 2027, in addition to the volumes from related projects as already included in the near-term analysis. Furthermore, as the school may expand enrollment, a higher trip generation is used for the with-project volumes, as discussed in Section 3.

7.1 GROWTH RATE
To estimate volumes for the year 2027, model volumes were obtained from the Contra Costa Transit Authority. These included hourly counts for the AM and PM peak hours in 2018 and hourly estimates for both peak hours in 2040. To find an average growth rate to apply to the scenario, hourly volumes were reviewed at several locations spread across the span of the study intersections on Contra Costa Boulevard.

Due to data availability and limiting to one location per block, the following locations were selected for analysis:
x S/ Taylor Blvd.
x S/ Ellinwood Dr.
x N/ Vivian Dr.
x N/ Gregory Ln.
x N/ Monument Blvd.

Average hourly volumes for both the northbound and southbound direction were summed together for all locations for both the 2018 year when counts were taken and the 2040 estimates provided by the model. This was completed separately for AM and PM peak periods. Based on the difference in these values, a growth rate per year was calculated, and then cumulatively applied to the 2018 volumes to find the applicable growth rate that would apply to a project built in the year 2027. These growth rates were then applied across the network turning movement counts collected for the traffic impact study. Related projects volumes as calculated for the near-term project scenario were also retained in the cumulative scenario.

Based on these results, a rate of 4.63% was applied to the AM peak hour volumes, and a rate of 3.40% was applied to the PM peak hour volumes.

7.2 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 7.1 summarizes the resulting delay and LOS values at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the cumulative with-Project traffic conditions. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix G of the report.

Cumulative Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 37 Table 7.1 – Intersection Performance- Cumulative Without Project Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 9.9 A 9.4 A
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 9.1 A 8.8 A
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 10.0 B 9.6 A
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 7.9 A 7.6 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 8.9 A 8.9 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 10.3 B 9.6 A
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 55.7 E 72.3 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 21.4 C 26.8 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 11.2 B 15.5 C
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 26.6 C 53.3 D
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 33.9 C 49.9 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 30.9 C 43.4 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 52.1 D 55.4 E
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 56.9 E 50.6 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 7.1, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under near-term conditions, except for Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard, which will operate at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours, Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza, which will operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour only, and Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane, which will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour only.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
317 / 333 48 / 39 / / 365 / 811 292 / 409
/ 8 / 25
/ / /
222 / 248525 / 952
3 / 4
401 / 296
26 / 72
0 98 / 231 16 / 31 / /
/
324 / 378 293 / 216 / /
250 / 142 547 / 219 / / / / / /
81 / 162 394 / 549 /
78 / 192762 / 75928 / 7231 / 311714 / 737403 / 629 / / Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
0 8 / 23
51 / 103
559 / 1115
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 63 / 84 19 / 39 25 / 68 596 / 1098 16 / 29
3 / 3
36 / 60
654 / 1243
21 / 47
0 / 0
0 / 0
622 / 1189
51 / 69
3 / 11
54 / 66
Signal
0 / 0 47 / 107 33 / 56 90 / 121
49 / 109
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 23 / 39
0 / 0 19 / 39 24 / 33 76 / 135 38 / 48 98 / 85 762 / 753 61 / 89 39 / 37 26 / 48 25 / 9
0 / 0895 / 82242 / 3972 / 93830 / 70522 / 4342 / 43898 / 833 Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal
0 / 0
0 / 0
607 / 1162
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
88 / 95
15 / 27 80 / 27 221 / 225 0 / 0 35 / 20 0 / 0
610 / 838
149 / 244306 / 857326 / 550
159 / 101
36 / 42
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
12 / 4
Signal
45 / 75 24 / 13 132 / 249 0 / 0
157 / 167
105 / 113 1 / 0 1064 / 521 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 581 / 358 95 / 67 232 / 412 0 / 0 858 / 809 195 / 199 3 / 1 3 / 3 554 / 389
80 / 640 / 31 / 06 / 38 / 81 / 1217 / 157515 / 567
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal
29 / 50
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Ellinwood Drive
0 / 0
8 / 3 3 / 3 0 / 2 52 / 28 44 / 14 4 / 1
0 / 0
2 / 2
20 / 13
27 / 4
48 / 19 7 / 2 2 / 1 91 / 46
0 / 0
1 / 20 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
0 / 2 13 / 27 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0
15 / 120 / 20 / 01 / 44 / 61 / 20 / 55 / 850 / 1746 / 513 / 30 / 0 0 / 0
Cumulative Conditions
FIGURE 7.1- CUMULATIVE WITHOUT-PROJECT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive Cumulative Conditions
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 39

7.3 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 7.2 summarizes the resulting delay and LOS values at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the cumulative with-Project traffic conditions, under a school with 470 students. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix H.

Table 7.2 – Intersection Performance- Cumulative With Project Conditions Study Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
(Driveway #1) 83.4 F 11.2 B
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
(Driveway #2) 11.5 B 10.5 B
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way
(Driveway #3) 11.6 B 10.2 B
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 8.7 A 8.0 A
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 10.7 B 9.8 A
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 14.8 B 11.3 B
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard 60.6 E 76.4 E
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive 24.7 C 29.6 C 9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive 13.1 B 17.5 C
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive 30.8 C 55.6 E
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive 36.0 D 54.0 D
12 Contra Costa Boulevard & Woodsworth
Lane 32.2 C 46.4 D
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane 54.1 D 56.5 E
14 Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument
Boulevard/Crescent Plaza 57.7 E 51.9 D
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 7.2, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions, except for the following:
x Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way (north site driveway), which will operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard, which will operate at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza, which will operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane, which will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour only.
15 / 12
0 / 20 / 01 / 44 / 629 / 16
0 / 0
Cumulative Conditions
FIGURE 7.2- CUMULATIVE WITH-PROJECT- WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK, FUTURE PROJECT 1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way 2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court 3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge Way 4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood Drive 0 / 0 0 / 1 2 / 1 0 / 0
Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized
98 / 58 13 / 27 0 / 0
0 / 0 0 / 0 2 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 5 33 / 22 50 / 17 46 / 51 3 / 3 0 / 0 132 / 62 7 / 2 2 / 1 91 / 46
0 / 0
99 / 58
0 / 00 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 3
0 / 0
127 / 106
4 / 2
8 Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood
Drive
0 / 0
121 / 61 3 / 3 0 / 2 80 / 42 44 / 14 88 / 44
0 / 0
2 / 2
118 / 69
27 / 4
6 / 336 / 221 / 1217 / 157549 / 584
Unsignalized Unsignalized
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook Way 6 Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive 7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard
Signal Signal
45 / 75 24 / 13 132 / 249 0 / 0
206 / 194
203 / 169 1 / 0 1064 / 521 0 / 0
0 / 2 0 / 1 626 / 381 193 / 125 232 / 412 0 / 0 915 / 838 252 / 228 3 / 1 3 / 3 554 / 389
80 / 640 / 31 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
656 / 1189
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
88 / 95
43 / 41 249 / 114 255 / 242 0 / 0 84 / 49 0 / 0
610 / 838
178 / 261335 / 874366 / 569
187 / 115
85 / 71
2 / 32 / 7
2 / 3
61 / 31
82 / 99908 / 75132 / 4952 / 49966 / 873
Unsignalized Signal
9 Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo
Drive 10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Doray
Drive/Beth Drive 11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian Drive Signal Signal
0 / 0 58 / 113 44 / 62 90 / 121
49 / 109
0 / 0 3 / 9 3 / 2 23 / 39
0 / 0 19 / 39 24 / 33 76 / 135 38 / 48 98 / 85 830 / 793 61 / 89 88 / 64 37 / 54 25 / 9
0 / 0993 / 88099 / 68
8 / 23
51 / 103
638 / 1155
16 0
5 / 6
0 / 0 63 / 84 19 / 39 25 / 68 686 / 1144 16 / 29
3 / 3
36 / 60
733 / 1283
21 / 47
0 / 0
0 / 0
622 / 1189
163 / 127
3 / 11
54 / 66
31 / 311724 / 743432 / 646 / /
Signal Signal
13 Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory
Lane 14
Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
15 0
00 132 / 248 16 / 31 / /
/
324 / 378 293 / 216 / /
250 / 142 547 / 219 / / / / / /
81 / 162 428 / 566 /
107 / 209801 / 78228 / 72
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY /
/ / /
317 / 333 48 / 39 / / 376 / 817 292 / 409
/
/ / /
8 / 25
222 / 248570 / 975
3 / 4
401 / 296
26 / 72
63 / 1863 / 1863 / 18
67 / 22
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 41

8.0 PROJECT LOCAL CIRCULATION IMPACTS

8.1 DETERMINATION OF TRAFIC IMPACTS
According to the County of Contra Costa traffic guidelines, study intersections and roadway segments forecast to operate at LOS E or worse shall be identified as cumulatively deficient intersections.

Additionally, the determination of deficient intersections shall be based on the increase in delay at study intersections for each of the analysis years. The delay threshold of 5 seconds will be used to identify a deficient intersection effect. These thresholds do not apply for intersections operating at LOS A through D.

These criteria were implemented by first determining which intersections would operate at LOS E or worse during one or both peak hours with completion of the project. Then, if the increase in delay at the intersection is projected to exceed the five-second threshold defined in the County guidelines, a deficient effect was identified at the intersection. If the project is determined to have a deficient effect based on the previously outlined criteria, improvements to the study intersections shall be identified to offset the increase in delay resulting from the project.

8.2 TRAFFIC IMPACTS – EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Table 8.1 provides a summary of the project impacts under existing conditions. Traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project were determined by comparing the delay results for the Existing (2021) scenario to the delay results for the Existing (2021) With Project scenario.

As shown in Table 8.1, following completion of the proposed project all intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both weekday peak hours under existing conditions, except for the following intersection, which will operate at LOS E:
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) At all study intersections operating at deficient LOS values, the increase in delay resulting from the project does not exceed 5 seconds. Therefore, the project is not considered to have a significant impact under existing conditions.

Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 42 Table 8.1 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts- Existing Conditions Study Intersections Peak
Hour
Existing (2021)
Conditions
Existing (2021)
With Project
Conditions Change
in
Delay
Deficient
Impact? Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood
Way (Driveway #1)
AM 9.8 A 13.0 B 3.2 No
PM 9.4 A 9.9 A 0.5 No
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven
Court (Driveway #2)
AM 9.1 A 9.8 A 0.7 No
PM 8.8 A 9.2 A 0.4 No
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge
Way (Driveway #3)
AM 10.0 B 10.5 B 0.5 No
PM 9.6 A 9.7 A 0.1 No
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood
Drive
AM 7.8 A 8.0 A 0.2 No
PM 7.5 A 7.6 A 0.1 No
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook
Way
AM 8.7 A 9.2 A 0.5 No
PM 8.7 A 8.9 A 0.2 No
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo
Drive
AM 10.2 B 11.5 B 1.3 No
PM 9.5 A 9.9 A 0.4 No
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard
AM 50.3 D 51.4 D 1.1 No
PM 66.2 E 67.4 E 1.2 No
8 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Ellinwood Drive
AM 21.0 C 22.2 C 1.2 No
PM 25.2 C 25.9 C 0.7 No
9 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Massolo Drive
AM 10.9 B 11.5 B 0.6 No
PM 14.9 B 15.3 C 0.4 No
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive
AM 25.7 C 27.0 C 1.3 No
PM 51.4 D 52.3 D 0.9 No
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
AM 31.5 C 32.1 C 0.6 No
PM 45.4 D 46.5 D 1.1 No
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
AM 30.1 C 30.4 C 0.3 No
PM 40.4 D 41.0 D 0.6 No
13 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Gregory Lane
AM 48.7 D 49.0 D 0.3 No
PM 52.1 D 52.3 D 0.2 No
14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
AM 50.1 D 50.3 D 0.2 No
PM 47.7 D 47.9 D 0.2 No
LOS = Level-of-Service

Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 43

8.3 TRAFFIC IMPACTS – NEAR-TERM/OPENING WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS Table 8.2 provides a summary of the project impacts under near-term conditions. Traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project were determined by comparing the delay results for the Near-term (2022) without-Project scenario to the delay results for the Near-term (2022) with-Project scenario.

Table 8.2 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts- Near-Term Conditions Study Intersections Peak
Hour
Near-term (2022)
w/o Project
Conditions
Near-term (2022)
w/ Project
Conditions Change
in
Delay
Deficient
Impact? Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood
Way (Driveway #1)
AM 9.8 A 13.0 B 3.2 No
PM 9.4 A 9.9 A 0.5 No
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven
Court (Driveway #2)
AM 9.1 A 9.8 A 0.7 No
PM 8.8 A 9.2 A 0.4 No
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge
Way (Driveway #3)
AM 10.0 A 10.5 B 0.5 No
PM 9.6 A 9.7 A 0.1 No
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood
Drive
AM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 No
PM 7.6 A 7.6 A 0 No
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook
Way
AM 8.8 A 9.3 A 0.5 No
PM 8.8 A 9.0 A 0.2 No
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo
Drive
AM 10.2 B 11.5 B 1.3 No
PM 9.5 A 9.9 A 0.4 No
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard
AM 52.7 D 54.0 D 1.3 No
PM 69.1 E 70.3 E 1.2 No
8 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Ellinwood Drive
AM 21.2 C 22.4 C 1.2 No
PM 26.1 C 26.7 C 0.6 No
9 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Massolo Drive
AM 11.1 B 11.6 B 0.5 No
PM 15.2 C 15.7 C 0.5 No
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive
AM 26.0 C 27.2 C 1.2 No
PM 51.8 D 52.6 D 0.8 No
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
AM 33.0 C 33.6 C 0.6 No
PM 47.0 D 48.2 D 1.2 No
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
AM 30.4 C 30.8 C 0.4 No
PM 41.6 D 42.4 D 0.8 No
13 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Gregory Lane
AM 49.9 D 50.4 D 0.5 No
PM 53.6 D 53.8 D 0.2 No
14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
AM 52.0 D 52.3 D 0.3 No
PM 49.0 D 49.3 D 0.3 No
LOS = Level-of-Service
Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 44 As shown in Table 8.2, following completion of the proposed project all intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both weekday peak hours under existing conditions, except for the following intersection, which will operate at LOS E:
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) At all intersections operating at a deficient condition, the increase in delay resulting from the project does not exceed 5 seconds. Therefore, the project is not considered to have a significant impact under nearterm conditions.

8.4 TRAFFIC IMPACTS – CUMULATIVE WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS Table 8.3 provides a summary of the project impacts under cumulative conditions. This analysis is for Alternative B at a 470-student project capacity. Traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project were determined by comparing the delay results for the cumulative without-Project scenario to the results for with-project scenario.

Table 8.3 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts – Cumulative Conditions Study Intersections Peak
Hour
Cumulative (2027)
w/o Project
Conditions
Cumulative (2027)
w/ Project
Conditions Change
in
Delay
Deficient
Impact? Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood
Way (Driveway #1)
AM 9.9 A 83.4 F 73.5 No
PM 9.4 A 11.2 B 1.8 No
2 Ellinwood Way & Treehaven
Court (Driveway #2)
AM 9.1 A 11.5 B 2.4 No
PM 8.8 A 10.5 B 1.7 No
3 Ellinwood Way & Stonebridge
Way (Driveway #3)
AM 10.0 B 11.6 B 1.6 No
PM 9.6 A 10.2 B 0.6 No
4 Ellinwood Way & Ellinwood
Drive
AM 7.9 A 8.7 A 0.8 No
PM 7.6 A 8.0 A 0.4 No
5 Ellinwood Drive & Longbrook
Way
AM 8.9 A 10.7 B 1.8 No
PM 8.9 A 9.8 A 0.9 No
6 Longbrook Way & Massolo
Drive
AM 10.3 B 14.8 B 4.5 No
PM 9.6 A 11.3 B 1.7 No
7 Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor
Boulevard
AM 55.7 E 60.6 E 4.9 No
PM 72.3 E 76.4 E 4.1 No
8 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Ellinwood Drive
AM 21.4 C 24.7 C 3.3 No
PM 26.8 C 29.6 C 2.8 No
9 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Massolo Drive
AM 11.2 B 13.1 B 1.9 No
PM 15.5 C 17.5 C 2 No
10 Contra Costa Boulevard & Beth
Drive/Doray Drive
AM 26.6 C 30.8 C 4.2 No
PM 53.3 D 55.6 E 2.3 No
Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 45 Study Intersections Peak
Hour
Cumulative (2027)
w/o Project
Conditions
Cumulative (2027)
w/ Project
Conditions Change
in
Delay
Deficient
Impact? Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
11 Contra Costa Boulevard & Vivian
Drive
AM 33.9 C 36.0 D 2.1 No
PM 49.9 D 54.0 D 4.1 No
12 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Woodsworth Lane
AM 30.9 C 32.2 C 1.3 No
PM 43.4 D 46.4 D 3 No
13 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Gregory Lane
AM 52.1 D 54.1 D 2 No
PM 55.4 E 56.5 E 1.1 No
14 Contra Costa Boulevard &
Monument Boulevard/Crescent
Plaza
AM 56.9 E 57.7 E 0.8 No
PM 50.6 D 51.9 D 1.3 No
LOS = Level-of-Service
As shown in Table 8.4, following completion of the proposed project under Alternative B, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both weekday peak hours under existing conditions, except for the following intersections, which will operate at LOS E:
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Taylor Boulevard (AM & PM Peak Hour) x Contra Costa Boulevard & Gregory Lane (PM Peak Hour)
x Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza (AM Peak Hour) At most of the study intersections that are operating at a deficient LOS value, the increase in delay resulting from the project does not exceed 5 seconds. However, the project would create a deficient LOS impact at Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way (north site driveway), with worsening of operations from LOS B to LOS F due to the project. The project would therefore cause a substantial local circulation impact under cumulative conditions with 470-student school operations. Mitigation for this impact is discussed in the section below.

8.5 STUDY INTERSECTION QUEUING AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS
Queuing data and traffic signal warrants were both reviewed at specific locations in the study area, to qualify the determinations of significant impacts:
x A signal warrant analysis: Intersection 9, based on project-related queuing change at Intersection 8
x All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis: Intersections 1, 2, 6 x Queuing Analysis: Intersection 8, westbound left; Intersection 14, westbound right Queuing Effects at Main Signalized Access to Contra Costa Boulevard The main signalized access to and from Contra Costa Boulevard for the local project neighborhood is the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard/Ellinwood Drive. Queuing of the neighborhood outbound approach (the westbound intersection approach) was reviewed for various project conditions to determine if there would be a substantial increase in queuing due to the project.

Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 46 A review of estimated queuing at this approach of the Contra Costa Boulevard/Ellinwood Drive indicated the following. The numbers provided are 95th-percentile vehicle queuing lengths for the maximum movement:
x Existing conditions: 131 feet in AM peak, 95 feet in PM peak x Opening with project conditions: 174 feet in AM peak, 105 feet in PM peak x Future with project at 470 students: 229 feet in AM peak, 139 feet in PM peak The highest queue length at the analyzed approach occurs in the AM peak hour. The existing calculated queue of 131 equals approximately five vehicles. The increase in the queue would be approximately two vehicles at the project opening, and an additional four vehicles at project buildout.

The average vehicle delay at this approach would increase by approximately five seconds per vehicle (and less for the intersection as a whole), between the existing conditions period and the buildout of the project. This would not result in a significant circulation impact at this location. The only traffic movement potentially blocked by the increased queue due to project traffic would be the eastbound left-turn movement into the western driveway of a residential development on the north side of Ellinwood Drive.

This driveway is located 200 feet east of the intersection, and the 229-foot queue that would extend past this driveway with the project at 470 students would occur in the AM peak hour. It is recommended that a “keep clear” area at this driveway intersection be striped to ensure that the queue does not block this movement. Driveway intersections further to the east, including a second access point that provides access to a larger parking area and additional locations in the same residential development, would not be blocked by this increased queue.

Signal Warrant Analysis - Contra Costa Boulevard/Massolo Drive A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the Contra Costa Boulevard/Massolo Drive intersection, based on the analyzed volumes for the project scenarios. The major and minor approach volumes were analyzed, as required for the peak-hour traffic signal warrant of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as adopted for use in California by Caltrans. None of the volumes exceed the minimum thresholds of the warrant for peak-hour volumes (MUTCD Warrant 3), based on the two-lane major approaches of Contra Costa Boulevard and the on-lane approach of Massolo Drive.

Additionally, MUTCD Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System guidelines were also reviewed for this location. This warrant reviews the viability of platooning of vehicles through adjacent intersections for improved traffic flow. However, it was determined that a traffic signal would be ineligible for consideration at this intersection when analyzing conditions under this warrant. The related MUTCD guidance indicates that “The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet.” As the traffic signal located at Contra Costa Boulevard and Massolo Drive is located only 450 feet from Contra Costa Boulevard and Beth Drive, and 850 feet from the signal at Contra Costa Boulevard and Ellinwood Drive, this warrant is not met.

The signal warrant analysis worksheets for this location are provided in Appendix I.

Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 47 All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis
Multi-way stop control warrant studies were conducted for these three study intersections:
• Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way
• Ellinwood Way & Treehaven Court
• Longbrook Way & Massolo Drive
None of these three intersections meet minimum volume thresholds under peak-hour warrant analysis.

All-way stop control is recommended, however, for the Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way intersection, to improve overall vehicle delay and operations with the project in the project buildout period. This intersection meets an additional criterion provided by the MUTCD, as it has approaches of multiple neighborhood streets of the same design and operating characteristics where the installation of an allway stop improves traffic operations.

The all-way stop sign control warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix J.

Queuing Analysis
Vehicle queuing at other specific intersection approach vehicle movements within the study area were evaluated as part of the circulation analysis. The review of two specific locations targeted for analysis based on the scoping effort with the City is provided below.

Contra Costa Boulevard & Monument Boulevard/Crescent Plaza The following are the analyzed vehicle queue lengths at the westbound right-turn movement of this study intersection:
x Existing with-project scenario: 202 feet in AM peak (versus 196 feet in the existing scenario), 329 feet in PM peak (versus 324 feet in the existing scenario). x Opening year with-project scenario: 205 feet in AM peak (versus 199 feet in the without-project scenario), 335 feet in PM peak (versus 331 feet in the without-project scenario) x Future with-project scenario: 223 feet in AM peak (versus 206 feet in the without-project scenario), 356 feet in PM peak (versus 341 feet in the without-project scenario) The right-turn pocket for this movement is 200 feet in length, back from the intersection crosswalk and limit line. The queuing lengths are estimated in the calculations to exceed this length by a range of only one foot to 140 feet in the pre-project period of the analyzed scenarios. The project incremental impact ranges from a 4-foot increase to a 17-foot increase, which at the high range is slightly less than one vehicle. This small incremental increase related to the proposed project is considered a less than significant impact based on the calculations, and these increases would not create any operational impacts to this vehicle movement or the adjacent vehicle movements.

The intersection queuing analysis worksheets, a sub-set of those provided for the level of service analysis for the related scenarios, are provided Appendix K.

Project Local Circulation Impacts
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 48

8.6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS – CUMULATIVE WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS WITH

MITIGATION
Based on the analysis conducted in section 8.5, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
x Install all-way stop sign control at Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way x Add “Keep Clear” striped area at residential driveway intersection to east of Contra Costa Boulevard & Ellinwood Drive
The analysis of all-way stop sign control at the Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way intersection is provided in Table 8.4. This measure is recommended based on the poor LOS in the AM peak hour that would occur due to the project and MUTCD guidance on intersections of local roadways.

Table 8.4 – Determination of Project Intersection Impacts – Cumulative Conditions with Mitigation Measures Study Intersections Peak
Hour
Cumulative (2027)
w/ Project
Conditions
Cumulative (2027)
w/ Project
Conditions and
Mitigation
Delay in
Seconds LOS Delay in Seconds LOS
1 Longbrook Way & Ellinwood
Way (Driveway #1)
AM 83.4 F 14.5 B
PM 11.2 B 8.0 A
LOS = Level-of-Service
This intersection would operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour with the project, and average delay would improve to LOS B with implementation of the mitigation measure. This includes the intersection of Longbrook Way & Ellinwood Way, which was would operate at LOS F at project buildout without the installation of an all-way stop. Therefore, with installation of the all-way stop control by the buildout period, the project transportation impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 49

9.0 PICK-UP/DROP-OFF AND PARKING

9.1 PICK-UP/DROP-OFF OPERATIONS
Queuing conditions for the project site pick-up/drop-off area was evaluated, to ensure that extended queuing within the project site would not adversely impact adjacent neighborhood roadways.

Based on a typical vehicle on-center spacing of 25 feet, the pick-up/drop-off routes within the project site can hold queues of 24 and 19 vehicles, with a total queuing capacity of 43 vehicles. The estimated queue lengths would not exceed these capacities.

The queuing analysis included the inputs of estimated pick-up/drop-off dwell times per vehicle and the project trip generation. For these calculations, a vehicle queuing analysis was conducted for the pickup/drop-off area, based on the total students and the project trip generation, and a random arrivals and queuing calculations spreadsheet named q.xls, developed by the University of Missouri at Kansas City. The PM analysis results could be slightly less accurate as it does not acknowledge the early arrivals and queuing before the final dismissal bell that can be documented through surveys. The survey data methodology in the first part of this section includes the peak queuing number from AM or PM operations, so it factors in these special conditions.

The primary inputs to this analysis are gross project trips, without trip credits from the previous site use, and an assumed processing time per vehicle and 30 seconds was used for that value. Half of the project trips were assumed to occur within a 15-minute period, to simulate the short but heavy peak of typical school pick-up and drop-off periods.

Assuming this 30-second average unloading time per vehicle and a peak ingress period of 15 minutes, the service rate of the pick-up/drop-off area per designated loading/unloading space over a 15-minute peak period would be (15 minutes x 60 seconds or 900)/30 seconds or 30 vehicles processed. With up to four spaces assumed for loading/unloading, the number of vehicles processed would be 120 in that case.

The following was concluded from the queuing analysis for the opening year of the project with 200 students:
x The gross peak-hour project inbound vehicle trips total 113 in the AM peak hour and 56 in the PM peak hour.
x Half of the 113 peak period inbound vehicle trips calculated for the hour, or 57 trips, were assumed to occur within the analyzed 15-minute period. The ability to provide two loading spaces within each of the two pick-up/drop-off areas was assumed.
x Using the random arrivals and servicing calculations, the 95th percentile or expected queuing calculation is 4-5 vehicles with four loading/unloading spaces operating. x The off-street pick-up/drop-off queuing area for the northbound pick-up/drop-off route can hold 24 vehicles within the site (based on an available queuing area of 620 feet), so the capacity for this route would not be exceeded under these calculations and the nearby roadway would not be blocked.
x The off-street pick-up/drop-off queuing area for the southbound pick-up/drop-off route can hold 19 vehicles within the site (based on an available queuing area of 490 feet), so the capacity for this Pick-up/Drop-off and Parking
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 50 route would also not be exceeded.

The following was concluded from the queuing analysis for the future operations of the project with 470 students:
x The gross peak-hour project inbound vehicle trips total 266 in the AM peak hour and 133 in the PM peak hour.
x Half of the 266 peak period inbound vehicle trips calculated for the hour, or 133 trips, were assumed to occur within the analyzed 15-minute period. The ability to provide at least two loading spaces within each of the two pick-up/drop-off areas was assumed. x Using the random arrivals and servicing calculations, the maximum typical queue would be 10-11 vehicles, with five loading/unloading spaces operating across the two pick-up/drop-off areas. x The pick-up/drop-off queuing areas of 24 vehicles for the northbound route and 19 vehicles for the southbound route would not be exceeded under these calculations, with the five total loading/unloading spaces in use by the project buildout period.

The on-site vehicle queuing capacities are not reached at either of the analyzed school sizes. The school will evaluate ways to improve efficiency of operations to reduce the length of the peak pick-up/drop-off vehicle queue if necessary, as needed as the school expands and operations are evaluated by the school operator.

These measures could include staggered schedules for sets of grades, a parent vehicle carpooling program, the promotion of increased use of transit, or other vehicle trip reducing measures.

9.2 PARKING
As defined by Schedule 18.55.030A of Section 18.55.030 of the City Municipal Code, all schools require one parking space for each employee, plus one space for 100 square feet of classroom space. The total classroom floor area would be 14,338 square feet.

The number of employees would be 40 at school buildout. The required parking per Code therefore is 143 spaces for the classroom area and 40 spaces for employees, or a total of 183 spaces. The project site would not meet Code requirements with the planned site off-street parking supply of 151 spaces.

The project applicant is asking for an exception to the ordinance and related parking requirements. The Municipal Code parking requirements are above and beyond what is needed for daily drop off and pick up and school operations throughout the day. The school will not have any driving-age students.

The parking demand will be generated by the following:
x 40 daily staff members - 5 administrative staff and 35 staff/faculty members. x 19 to 57 parent vehicles parking, to walk students to building and/or meet with teachers. To allow for overlapping inbound and outbound vehicles, adding a 50 percent increases to these numbers results in a range of 29 to 86 vehicles.

Pick-up/Drop-off and Parking
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 51 The demand for parking of parent vehicles in these calculations is based on the currently operating school sites, and operational plans for the proposal school. It is estimated from this that at least 75% of parents will use the pick-up/drop off areas. The remaining 25 percent of parents, at the most, may need to park and exit their vehicles to access the school. From the project trip generation, 25 percent of the vehicle numbers were used for the total demand input:
x At the initial enrollment of 200 students, the highest estimated peak-hour vehicle flow is 76 outbound trips in the AM peak hour. A 25 percent ratio of this number is 19. x At the project buildout of 470 students, the highest peak-hour vehicle flow is 227 inbound trips in the PM peak hour. A 25 percent ratio of this number is 57.

Up to four school special events per year would be scheduled for a 400-person capacity. Event times are planned to be within the 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm timeframe. Assuming an average number of persons per vehicle at 1.5, whether students return to the school with their parents or remain at school for the event and one or two parents attend, this number is reasonable. The parking demand during events is estimated at 266 vehicles, at the 1.5 persons per vehicle average.

The subject property has a perpetual parking easement with 300 Ellinwood Way, the property immediately to the north, which allows up to 200 spaces to be used between the hours of 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The 151-space parking supply at the subject property will be supplemented during these times, as needed, via this parking easement. Access is shared between the project site and this northern site. Up to 351 spaces could be provided for special events, with the estimated demand of 266 vehicles allowing for a parking surplus.

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 52

10.0 CEQA VMT ASSESSMENT
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by the California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that requires VMT for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA.

The project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric was evaluated by using the two following sets of data:
x Estimated staff/faculty daily trips multiplied by the average employment trip length from the local transportation analysis zone as defined by the County of Contra Costa traffic model. x Vehicle miles traveled by parent vehicles, based on a ZIP code distribution analysis with inputs from the current student data.

The following is the 2020 VMT per capita from the County of Contra Costa travel demand model, maintained by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, for residential, commercial and service population for Pleasant Hill, along with the screening thresholds and mitigation targets. 2020 Residential VMT per Capita (per resident)
༦ City of Pleasant Hill: 13.1
༦ Screening Threshold (15% below County): 14.7
༦ Mitigation Target: 14.7
2020 Commercial VMT per Capita (per employee)
༦ City of Pleasant Hill: 14.1
༦ Screening Threshold (15% below Region: 13.2
༦ Mitigation Target: 13.2
2020 VMT per Service Population
༦ City of Pleasant Hill: 33.0
༦ Screening Threshold (15% below County): 25.5
༦ Mitigation Target: 25.5
Based on the 78 families registered at the current school locations, and based on an analysis of the ZIP code data for these families as provided by the project applicant, the average anticipated trip length for parent drivers is 6.5 miles, with a round trip value of 13 miles. It is assumed that later registrations for the school will follow the same general geographic pattern and that this average trip distance would not change substantially. The residential VMT mitigation target for the City of Pleasant Hill is 14.7 miles and the per service population VMT mitigation target is 25.5.

CEQA VMT Assessment
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL | SONDER CREEK ACADEMY | TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PAGE 53 The ZIP code distribution map of current area school students that would transfer to the proposed project is provided as Attachment L to this report. The ZIP code mileage calculations are also provided in that attachment.

At 200 students, the school will have a staff of 25 adults. In the future at the 470-student level, the staffing levels will be 40 adults. The VMT per employee for the local transportation analysis zone (TAZ) of the project site, according to the County travel demand model is 12.4. The mitigation target is 13.2, and therefore the per-employee VMT is not expected to exceed this value and the VMT impacts of employee trips to and from the proposed school are assumed to be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT (F)

6. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2024-2029
Resolution No. 43-24 (Adopted June 17th, 2024)
City of Pleasant Hill

CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
Fiscal Years
2024-2029

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FISCAL YEARS 2024Ǧ2029

ELECTED OFFICIALS
Matt Rinn, Mayor
Sue Noack, Vice Mayor
Timothy M. Flaherty, Councilmember
Zac Shess, Councilmember
Allen Vinson, Councilmember
Andrew Kalinowski, City Treasurer

BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Sue Noack, Vice Mayor
Timothy M. Flaherty, Councilmember
Ethan Bindernagel, City Manager
Erick Cheung, Finance Manager
Ann James, Interim Public Works Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND AND CIP BUDGET SUMMARY
Page
BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 The City’s Capital Assets................................................................................................................ 1 Capital Needs Assessment............................................................................................................. 2 Capital Project Funding ................................................................................................................. 2 Project Selection............................................................................................................................ 3 CIP Adoption.................................................................................................................................. 4 CIP BUDGET SUMMARY ............................................................................................................6 Revenue Sources........................................................................................................................... 6 Expenditures Per Category............................................................................................................ϳ Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 1Ϭ

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Revenue Definitions and Guidelines for Expenditure of Capital Improvement Funds................. 1ϯ General Fund............................................................................................................................... 1ϯ Measure K Fund .......................................................................................................................... 1ϯ Traffic Mitigation Fund................................................................................................................ 1ϯ Gas Tax........................................................................................................................................ 1ϰ Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Fund.............................................................................................................. 1ϱ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Fund................................................. 1ϱ Capital Projects Fund Building Fund… .........................................................................................ϭϱ Measure J (Return to Source) Fund.............................................................................................ϭϲ Grants….......................................................................................................................................ϭϲ ARPA Funds… ..............................................................................................................................ϭϳ ANNUAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SHEETS .......................................................͘ϭϴͲϮϲ

FUNDED PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Funded Programs and Projects Budget Summary Table.........................................................͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϳ

MEASURE K FUNDED PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Street Resurfacing Program.........................................................................................................Ϯϴ Storm Drain Improvement Program............................................................................................Ϯϵ Pedestrian and Bicycle Program..................................................................................................ϯϭ Library MaintenanceEĞĞĚƐ........................................................................................................ 3Ϯ Library Monday Hours................................................................................................................. 3ϯ

MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Existing Street^ŝŐŶŝŶŐĂŶĚStriping Maintenance Program....͘͘͘..................................................ϯϰ Annual Creek Maintenance Program ..........................................................................................ϯϱ Storm Drain Maintenance Program ............................................................................................ϯϲ Sidewalk Maintenance /Gap Closure Program............................................................................ϯϳ Citywide Bridge Maintenance Program.......................................................................................ϯϴ Traffic Calming Improvement Program.......................................................................................ϯϵ ADA Improvement Program........................................................................................................ 4Ϭ

CITY FUNDED PROJECTS
Sign Installation Project ..............................................................................................................ϰ1 Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study..................................................................ϰ2 Oak Park Boulevard Complete Streets Study Corridor................................................................ϰϯ City Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation Project........................................................................ϰϰ Police Department Roof ReplacementWƌŽũĞĐƚ............................................................................ϰϱ City Hall Carpet Replacement (First Floor Offices) ......................................................................ϰϲ City Hall/PSC & Community Center
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇGenerator ........................................................ϰϳ Police Department Electronic Message Board............................................................................ϰ8 City Hall ADA Upgrades...............................................................................................................ϰϵ DVW^&ŝůƚĞƌ/ŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶͬĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĞƐŝŐŶ.........................................................͘͘͘͘͘͘͘5Ϭ Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure...................................................................................... 5ϭ Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation........................................................ 5Ϯ Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Taylor Boulevard ............................................................... 5ϯ Citywide Traffic Data Collection.................................................................................................. 5ϰ Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan ................................................................................................ 5ϱ Pleasant Hill Underground Utilities Study................................................................................... 5ϲ

GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS
Contra Costa Boulevard ImpƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚProject (sŝŬŝŶŐƌŝǀĞƚŽ,ĂƌƌŝĞƚƌŝǀĞͿ͘͘.................͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘5ϳ Monument Boulevard/IͲ680 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project................................... 5ϴ

UNFUNDED PROJECTS
Unfunded Project List…................................................................................................................59 Major Improvement Projects
Pleasant Hill Road ImprovemenƚƐ(Phase IIͲV).͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘................................................................. 60 Taylor Boulevard Slide Repairs.................................................................................................... 6ϭ ReͲLandscape Medians along Taylor BoulevarĚ.................͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘6Ϯ City Hall Roof Replacement......................................................................................................... 6ϯ City Facilities Painting Project ..................................................................................................... 6ϰ Police Department ADA Upgrades .............................................................................................. 6ϱ Corporation Yard (PSC) Solar Panel Installation .......................................................................... 6ϲ Boyd RoadͬPleasant Hill Road^ŝŐŶĂů/ŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ.................................................͘͘͘.........6ϳ DŽŶƵŵĞŶƚůǀĚͬ/ͲϲϴϬŝĐǇĐůĞΘWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϴ ŽŐŐŝŶƐƌŝǀĞŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϵ Long Term Major Facility and Program Needs
Street Resurfacing Program Needs.............................................................................................. 7Ϭ Storm Drain Improvement Program Needs................................................................................. 7ϭ Pedestrian and BiĐǇĐůĞProgram Needs....................................................................................... 7ϯ City Building Facility Needs..........................................................................................................ϳϴ ADA Improvement Program Needs.............................................................................................ϳϵ Citywide Bridge Program Maintenance Needs ............................................................................ 8ϭ Traffic Signal System Needs ........................................................................................................ 83 Diablo Vista Water System Needs............................................................................................... 8ϲ

APPENDICES
A. Completed CIP Projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………..ϴϳ B. Resolutions (Planning Commission & City Council)...........................................................ϴϴͲϵϬ 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

BACKGROUND AND CIP BUDGET

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION
The City of Pleasant Hill is located in central Contra Costa County and was incorporated in 1961.

Public infrastructure, such as roads, storm drains, and sidewalks were primarily constructed between 1950 and 1970.Today the City owns miles of streets and sidewalks, numerous public buildings, acres of medians and open space, and many other public assets.

Many of the City’s capital assets are aging and in need of renewal or replacement, and even newer assets need routine maintenance to maintain them in good condition. While the City is almost fully developed and has seen limited local growth in the last two decades, the regional economy, demand for housing, and overall population in the county have grown steadily.This has resulted in an increase in traffic along city streets (especially along the regional roadway network), increased stress to the aging storm drain network, and overall demand for upgrades and improvements to the existing infrastructure system.

The City has a tradition of prudent financial management, including maintaining public assets in good condition to minimize lifecycle costs. Residents also greatly value the beauty of the community’s built and natural environment and have high expectations regarding the upkeep of public facilities.The combination of these factors has led the City to engage in active capital planning and asset management. The City has created a multiͲyear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) biennially (every two years) to dovetail with the City Council’s adoption of the biennial budget.

In November 2016, Pleasant Hill voters approved Measure K, a twentyͲyear, oneͲhalf cent transactions and use tax. The City Council has expressed its interest in using Measure K resources for infrastructure projects.
THE CITY’S CAPITAL ASSETS
The City, like most municipalities, has a vast network of public infrastructure. The infrastructure can generally be classified into the following major categories:
x Roads and bridges;
x Bikeways and multiͲuse trails;
x Sidewalks and pedestrian paths;
x Stormwater infrastructure;
x Buildings;
x Maintained landscaping and irrigation systems; and
x Street lights, traffic signals, and signs.

The City does not have park and recreation facilities, fire protection facilities, or utilities (except Diablo Vista Water System), as those services are provided by other public agencies.

Capital Improvement Plan 1 FY 2024-2029

BACKGROUND

CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Over the years, the City has conducted periodic assessments of its capital asset renewal, replacement, and expansion needs. As noted above, in 2016 Pleasant Hill voters approved Measure K to fund some of these identified needs. Measure K is projected to provide approximately $5 million annually for the next 20 years.

Below is a list of the needs assessments that the City has completed for its capital assets. x Pavement Management Plan;
x Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;
x City Building Assessment;
x Storm Drain Master Plan; and
x Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan.

The City’s assets were reviewed by an outside consultant in 2018, and the overall unfunded infrastructure needs have been updated as part of this CIP update to reflect approximately $266 million in unfunded capital projects for the next 20 years. The unfunded needs are divided into eight asset types as follows:
x RoadsͲ$96.4 million;
x Storm Drain FacilitiesͲ$40.1 million;
x Bike and Pedestrian Facilities – $25.2 million;
x Building FacilitiesͲ$69.5 million;
x ADA FacilitiesͲ$5.1 million;
x BridgesͲ$17.3 million;
x Traffic Signal DevicesͲ$6.9 million; and
x Diablo Vista Water System FacilitiesͲ$5.5 million.

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING
Projects to maintain, renew, or replace existing capital assets or to build entirely new facilities are funded by many sources. The funding sources have changed over time due to changes in Federal, State, regional, and City programs and budgets. Funds from certain sources can only be used for narrowly defined purposes (e.g. grant funds, traffic mitigation funds, assessment district funds), whereas funds from other sources can be used for any capital project (e.g.

General Fund). Over the past decade, the City has routinely received funding from the following sources:

Capital Improvement Plan 2 FY 2024-2029

BACKGROUND
City Funds
x City General Fund
x Measure K Fund
x Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts 20 and 22 Fund x Unified Street Lighting District Fund
x Traffic Mitigation Fee
x National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) assessment fees County Funds
x County Measure J funds (transportation sales tax passed in November 2004, the successor to Measure C of 1988)
State Funds
x State Gas Tax funds
x Senate Bill (SB) 1 funds
Other
x Grants (from various Federal, State, Regional, or County grant programs) Some of these funds come in the form of formula grants, where the allocation is apportioned based on preapproved factors like population or road miles (e.g. Measure J Return to Source funds). Other funds are secured through a competitive project application process (e.g.

Federal/State grant funds).

PROJECT SELECTION
The challenge for City staff in creating the CIP is to identify the mix of capital projects that best balances numerous objectives and provides the most benefit and value to the City. The key considerations in selecting projects for inclusion in the CIP are listed below. x Alignment with City Council Goals – City staff has developed the CIP to meet the goals set by the City Council including preserving safe, functional, and effective infrastructure in a financially prudent manner, fostering active and effective economic development, and promoting a sustainable and environmentally friendly community. x Integrated project design and construction – City staff has developed “complete streets” corridor concepts on major City roadways that address the needs within the corridor across multiple infrastructure types.This allows a single corridor enhancement project to address all the needs simultaneously. As an example, the City has been implementing “complete streets” projects along different segments of Contra Costa Boulevard, with each project resolving traffic backup issues, replacing traffic signals, constructing new bike lanes, constructing new sidewalks, rehabilitating existing pavement, installing new street lighting, and replacing existing landscaping.

Capital Improvement Plan 3 FY 2024-2029

BACKGROUND
x Leverage outside funding for project implementation – Over the past fifteen years, the City has secured over $45 million in competitive State and Federal transportation grant funding for numerous improvement projects along city roadways, sometimes paying just ten cents on the dollar of the total project implementation cost.The City’s diligence in the preparation of grant applications, use of the “complete streets” corridor concepts as a blueprint for grant applications, and creative leveraging of local funds as matching funds all contribute to a successful program.
x Project prioritization – The CIP is financially constrained as the cost of all potential projects exceeds available funding.City staff has used the following criteria to prioritize projects:
o Improve health, welfare, safety, environment, and meet regulatory or mandated requirements;
o Project funded with outside grant funds which may be forfeited if the project is not completed;
o Extend asset longevity, asset condition, and reduce annual recurring costs; o Result in good community investment and economic prosperity; o Improve community image for a residential, commercial, or industrial district; and
o Support sustainability and provide water or energy conservation.

CIP ADOPTION
The CIP is created as part of the biennial budget process. It is the planning document through which the City identifies the capital projects that should be funded in the biennial budget and identifies a tentative list of projects to fund three to five years in the future. The City Council provides direction to staff on modifications, then adopts a final CIP. In a separate but linked action, the City Council approves the capital improvement projects fund budgets that are part of the complete biennial budget.

The City Council’s Budget Committee (BC), consisting of Vice Mayor Sue Noack and Councilmember Tim Flaherty, worked with staff on finance issues related to the preparation of the City’s Budget and the CIP. The BC’s main responsibilities are to identify and prioritize projects which best serve the interests of the City and make funding recommendations to the City Council. Supporting staff to the BC includes City Manager Ethan Bindernagel, Finance Manager Erick Cheung and Interim Public Works Director, Ann James.

A detailed description of the CIP development process is summarized in the chart below. Capital Improvement Plan 4 FY 2024-2029

BACKGROUND

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
City Council Meeting
June 17, 2024 (CIP Adoption)
Budget Committee Meeting
June 5, 2024(Review Draft CIP Budget)
Traffic Safety Commission Meeting
June 4, 2024(Identify Safety Priority for New Projects) Planning Commission Meeting
May 28, 2024(Determine CIP Consistency with the General Plan) Executive Team Meeting
April 2, 2024 (Review Draft Program/Project List and Unfunded Project List) Capital Improvement Plan 5 FY 2024-2029

The FY 2024Ͳ2029 CIP covers the fiscal budget years from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2029. The CIP includes an expenditure budget for fiscal year 2024/25 and fiscal year 2025/26, a forecast for fiscal year 2026/27 through fiscal year 2028/29, and an unfunded project list.The FY 2024Ͳ 2029 CIP apportions $26,129,824 during the 2Ͳyear budget period to construct and maintain public works facilities.
The FY 2024/2029 CIP prioritizes the following objectives, in part driven by Measure K’s focus:
x Maintain existing City streets – This includes fixing potholes, rehabilitating pavement surfaces, and instituting a preventative street maintenance program for the roadway network.
x Construct new sidewalks, trails, and bike facilities – This includes implementing “lowͲ stress” bicycle and pedestrian facilities and improving safety to promote walking and bicycling as alternate forms of transportation, ultimately leading to an overall healthier lifestyle.
x Maintain and upgrade the City’s storm drain system – This includes replacing old and failing storm drain pipes and upgrading certain storm drain systems to reduce the risk of local flooding.
x Improve other City facilities and services – This includes maintaining and updating City facilities for increased efficiency and reduce costs in the delivery of City services.

REVENUE SOURCES
CIP revenues during the 2Ͳyear budget period can be divided into three main categories: Measure K Revenue:$8,ϯϲϬ,ϮϬϲ
In November 2016, City voters passed a 20Ͳyear ½Ͳcent general sales tax measure (Measure K) to invest in the City’s aging infrastructure and to fund the construction of a new City Library.It is anticipated that Measure K will generate approximately $5 million each year. Measure K funds allocated to the CIP will be used to fund the Street Resurfacing Maintenance Program, projects identified under the Storm Drain Improvement Program, and projects identified under the Bike/Pedestrian Improvement Program.
Local Revenue:$13,186,942
Local revenues utilized for the CIP are obtained from certain recurring sources (e.g. Gas Tax, SB1 funds, Measure J Return to Source funds, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) funds) and nonͲrecurring sources (e.g. outside agency contribution, and others).Local revenues are primarily used to fund City maintenance programs, improvement programs, and CityͲfunded projects.
Grant Revenue:$4,832,000
Grant revenues are secured through project applications in response to formal calls for projects Capital Improvement Plan 6 FY 2024-2029

from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Project applications are reviewed, competitively scored, and selected for funding based on the ability to meet the grant’s intent and address specific transportation needs.Securing grant funds is not guaranteed and is considered a significant achievement on the part of City Engineering staff.

EXPENDITURES PER CATEGORY
The total CIP expenditure during the 2Ͳyear budget is approximately $26.ϰ million, divided into three main categories:

MEASURE K FUNDED PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS: $11,158,444
The residents of Pleasant Hill passed a local sales tax (Measure K) in November 2016 to invest in the City’s infrastructure and to construct a new City Library.Of the various infrastructure types in the City, three capital programs were identified as a priority for these Measure K funds— Street Resurfacing Program, Storm Drain Improvement Program, and Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Program.These programs are identified as a high priority in order to maintain and improve the City’s infrastructure safely and costͲeffectively. Street Resurfacing Program ($3,011,000)
With approximately 110 miles of roadway, the City’s street system is one of the City’s largest, most visible and valuable assets.The Street Resurfacing Program is the primary City program to perform street resurfacing, pavement repairs, and maintain the overall condition of the City’s roadways.
Storm Drain Improvement Program ($380,000)
The City’s Storm Drain Improvement Program provides for the installation of new storm drain facilities or the upgrade of existing storm drain facilities, with the ultimate goal of improving areas of poor drainage or areas with localized flooding problems.Program funding may also be used to reduce flooding potential from large infrequent storms. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program ($201,000)
The City’s Pedestrian/Bicycle Program will fund the installation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities or upgrades to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve overall safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists along public roadways. Improvements will target areas adjacent to key pedestrian/bicycle destinations (e.g. schools, senior center, and transit hubs) as well as collision hot spots. Improvements are identified by the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as well as other regional bicycle/pedestrian planning documents (e.g. Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan).
Capital Improvement Plan 7 FY 2024-2029

For this CIP, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program will fund the following projects: x Oak Park Boulevard Complete Streets Study Corridor ($124,000)ͲThis project will study complete streets improvements along the Oak Park Boulevard corridor between Pleasant Hill Road and Patterson Boulevard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.The study will include extensive community outreach and develop a vision and concept plans that reconfigure the street to better serve all roadway users and improve safety. This will include improved pedestrian facilities and new bicycle that provide multimodal connections between Pleasant Hill Elementary, the Contra Costa Canal Trail, Pleasant Hill Library, Pleasant Hill Middle School, and shopping areas.The study will consider tradeͲoffs between constraints along the corridor.The study will be a guiding document and will be used to pursue grant funding for design and construction.
x Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure ($100,000) Ͳ This project will develop design plans for construction of an ADA compliant sidewalk on Taylor Boulevard between Civic Drive and Lucille Lane/Norse Drive connecting recently complete projects at both intersections. The design process will include determining which side of Taylor Boulevard is most appropriate for the facility.The project will include development of construction cost estimates at which time construction funding will be sought. x Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study ($204,000)ͲThis project will study complete streets improvements along the Gregory Lane corridor between Pleasant Hill Road and Contra Costa Boulevard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The study will include extensive community outreach and develop a vision and concept plans that reconfigure the street to better serve all roadway users and improve safety. This will include improved pedestrian facilities and new bicycle facilities that provide multimodal connections between Downtown, City Hall, Pleasant Hill Park, Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and the Contra Costa Canal Trail.The study will be a guiding document and will be used to pursue grant funding for design and construction. x Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation ($26,000) Ͳ The proposed project is a part of the approved 5Ͳyear project list for the City's Measure K Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Program. The project scope includes the installation of a new rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) and crosswalk upgrades at the Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Westover Drive.When complete the project will improve the overall safety and visibility between trail users and approaching vehicle traffic. x Contra Costa Canal Crossing at Taylor Boulevard ($222,000)ͲThis project will study and design an extension of the Contra Costa Canal Trail on the east side of the canal across from Las Juntas Open Space and a new signalized crossing at Taylor Boulevard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP).Currently trail users Capital Improvement Plan 8 FY 2024-2029

wishing to continue on the Trail across Taylor Boulevard must divert through Las Juntas Open Space and to the Morello Avenue/Taylor Boulevard intersection. This project would provide a more direct route to destinations such as Diablo Valley College and College Park High School.The project will require coordination with different agencies including Contra Costa Water District and East Bay Regional Park District. The design documents developed during this study will be used to identify future funding for construction.

Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project ($1,323,935) This project will construct corridor "complete streets" enhancements along Contra Costa Boulevard (CCB), between Viking Drive and Harriet Drive. Project improvements will follow previously adopted landscaping, street lighting and bike/pedestrian design templates along CCB. Key project components include intersection geometry modification and traffic signal improvements at the CCB/Taylor Boulevard intersection, a new traffic signal at CCB/Alan Drive, new concrete sidewalks, new landscaping along median and sidewalk areas, new bike lanes, and new LED street lighting. Project implementation will be jointly developed and implemented with the City of Concord at the CCB/Taylor Boulevard intersection, as the westbound approach lies within the City of Concord.

Library Maintenance Program ($1,092,984)
The City of Pleasant Hill Library opened in July 2022.The annual average maintenance cost of Library for the next five years, including landscaping, insurance, utilities and building support is estimated to be $ϱϳϱ,0ϰϳ.

MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS:$1,655,859
There are recurring maintenance and improvement programs that provide for new City infrastructure facilities or facility upgrades, including the existing Street Striping Maintenance Program, Annual Creek Maintenance Program, existing Sidewalk Maintenance Program, Citywide Bridge Maintenance Program, Traffic Calming Improvement Program, and ADA Improvement Program.Funding levels for these programs are determined based on historical expenditure levels and anticipated needs for the 2Ͳyear budget period. CITY FUNDED PROJECTS:$5,231,235
The following projects are expected to be funded by a variety of sources (refer to individual project sheets for funding allocations).
x Sign Installation Project ($67,000)
x Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study ($204,000) x Oak Park Boulevard Complete Streets Study Corridor ($124,000) x City Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation Project ($2,514,267) Capital Improvement Plan 9 FY 2024-2029

x Police Department Roof Replacement ($300,000)
x City Hall Carpet Replacement (First Floor Offices) ($80,000) x City Hall/PSC & Community Center
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇGenerator ($755,260)
x Police Department Electronic Message Board ($50,000)
x City Hall ADA Upgrades ($58,708)
x DVWS&ŝůƚĞƌ/ŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶͬĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĞƐŝŐŶ($300,000 funded by DVWS Fund) x Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure ($100,000)
x Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation ($56,000) x Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Taylor Boulevard ($222,000) x Citywide Traffic Data Collection ($275,000)
x Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan ($215,000)
x Pleasant Hill Underground Utilities Study ($75,000)

CONCLUSION
The FY 2024Ͳ2029 CIP programs approximate $26.ϰ million to construct and maintain public facilities over the next two years. Staff believes that the FY 2024Ͳ2029 CIP identifies the City’s most pressing infrastructure project needs and represents the best use of available funds to meet the community needs and City Council goals. Some projects may require further environmental review during implementation to evaluate its impacts, and each project may be subject to further City Council review to authorize the execution of contracts.

Capital Improvement Plan 10 FY 2024-2029
2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Budget for Fiscal Years 2020/21 and 2021/22
Fiscal Year 2024/25 Totals
General
Fund 01
Traffic
Mitigation
Fund 305
Gas Tax
Fund 301
NPDES
Fund 231
City Building
Fund 308
Measure J
Fund 306 Grants SB1 Funds
Measure K
Funds ARPA Other Funding*
Measure K Funded Programs and Projects
Street Resurfacing Program $4,182,940 $513,359 $883,192 $1,110,000 $1,676,389 Storm Drain Improvement Program $1,418,476 $1,418,476
Pedestrian and Bike Program $254,385 $254,385
Library Maintenance $535,425 $535,425
Library Monday Hours $278,000 $278,000
Maintenance and Improvement Programs
Existing Street Striping Maintenance Program $40,000 $40,000 Annual Creek Maintenance Program $85,000 $85,000
Storm Drain Maintenance Program $607,251 $265,653 $341,598 Sidewalk Maintenance/Gap Closure Program $46,017 $46,017 Citywide Bridge Maintenance Program $190,000 $190,000
Traffic Calming Improvement Program $50,000 $50,000
ADA Improvement Program $75,000 $75,000
City Funded Projects
Sign Installation Project $67,000 $67,000
Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study $204,000 $204,000 Oak Park Boulevard Complete Streets Study Corridor $124,000 $124,000 City Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation Project $2,514,267 $150,000 $98,306 $1,450,000 $815,961 Police Department Roof Replacement $300,000 $300,000
City Hall Carpet Replacement (First Floor Offices) $80,000 $80,000 Corporation Yard (PSC) & Community Center Generator $755,260 $755,260 Police Department Electronic Message Board $50,000 $50,000 City Hall ADA Upgrades $0
DVWS Pumphouse Filter $150,000 $150,000
Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure $100,000 $100,000 Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation $56,000 $56,000 Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Taylor Boulevard $56,000 $56,000 Citywide Traffic Data Collection $55,000 $55,000
Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan $160,000 $160,000
Pleasant Hill Underground Utilities Study $75,000 $75,000 Grant Funded Projects
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project
(Harriet to Viking) $8,034,287 $4,792,000 $778,050 $1,305,882 $1,158,355 Monument Boulevard/I-680 Bicycle & Pedestrian Imp.

Project $50,000 $40,000 $10,000
$20,593,307 $75,000 $0 $788,359 $350,653 $80,000 $411,323 $4,832,000 $1,661,242 $4,979,307 $1,571,221 $5,844,203 *Other Funds include Uniform Street Light Fund, DV Water Fund, AD 20 Fund, re-budgeting from prior FY unspent funds, and Other Agency Contribution funds.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - REVENUE SOURCES
Capital Improvement Plan 11 FY 2024-2029
Budget for Fiscal Years 2020/21 and 2021/22
Fiscal Year 2025/26 Totals
General
Fund 01
Traffic
Mitigation
Fund 305
Gas Tax
Fund 301
NPDES
Fund 231
City Building
Fund 308
Measure J
Fund 306 Grants SB1 Funds
Measure K
Funds ARPA Other Funding*
Measure K Funded Programs and Projects
Street Resurfacing Program $3,313,643 $529,451 $883,192 $1,901,000 Storm Drain Improvement Program $380,000 $380,000
Pedestrian and Bike Program $201,000 $201,000
Library Maintenance $557,559 $557,559
Library Monday Hours $286,340 $286,340
Maintenance and Improvement Programs
Existing Street Striping Maintenance Program $40,000 $40,000 Annual Creek Maintenance Program $75,000 $75,000
Storm Drain Maintenance Program $275,653 $275,653
Sidewalk Maintenance/Gap Closure Program $46,938 $46,938 Citywide Bridge Maintenance Program $0
Traffic Calming Improvement Program $50,000 $50,000
ADA Improvement Program $75,000 $75,000
City Funded Projects
Sign Installation Project $0
Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study $0
Oak Park Blvd Complete Streets Study Corridor $0
City Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation Project $0
Police Department Roof Replacement $0
City Hall Carpet Replacement (First Floor Offices) $0
City Hall/PSC & Community Center Generator $0
Police Department Electronic Message Board $0
City Hall ADA Upgrades $58,708 $58,708
DVWS Pumphouse Filter $150,000 $150,000
Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure $0
Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation $0 Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Taylor Boulevard $166,000 $166,000 Citywide Traffic Data Collection $55,000 $55,000
Pleasant Hill Climate Action Plan $55,000 $55,000
Pleasant Hill Underground Utilities Study $0
Grant Funded Projects
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project
(Harriet to Viking) $0
Monument Boulevard/I-680 Bicycle & Pedestrian Imp.

Project $0
$5,785,841 $0 $0 $654,451 $350,653 $0 $141,938 $0 $883,192 $3,380,899 $0 $374,708 *Other Funds include Uniform Street Light Fund, DV Water Fund, AD 20 Fund, and Other Agency Contribution funds.

Two year budget totals -> $26,379,148 $75,000 $0 $1,442,810 $701,306 $80,000 $553,261 $4,832,000 $2,544,434 $8,360,206 $1,571,221 $6,218,911

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - REVENUE SOURCES
Capital Improvement Plan 12 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

REVENUE DEFINITIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR EXPENDITURE

OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
The following information is intended to provide a detailed explanation of the revenue sources identified in this CIP.A variety of funding sources fund the CIP over the 2Ͳyear budget period including: Measure K funds, Gas Tax funds, SB1 funds, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) funds, Measure J Return to Source funds, grant funds, and other miscellaneous funds. The most consistent revenue sources for the CIP are from Gas Tax funds, Measure K funds, Measure J Return to Source funds, and NPDES funds. These revenue sources have statutory restrictions regarding what types of expenditures are allowed. Below are definitions and guidelines for the expenditure of the various revenues used for funding the CIP.

GENERAL FUND – City General Fund
While there is generally no restriction on the use of General Fund monies, General Fund uses for projects or programs are approved by City Council.The Pleasant Hill Underground Utilities Study is the only project that has General Fund monies allocated to it over the next two years. MEASURE K FUND – VoterͲApproved ½ͲCent General Sales Tax In November 2016, City voters approved a twentyͲyear ½Ͳcent general sales tax to invest in the onͲgoing maintenance, upgrade or replacement of the City’s infrastructure. While there is technically no restriction on the use of Measure K funds because it is a general sales tax, the City Council and City voters expressed strong support for the utilization of Measure K funds for the construction and operation of the new City library, as well as the onͲgoing enhancement of City streets, storm drain facilities, and bike/pedestrian facilities. TRAFFIC MITIGATION FUND – Developer Fees
Traffic Mitigation Funds (TMF) (Fund 06) are collected from development fees. City Council approved amending the City’s Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance on October 6, 2003.The new Ordinance No.779 establishes a new fee schedule and use of collected fees.

TMF monies are primarily used for the enhancement and expansion to the City’s transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. TMF revenues vary year to year based on the amount of development traffic impact fees collected by the City. The Pedestrian and Bicycle program intends to utilize TMF monies over the next two years to fund the installation of new pedestrian and bicycle improvements at high priority areas in the City.TMF funds will also be used for the Contra Costa Boulevard (Harriet to Viking) Improvement Project.

Capital Improvement Plan 13 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GAS TAXͲState of California Gasoline Taxes
The authorization for the levy and expenditure of gas taxes is codified in the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 2103, 2105, 2106, and 2107.The gas tax is apportioned to cities based upon three factors: vehicle registration, assessed valuation, and population.

In the City of Pleasant Hill, gas tax revenue is accounted for in special Revenue Funds 12.There are restrictions on how this money may be spent. Gas tax funds are audited by the State Controller's Office annually on a retrospective basis. "If an expenditure is for a legal purpose, valid, and supported by sufficient competent evidential matter, no exception will be deemed necessary." Failure to expend gas tax for approved purposes will subject the City to having any disallowed expenditures withheld from a subsequent year's allocation. a. SECTIONS 2103 (12Ͳ3630), 2105, 2106 (12Ͳ3631) & 2107 (12Ͳ3632) GAS TAX Beginning with the 2010Ͳ11 fiscal year, Section 2103 was added to the Streets and Highways Code to allocate funds from a new motor vehicle fuel excise tax that replace previous city and county allocations from the Proposition 42 sales tax on gasoline.

Section 2103 funds are allocated to cities on a per capita basis.

Gas tax allocated under Streets and Highways Code Section 2105 was approved by voters in June of 1990 as Proposition 111, which provides funding for much of the freeway widening work in the State. The Proposition also provides revenues to local jurisdictions to enhance roadway improvement expenditures. The combined revenue (sections 2103, 2105, 2106, and 2107) historically average $850,000 annually. There are three classifications of eligible expenditures for these revenues:

Construction: "The building or rebuilding of streets, roads, bridges, and construction of rightͲofͲways or their component parts to a degree that improved traffic service is provided, and geometric or structural improvements are effected including allocated administration and engineering services incurred and directly related to the above." Construction work includes three categories:

1. New Location:Construction deviates from the existing roadway alignment and produces a new street.

2. Reconstruction: Construction involves modification to existing roadway geometry or elements but within the existing roadway alignment.

3. Betterments:Construction activities that result in an enhancement in roadway operations or increase to the service life of capital facilities.

Capital Improvement Plan 14 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Maintenance: "The preservation and upkeep of a street or road constructed condition, and the operation of a street or road facility and its integral services to provide safe,convenient, and economical highway transportation." Maintenance is divided between:

1. Physical: Preservation of a highway to preserve it in its original condition or an improved condition.

2. Traffic: Services to provide safe, convenient, and economical travel. The City allocates approximately $300,000 annually for traffic signal maintenance.

Overhead: “Those elements of the cost necessary in the production of an article or performance of a service which is of such a nature that the amount applicable to the functions are not readily discernible. Usually, they relate to those objects of expenditure which do not become an integral part of the finished product or service.” Overhead is only allowed if there is an existing approved cost allocation plan that distributes overhead to all departments. The City has chosen not to charge overhead costs to gas tax projects.

SENATE BILL 1 (SB 1) FUND – STATE GAS TAX AND VEHICLE FEES SB 1 was signed into law by the California Governor on April 28, 2017, which imposed additional fuel tax and vehicle fees to help fund roadway maintenance and other transportation needs in the State. A portion of SB 1 funds is allocated to the City for roadway maintenance or improvement projects.For the next two years, $2,544,000 in SB 1 funds will be expended as part of the City’s Street Resurfacing Program.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM – NPDES FUND As a participating member of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, the City receives NPDES Funds (Fund 231). The City collects these funds through a citywide assessment.Only a portion of the funds are allocated to the CIP.It is projected that $701,306 will be expended over the next two years to fund eligible NPDES capital programs and projects.The use of NPDES Funds is restricted to approved “NPDES Activities” such as inspection and maintenance of storm drain systems and creek facilities to reduce stormwater contamination from entering waters of the United States.

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDͲBUILDING FUND
Capital Projects Fund (Fund 308) is used for capital improvements and large maintenance projects on CityͲowned buildings.Funding is provided by approved contributions from the Capital Improvement Plan 15 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
General Fund.It is projected that $80,000 will be expended over the twoͲyear budget period on the City Hall Carpet Replacement Project.
MEASURE J (RETURN TO SOURCE) – MEASURE J COUNTYWIDE SALES TAX Measure J Return to Source Funds (Fund 306) are transportation improvement and maintenance funds distributed to the City annually from the countywide Measure J program. Measure J is a ½Ͳcent countywide transportation sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004 to help generate funding for various transportation improvement and maintenance projects throughout Contra Costa County. The City’s share for the Measure J Return to Source revenues averages $550,000 per year. Return to Source funds supplement existing City funds being used for transportation improvements and programs.To qualify, the City must continue to maintain street and road expenditures at levels that were reported in the State Controller's Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads Ͳ Fiscal Year 1986Ͳ87 (adjusted for nonͲdiscretionary expenditures). These expenditures are referred to as "Maintenance of Effort" (MOE). The City’s base year MOE expenditures are $1,019,834.If a city does not meet its MOE in a given year, the Return to Source funds will be decreased in the subsequent year by an amount equal to the difference between the MOE and the City's actual expenditures. An annual calculation must be performed for the Measure J MOE and is subject to review by CCTA.

GRANTSͲOTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Grant funds are Federal or State monies awarded to the City through competitive project applications to various Federal, State, or Countywide transportation programs.The securing of grant funds is extremely competitive, given the large number of project applications submitted statewide for the limited amount of grant funds available.Due to high project construction costs, it is typical for the City to secure grant funding from multiple grant sources to fund single project implementation.Grant funding sources continuously change as funding programs are discontinued while others are created.
Nearly all grant programs require significant levels of effort for project planning and development before an application is developed and submitted. The granting body then reviews and ranks the submitted project applications using rating criteria tailored to the goals of each grant program. The City is not guaranteed project funding simply by submitting a project application.

Once grant funding is approved, the City must use its own money upfront to design and/or build a project. The City must then submit backup documentation and requests for grant Capital Improvement Plan 16 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
reimbursement.The release of grant reimbursement is typically highly restrictive and regulated,withtheadministeringagenciesrequiringtheCitytogothroughformalproject review and approval process at various implementation stages (e.g. Environmental, Design, Right of Way, Construction, and Project Closeout) prior to grant funding reimbursement.

BelowisalistofgrantͲfundedcapitalprojectsandtherespectivegrantfundsthatwillbe utilized during the next two years:
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project (Harriet to Viking) Monument Boulevard/IͲ680 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS
On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was passed by Congress and signed into law a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill to assist with the impacts of COVIDͲ19.Among other things, ARPA established a State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund which provides $130 billion for local governments to enable them to continue to support the public health response and assist with economic recovery. The City of Pleasant Hill’s received an ARPA allocation for $8.3 million.Eligible costs must be expended between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2026, and obligated by December 31, 2024.
MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS – VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES
Miscellaneous funds from various sources are utilized for projects and programs in the CIP, including Uniform Street Lighting District funds, Assessment District funds, Diablo Vista Water funds, reͲbudgeting from prior Fiscal Year unspent funds and other outside agency funding contributions.These funds have strict restrictions on the location and type of activities that the funds can be utilized, given the purpose for which the assessment or contribution was made. For this CIP, $6,218,911 in miscellaneous funds will be expended. Capital Improvement Plan 17 FY 2024-2029

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

ANNUAL FUND REVENUES

AND EXPENDITURES BREAKDOWN
Fund 231ͲNPDES Fund
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
450010 Interest Income 3,852 25,196 53,183 45,000 45,000 45,450 45,905 46,364 420090 Stormwater Utility Assessment 331,249 341,598 350,000 360,500 367,710 375,064 382,565 390,216 490090 Measure K (Storm Drain Improvement Program (MKͲ002) 175,000 535,121 518,000 0 380,000 405,000 425,000 446,000 490090 Transfer in ARPA funds for Gregory Gardens Storm Drain Project 655,736 1,482,877 Total Revenues 1,165,837 2,384,792 921,183 405,500 792,710 825,514 853,470 882,580 Expenditures:
4002Ͳ620113 Community Relations (postage) 1,400 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4002Ͳ620114 Community Relations (Administration) 2,350 369 486 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4002Ͳ700015 Community Relations (promos) 6,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 5020 Annual Creek Maintenance Program (MKͲ003) 54,857 81,902 60000 85,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Project Admin 520
5065 Existing Storm Drain Maintenance Program (MKͲ004) 9,438 Design 75,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Engineering Staff 25,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Project Admin 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Construction 502,251 230,653 230,653 230,653 230,653
5037Ͳ630042 MRP Trash Reduction (REM filter maintenance) 18,252 13,282 23,704 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 5063 Street Resurfacing Transfer 205,000
5065 Measure K Storm Drain Improvement Program (MKͲ002) 729,386 14,715 Design 125,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Project Admin 5,000
Construction 1,238,476 340,000 365,000 385,000 406,000
3001Ͳ630040 Contractural Services 26,380 33,692
Gregory Gardens Storm Drain Project (Patricia Dr. & Vivian Dr.) 27,449 5020Ͳ800030 Storm Drain Construction 920,459 58,772
5065Ͳ800030 85,140
Diablo View 368,728
Diablo View Interfund Transfer 232,837
Diablo View Engineering Salaries 17,880
5065Ͳ620131 Project Admin 573 2,400 5,000
5142Ͳ620123 NPDES (Street Sweeping, License, Fees) 17,666 17,666 17,666 18,019 18,380 18,747 19,122 19,505 MRP 3.0 CIP Projects
3001Ͳ611010 Engineering Salaries (NPDES Program Mgmt) 9,507 4,094 9,274 50,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 5065Ͳ630018 Consultant Services 38,521 12,155
5065Ͳ630034 Engineering Services 3,841
5097Ͳ611010 Maintenance Salaries 125,877 52,344 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Total Expenditures 871,939 2,073,168 359,474 2,272,246 887,533 912,900 933,275 954,658 Capital Improvement3ODQ 18 FY 2024-2029
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Rev less Exp 293,898 311,624 561,709 Ͳ1,866,746 Ͳ94,823 Ͳ87,386 Ͳ79,806 Ͳ72,078 Plus:Fund Balance 1,167,924 1,461,824 1,773,448 2,335,157 468,410 373,588 286,201 206,395 Fund Balance 1,461,824 1,773,448 2,335,157 468,410 373,588 286,201 206,395 134,317 NPDES Street SweepingͲpart of waste contract, Fund 19 pays for additional frequency per MRP Trash requirements MRP Trash ReductionͲ3rd party installation and maintenance &DSLWDOImprovement Plan 19 FY 2024-2029
Fund 301ͲGas Tax Fund
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
450010 Interest Income 16,635 130,689 160,000 163,200 150,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 460110 Prop 42 Gas Tax (2103) 269,988 281,260 322,693 325,566 332,077 338,719 345,493 352,403 460111 2106 Gas Tax 120,761 123,470 131,147 133,552 136,223 138,948 141,726 144,561 460112 2107 Gas Tax 226,647 267,722 289,761 297,071 303,012 309,073 315,254 321,559 460114 2105 Gas Tax 189,540 196,445 213,987 217,836 222,193 226,637 231,169 235,793 460116 Road Maintenance & Rehab (SB1) 685,641 762,028 837,112 893,794 911,670 929,902 948,500 967,470 460133 TDA Article 3 ReimbͲPHR Sidewalk Installation Project (MKͲ3A) 100,000 52,800 100,000 4578
Transfer from (12) Golf Club Road/Old Quarry Road Improvements (MKͲ 5) 583,462
490090 Trnsfr in
490090 Trnsfr In from 103 (Annual Street Resurfacing Program) (MKͲ1) 2,142,000 5,289,700 490090 Trnsfr In from 03 (Street Resurfacing Program) (MKͲ1) 490090 Trnsfr In from 03 (Pedestrian & Bicycle Program) (MKͲ3) 339,000 256,000 239,000 248,000 259,000 490090 Trnsfr In from 03 (Oak Park and Monticello Improvement) (MKͲ5) 490090 Trnsfr in from 103 (Street Resurfacing Program) (MKͲ1) 2,584,000 1,110,000 1,901,000 2,027,000 2,126,000 2,228,000 3884 HBRR Federal Grant 48,180
Measure JͲCCͲTLC Grant Reimb. (CCB Imp. Project) 3,792,000 Measure JͲPBTF Grant Reimb. (CCB Imp. Project) 1,000,000 City of Concord (CCB Imp. Project) 440,000
Total Revenues 4,343,445 7,104,115 4,977,700 8,373,019 4,212,175 4,329,278 4,456,143 4,588,786 Expenditures:
1010Ͳ630040 Contractual Svcs (for annual Street Report) 1,816 2,927 3,000 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,376 1019Ͳ620123 Government Licenses & Fees 8,181 8,200 8,446 8,699 8,960 9,229 5019 Traffic Calming Improvement Program(IPͲ1) 16,377 33,643 13,177 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 5055 Citywide Bridge Repairs Program (MͲ5) 1,751 1,190 680 190,000 5057 ADA Improvement Program (IPͲ2) 2,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 5063 Street Resurfacing Program(MKͲ1) 177,746 5,076,237 306,464 4,182,940 3,313,643 3,456,188 3,572,196 3,691,683 5107 Traffic Signal Maintenance(County Signal)
650043 Main/Tr Sgnl/Strt Lghts 830 Ͳ850 2,879
5112 Traffic SignalͲCCB & Vivian 3,410
5117 Pleasant Hill Rd Sidewalk (Pleasant View to Cumberland) (MKͲ3A) 321,370 527 8,340 5118 Taylor and Civic Intersection Improvements (MKͲ3B) 10,862 26,724 39,960 5137 Contra Costa Blvd (Harriet to Viking) (GͲ26) 143,125 380,936 149,984 7,434,287 5138 Oak Park Boulevard/Monticello Roadway Improvements (MKͲ5) 649,584 2,860 3,362 5139 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (MKͲ3) 37,617 248,924 1,455,000 254,385 201,000 215,000 229,000 242,000 Citywide Traffic Data Collection 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 Gregory Lane Complete Streets Improvement Study 204,000 &DSLWDOImprovement Plan 20 FY 2024-2029
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Oak Park Boulevard Complete Streety Study 124,000
Taylor Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure 100,000
Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive RRFB Installation 56,000 Contra Costa Canal Trail Taylor Boulevard Crossing Study 56,000 166,000 Monument Boulevard/IͲ680 Bicycle and Pedestrian Study 10,000 5149 Oak Pak Gap Closure 752,645
5151 Intersection & CrosswalkImprovement Project 666,212 City Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation 150,000
5999 NonͲDepartmental (City share of CCTA CMA cost) 3,623 4,666 Total Expenditures 1,364,158 5,777,784 3,415,294 12,952,812 3,872,179 3,863,070 3,993,434 4,126,288 Rev less Exp 2,979,287 1,326,331 1,562,406 (4,579,793) 339,996 466,208 462,709 462,498 Plus:Fund Balance 1,895,967 4,875,255 6,201,586 7,763,992 3,184,199 3,524,196 3,990,403 4,453,113 Fund Balance 4,875,254 6,201,586 7,763,992 3,184,199 3,524,196 3,990,403 4,453,113 4,915,611 Capital Improvement Plan 21 FY 2024-2029
Fund 305ͲTraffic Mitigation Fund
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
450010 Interest Income 417 5,942 6,844 6,981 7,120 7,263 7,408 7,556 460060 Traffic Mitigation Fees
Cambria 438,750
230Ͳ240 Cleaveland 31,032
170 Cleaveland 34,911
L'Academy Daycare 12,675
Sonder Creek 13,650
Fountainhead Daycare 38,350
Ponderosa Homes 35,920
Manor (Indy Pahwa) 10,776
85 Cleaveland 371,150
Starbucks (CCB/Alan) 245,700
Total Revenues 85463 622,792 6,844 524,349 20,770 7,263 7,408 7,556 Expenditures:
5319 Trnsfr to Fund 12 Taylor/Civic Intersection (MKͲ3B) 521,700 5547 Gregory Lane/Elinora Drive Signal Install (GͲ25) 9,836 5027Ͳ720010 Trnsfr to CCB (Harriet to Viking) (GͲ26) 136,139 Total Expenditures 9,836 521,700 136,139 0000 0
Rev less Exp 75,627 101,092 Ͳ129,295 524,349 20,770 7,263 7,408 7,556 Plus:Fund Balance, 7/1/xx 52,492 128,119 229,211 99,916 624,265 645,035 652,298 659,706 Fund Balance, 6/30/xx 128,119 229,211 99,916 624,265 645,035 652,298 659,706 667,263 Capital Improvement Plan 22 FY 2024-2029
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
450010 Interest Income 795 22,713 45,115 46,017 46,938 47,876 48,834 49,811 4561 Resident Contrb frm Sidewalk Repair Program (MͲ4) Ͳ951 460020 Contrb frm Othr Agencies (CCTA Measure J Return to Source) 989,663 1,709,773 800,000 821,351 842,377 863,942 886,059 908,742 4991 Transfer In (Prop 1B for 5546) 50,000 50,000
Total Revenues 990,458 1,781,536 895,115 867,368 889,315 911,819 934,893 958,553 Expenditures:
4004Ͳ620151 Community Planning Measure J (TRANSPAC Membership) 35,765 40,226 43,342 44,209 45,093 45,995 46,915 47,853 5306 Gregory Gardens Storm Drain Project (CPͲ22) 7,039
5017 Existing Sidewalk Maintenance Program (MͲ4) 1,070 18,484 46,017 46,938 47,876 48,834 49,811 5319 PH Road Improvement Project (Taylor to Gregory) (GͲ24) 1,331 490 5391 Existing Street Striping Maintenance Program (MͲ2) 126,925 6,553 2,420 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 5107 Traffic Signal Maintenance(County Signal)
650043 Maintenance/Traffic Signal/Street Lights 164,809 284,784 73,428 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1591 Traffic Signal Operation Software Upgrade
670015 Util/GasͲElectric 73,181 64,528 57,688 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 5353 Transfer out Fund 12ͲADA Improvements 300,000
Capital Project Contingency
5364 Transfer out Street Resurfacing Program 700,000
Sign Installation Project 67,000
4019Ͳ670015 L&L AD #20ͲZone 1 2,485 2,115 1,987 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 5546 CC Pavement Rehab Ͳ4
5548 Transfer outͲCCB Imp Project (Viking to Harriet) (GͲ26) 0 Transfer out to Fund 308ͲCity Hall Pond & Fountain Rehabilitation 0 98,306 4006 PlanningͲClimate Action Plan 160,000 55,000
SubͲTotals 1,411,531 399,766 197,349 734,226 662,337 510,871 512,749 514,664 Rev less Exp Ͳ421,073 1,381,770 697,766 133,142 226,978 400,948 422,144 443,889 Plus:Fund Balance 483,448 62,376 1,444,146 2,141,912 2,275,054 2,502,032 2,902,980 3,325,124 Fund Balance 62,375 1,444,146 2,141,912 2,275,054 2,502,032 2,902,980 3,325,124 3,769,013 Fund 306ͲMeasure "J" Growth Management Fund
Capital Improvement Plan 23 )<2024-2029
Fund 308ͲCapital Project Fund
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
4991 Transfer Rec Fund
4991 Transfer General Fund (Fund 1) 500,000 1,920,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 490090 Transfer in 250,000
5148 Transfer in ARPA 815,961
Transfer in ARPA (Generator) 755,260
5147Ͳ490090 Transfer in PD Underground Storage Tank 133,143 1,066,857 5148Ͳ490090 Transfer in Fund 301ͲPond and Fountain Project 46,703 150,000 Transfer in Measure KͲPD Roof Replacment 300,000
5148 Transfer in Fund 306ͲMeasure J 98,306
5148 Transfer in Measure K 1,450,000
Transfer in SLESF 25,000
Transfer in PEG 25,000
Total Revenues 500,000 1,920,000 529,845 4,786,384 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Expenditures:
5080 Computer Services Equipment
4248 Supplies 15,420.51
8441 Equipment 106,270
5115 Misc City Hall Building Projects 55,603 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1145 Outside Services 576
1390 ConstructionͲconference room furniture 65,685
1154 Emergency Leak Repair 40,000
2001Ͳ650017 Maintenance City Hall Bldg 1,528
8441 EQUIPMENT
5150 Building Contractural Services 400
5210 Misc Police Bldg Projects 15,351 1,428
1488 Maintenance Police
Salaries 5,305
Project Admin 492
Transfer OutͲFund 20 to Fund 95 389,202
5420 City Hall Carpet ReplacementͲDownstairs (CPͲ14) 80,000 5228 Police Department First Floor Renovations (CPͲ26) Salaries Police Department First Floor Renovations (CPͲ26)
xxxx Electronic Message Board 50,000
Capital Improvement Plan 24 FY 2024-2029
Actual Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 21Ͳ22 FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 5418 Police Department Underground Storage Tank 179,155 Construction 42,499 1,157,501
Transfer out from PD Storage TankͲFund 20 to 95
xxxx Generator City Hall and Corporation Yard 755,260
5148 City Hall Fountain Project (Pond & Fountain Combined 23/24) 611010 Engineering Staff 5,587 8,690 75,000
620131 Project Admin 1,566 10,000
630034 Design 39,040 240,570
800030 Construction 2,188,697
Transfer out from Fund 20Ͳ95 469,413
PD Roof Replacement 300,000
5515 Wendll Storm Drain 2,400
5528 City Gateway Structure ProjectͲPhase 1 (CPͲ20)
Total Expenditures 252,909 1,141,878 1,208,325 3,699,527 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Rev less Exp 247,091 778,122 (678,480) 1,086,857 0000
Plus:Fund Balance, 7/1/xx 461,309 632,006 1,410,128 731,649 1,818,506 1,818,506 1,818,506 1,818,506 Fund Balance, 6/30/xx $632,006 $1,410,128 $731,649 $1,818,506 $1,818,506 $1,818,506 $1,818,506 $1,818,506 Capital Improvement Plan 25 FY 2024-2029
Fund 309ͲCapital Outlay Fund
Actual Projected Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ACCT DESCRIPTION FY 22Ͳ23 Thru 6/24 FY 24Ͳ25 FY 25Ͳ26 FY 26Ͳ27 FY 27Ͳ28 FY 28Ͳ29 Revenues:
450010 Interest Income 1000 1,000 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 420020 Property development tax 12300 3,000 3,000 3090 3183 3278 Total Revenues 0 13,300 4,000 4,000 4,110 4,223 4,339
Expenditures:
800030 City Hall Facility ADA Upgrades 58,708
Total Expenditures 0 0 0 58,708 0 0 0
Rev less Exp 0 13300 4,000 Ͳ54,708 4,110 4,223 4,339
Plus:Fund Balance, 7/1/xx 0 58,708 72,008 76,008 21,300 25,410 29,633 Fund Balance, 6/30/xx 58,708 72,008 76,008 21,300 25,410 29,633 33,972 Capital Improvement Plan 26 FY 2024-2029
2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

FUNDED PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Projects are divided into two main sections: Funded Projects and Unfunded Projects. Each project has a one page summary describing funding allotments, funding source per fiscal year, and a general project description.

There are 30 Funded Programs and Projects in the FY 2024-2029 CIP.

Funded projects/programs are divided into four categories: Measure K Funded Programs and Projects; Maintenance and Improvement Programs; City Funded Projects and Grant Funded Projects.

WZK:
d
EhD
Z
&hE/E'
^KhZ
D
^hZ
<&hE
WZK'ZD^ΘWZK:
d^
ϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϱͲϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϲͲϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϳͲϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϴͲϮϬϮϵ dKd> D<ͲϬϬϭ D<͕'d͕^ϭ ^ƚƌĞĞƚZĞƐƵƌĨĂĐŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵ Ψϰ͕ϭϴϮ͕ϵϰϬ Ψϯ͕ϯϭϯ͕ϲϰϯ Ψϯ͕ϰϱϲ͕ϭϴϴ Ψϯ͕ϱϳϮ͕ϭϵϲ Ψϯ͕ϲϵϭ͕ϲϴϯ Ψϭϴ͕Ϯϭϲ͕ϲϱϬ D<ͲϬϬϮ D< ^ƚŽƌŵƌĂŝŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ Ψϭ͕ϰϭϴ͕ϰϳϲ ΨϯϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϮϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϰϰϲ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϯ͕Ϭϳϰ͕ϰϳϲ D<ͲϬϬϯ D<͕dD& WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶΘŝĐǇĐůĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ΨϮϱϰ͕ϯϴϱ ΨϮϬϭ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϮϵ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϰϮ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭ͕ϭϰϭ͕ϯϴϱ D<ͲϬϬϰ D< >ŝďƌĂƌǇDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ Ψϱϯϱ͕ϰϮϱ Ψϱϱϳ͕ϱϱϵ Ψϱϳϱ͕ϯϴϱ Ψϱϵϯ͕ϴϴϲ ΨϲϭϮ͕ϵϴϬ ΨϮ͕ϴϳϱ͕Ϯϯϱ D<ͲϬϬϱ D< >ŝďƌĂƌǇDŽŶĚĂǇ,ŽƵƌƐ ΨϮϳϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϴϲ͕ϯϰϬ ΨϮϵϰ͕ϵϯϬ ΨϯϬϯ͕ϳϳϴ ΨϯϭϮ͕ϴϵϭ Ψϭ͕ϰϳϱ͕ϵϯϵ ^hdKd> Ψϲ͕ϲϲϵ͕ϮϮϲ Ψϰ͕ϳϯϴ͕ϱϰϮ
WZK:
d
EhD
Z
&hE/E'
^KhZ
D/Ed
EE
Θ/DWZKs
D
EdWZK'ZD^ ϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϱͲϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϲͲϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϳͲϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϴͲϮϬϮϵ dKd> DͲϬϬϭ D:
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ^ƚƌŝƉŝŶŐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ DͲϬϬϮ EW
^ ŶŶƵĂůƌĞĞŬDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ Ψϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϯϴϱ͕ϬϬϬ DͲϬϬϯ EW
^ ^ƚŽƌŵƌĂŝŶDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ΨϲϬϳ͕Ϯϱϭ ΨϮϳϱ͕ϲϱϯ ΨϮϳϱ͕ϲϱϯ ΨϮϳϱ͕ϲϱϯ ΨϮϳϱ͕ϲϱϯ Ψϭ͕ϳϬϵ͕ϴϲϯ DͲϬϬϰ D:͕D< ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞͬ'ĂƉůŽƐƵƌĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ Ψϰϲ͕Ϭϭϳ Ψϰϲ͕ϵϯϴ Ψϰϳ͕ϴϳϲ Ψϰϴ͕ϴϯϰ Ψϰϵ͕ϴϭϭ ΨϮϯϵ͕ϰϳϲ DͲϬϬϱ 'd ŝƚǇǁŝĚĞƌŝĚŐĞDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ΨϭϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϭϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ DͲϬϬϲ 'd dƌĂĨĨŝĐĂůŵŝŶŐ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ DͲϬϬϳ 'd /ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϯϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ^hdKd> Ψϭ͕Ϭϵϯ͕Ϯϲϴ ΨϱϲϮ͕ϱϵϭ
WZK:
d
EhD
Z
&hE/E'
^KhZ
/dz&hE
WZK:
d^ ϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϱͲϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϲͲϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϳͲϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϴͲϮϬϮϵ dKd> WͲϮϰͲϬϬϭ D: ^ŝŐŶ/ŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ Ψϲϳ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϲϳ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϮ K 'ƌĞŐŽƌǇ>ĂŶĞŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ^ƚƵĚǇ ΨϮϬϰ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϮϬϰ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϯ Ž KĂŬWĂƌŬŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚŽŵƉůĞƚĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚƐ^ƚƵĚǇŽƌƌŝĚŽƌ ΨϭϮϰ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϭϮϰ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϰ 'd͕D:͕D<͕ZW ŝƚǇ,ĂůůWŽŶĚΘ&ŽƵŶƚĂŝŶZĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ ΨϮ͕ϱϭϰ͕Ϯϲϳ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϮ͕ϱϭϰ͕Ϯϲϳ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϱ D< WŽůŝĐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚZŽŽĨZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ ΨϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϲ Ž ŝƚǇ,ĂůůĂƌƉĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ;&ŝƌƐƚ&ůŽŽƌKĨĨŝĐĞƐͿ ΨϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϴϬ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϳ ZW ŝƚǇ,ĂůůͬW^ΘŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶƚĞƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŽƌ Ψϳϱϱ͕ϮϲϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϳϱϱ͕ϮϲϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϬϴ ^>
^&͕W
' WŽůŝĐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐDĞƐƐĂŐĞŽĂƌĚ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ
WͲϮϰͲϬϬϵ K& ŝƚǇ,ĂůůhƉŐƌĂĚĞƐ ΨϬ Ψϱϴ͕ϳϬϴ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϱϴ͕ϳϬϴ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϬ st^ st^WƵŵƉŚŽƵƐĞ&ŝůƚĞƌ ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϳϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϭ Ž dĂǇůŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬ'ĂƉůŽƐƵƌĞ ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϮ Ž ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂĂŶĂůdƌĂŝůͬtĞƐƚŽǀĞƌƌŝǀĞZZ&/ŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶ Ψϱϲ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϱϲ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϯ Ž ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂĂŶĂůdƌĂŝůƌŽƐƐŝŶŐĂƚdĂǇůŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ Ψϱϲ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϭϲϲ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϮϮϮ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϰ D<͕K ŝƚǇǁŝĚĞdƌĂĨĨŝĐĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϱ D: WůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůůŝŵĂƚĞĐƚŝŽŶWůĂŶ ΨϭϲϬ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϱϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϮϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ WͲϮϰͲϬϭϲ '& WůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůhŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚhƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ^ƚƵĚǇ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ ^hdKd> Ψϰ͕ϳϰϲ͕ϱϮϳ Ψϰϴϰ͕ϳϬϴ
WZK:
d
EhD
Z
&hE/E'
^KhZ
/dzͬ'ZEd&hE
WZK:
d^ ϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϱͲϮϬϮϲ ϮϬϮϲͲϮϬϮϳ ϮϬϮϳͲϮϬϮϴ ϮϬϮϴͲϮϬϮϵ dKd> 'ͲϬϬϭ D:͕^ϭ͕h>͕dD&͕
D<͕' ŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ/ŵƉ͘WƌŽũĞĐƚ;,ĂƌƌŝĞƚƚŽsŝŬŝŶŐͿ Ψϴ͕Ϭϯϰ͕Ϯϴϳ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ Ψϴ͕Ϭϯϰ͕Ϯϴϳ 'ͲϬϬϮ ' DŽŶƵŵĞŶƚŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚͬ/ͲϲϴϬŝĐǇĐůĞΘWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ/ŵƉ͘WƌŽũĞĐƚ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ ^hdKd> Ψϴ͕Ϭϴϰ͕Ϯϴϳ ΨϬ
dKd> ΨϮϬ͕ϱϵϯ͕ϯϬϳ Ψϱ͕ϳϴϱ͕ϴϰϭ
&hEdzW
͗'&с'
E
Z>&hE͕'dс'^dy͕D:сD
^hZ
:͕dD&сdZ&&/D/d/'d/KE&hE͕'с'ZEd^͕EW
^сEd/KE>WK>>hdEd/^,Z'

>/D/Ed/KE&hE^͕h>сhE/&KZD^dZ

d>/',d
/^dZ/d&hE͕ϮϬс^^
^^D
Ed/^dZ/dϮϬ&hE͕с/dzh/>/E'&hE^͕st^с/>Ks/^dtd Z^z^d
D&hE͕D<сD
^hZ
<͕^ϭс^
Ed
/>>ϭ&hE^͕
ZWсD
Z/EZ
^h
W>Ed&hE^͘
Ϯz
Zh'
d
&zϮϬϮϰͬϮϬϮϵW/d>/DWZKs
D
EdW>E
Capital Improvement Plan 27 FY 2024-2029

FUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MEASURE K FUNDED PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
PROJECT NUMBER: MKͲ001
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $18,216,650
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5063
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $350,000 611010 Engineering Staff $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000 620131 Project Admin. $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 800030 Construction $3,912,940 $3,143,643 $3,286,188 $3,402,196 $3,521,683 $17,266,650 630018 C. Management $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 TOTAL $4,182,940 $3,313,643 $3,456,188 $3,572,196 $3,691,683 $18,216,650 PROJECT FUNDING:

Gas Tax (301) $513,359 $529,451 $545,996 $563,004 $580,491 $2,732,301 SB1 $883,192 $883,192 $883,192 $883,192 $883,192 $4,415,960 Measure K $1,110,000 $1,901,000 $2,027,000 $2,126,000 $2,228,000 $9,392,000 Other* $1,676,389 $1,676,389
TOTAL $4,182,940 $3,313,643 $3,456,188 $3,572,196 $3,691,683 $18,216,650 PROJECT BENEFIT:

Extends the life of the pavement and provides timely and cost effective maintenance and pothole repairs. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STREETS & ROADS

STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM
This program provides for onͲgoing maintenance of the City's 110 miles of roadway pavement.Roadway pavement typically needs to be maintained every 10 years, which means the City would have to rehabilitate approximately 11 miles of streets each year before starting over, to consistently maintain the streets in good condition.

Currently the City's Pavement Management Program estimates that an annual allocation of $2.5 million is necessary in order to maintain the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at its current value of 73 points (good overall street condition), and an annual allocation of $3M will increase and maintain the City's PCI at 75points.Currently 72% of the City’s streets are in “good” condition.Reducing the expenditures of funds below $2.5M will increase the City's long term maintenance backlog and reduce the overall PCI and condition of city streets.

Capital Improvement Plan 28 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MKͲ002
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $3,074,476
ACCOUNT: 231Ͳ5065
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $125,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $205,000 611010 Engineering Staff $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $130,000 620131 Project Admin. $5,000 $5,000
800030 Construction $1,238,476 $340,000 $365,000 $385,000 $406,000 $2,734,476 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $1,418,476 $380,000 $405,000 $425,000 $446,000 $3,074,476 PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure K $380,000 $405,000 $425,000 $446,000 $1,656,000 Other* $1,418,476 $1,418,476
$0
$0
TOTAL $1,418,476 $380,000 $405,000 $425,000 $446,000 $3,074,476 PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrades, improves capacity, and enhances reliability of Citywide storm drain facilities. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STORM DRAIN

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This program provides installation of new storm drain facilities and the upgrade and/or repair of existing storm drain facilities. Projects funded through this program will be implemented per the priority list included in the City's Storm Drain Master Plan. Projects are prioritized based on several factors including safety, rightͲofͲway impacts, ability to meet green infrastructure requirements, cost, localized flooding impact, and maintenance.

Capital Improvement Plan 29 FY 2024-2029
5 YEAR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2024Ͳ2029

YEAR PROJECT LOCATION DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED PROGRAM
(Measure K) Other EXPENSE BALANCE
FY 24Ͳ25
Shelly Drive at Bryon Drive & Collins Drive
Preliminary engineering and Construction, permits, and rightͲofͲway.Easements will be needed for pipes located on private drainage reserves.Rated as CMP* Priority #4 and #5 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $300,000 $300,000 Ruth Drive at Taylor Boulevard, Adria Drive, Jennie
Drive & Maxine Drive
Preliminary engineering and construction, permits, and rightͲofͲway.Easements will be needed for pipes located on private drainage reserves.Rated as CMP* Priority #1, #2 and #3 on current Storm Drain Master Plan.ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipes. $600,000 $600,000
FY 25Ͳ26
Linda Lane at Meier Road ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated as CMP Priority #3on CMP replacement/hotspot current Storm Drain Master Plan. $200,000 $200,000 Cumberland/Minton; Elinora/Nancy; Kahrs/Collins ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated as CMP Priority #6, 7, 8on CMP replacement current Storm Drain Master Plan. $325,000 $325,000 FY 26Ͳ27
Boyd Road/Poshard Street ConstructionͲreplace threeͲpipe network with larger pipes, install new catch basin and flap gate at creek.Rated as Hot Spot Priority #8 and CMP priority #11. $350,000 $350,000 FY 27Ͳ28 Barnett Circle/Vicki Lane ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated asCMP Priority #12 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $200,000 $200,000 Diablo View Road/Barnett Terrace ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated as CMP Priority #12 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $125,000 $125,000 Vessing Drive/Vicki Lane ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated as CMP Priority #12 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $100,000 $100,000 FY 28Ͳ29 Weller Court/Oak Park Boulevard ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated asCMP Priority #12 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $125,000 $125,000 Peggy Drive/Phyllis ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s).Rated as CMP Priority #12 on current Storm Drain Master Plan. $175,000 $175,000 TotalͲFY 2024Ͳ2029 $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $0
*CMPͲCorrugated Metal Pipe

ESTIMATED REVENUE
Capital Improvement Plan 30 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MKͲ003
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $1,141,385
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5139
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $35,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $185,000 611010 Engineering Staff $15,000 $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $90,000 620131 Project Admin. $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 800030 Construction $189,385 $141,000 $140,000 $154,000 $167,000 $791,385 630018 C. Management $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 TOTAL $254,385 $201,000 $215,000 $229,000 $242,000 $1,141,385 PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure K $201,000 $215,000 $229,000 $242,000 $887,000
TDA Grant $0
Gas Tax (301) $0
Measure J (306) $0
Traffic Mitigation (305) $0
Other* $254,385 $254,385
TOTAL $254,385 $201,000 $215,000 $229,000 $242,000 $1,141,385 PROJECT BENEFIT:

Implements access and safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, takes advantage of grant opportunities. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM
This program funds the design and installation of new pedestrian and bicycle improvements identified in the the 2024 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) at high priority areas in the City. The objective of the program is to make our streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. This program may be used to develop grant applications, provide local matching funds for successful grant applications, and/or implement striping, signing, and other enhancements for people walking and bicycling as part of other projects such as roadway resurfacing.

The BPMP provides a consistent, longͲterm guide to the City in developing connected networks of mulitpurpose paths, bikeways, sidewalks, and street crossings.The BPMP compliments the City's General Plan Circulation Element and provides focused visions and goals towards the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.The BPMP provides general improvement recommendations and design guidelines for the City to promote consistent, safe and efficient integration of bicyle and pedestrian facilities on City streets and near transit facilities.

Capital Improvement Plan 31 FY 2024-2029
WZK:
dEhD
Z͗ D<ͲϬϬϰ

WZdD
Ed͗ WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ

^d/Dd
h'
d͗ ΨϮ͕ϴϳϱ͕Ϯϯϱ
KhEd͗ ϭϬϯͲϱϭϬϱ
WZK:
d
^Z/Wd/KE͗
WZK:
d^KW
͗
&zϮϬϮϰͲϮϱ &zϮϬϮϱͲϮϲ &zϮϬϮϲͲϮϳ &zϮϬϮϳͲϮϴ &zϮϬϮϴͲϮϵ dKd>^ >ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ ΨϭϮϬ͕Ϭϵϵ ΨϭϮϱ͕ϭϵϵ ΨϭϮϵ͕Ϯϲϴ Ψϭϯϯ͕ϰϲϵ Ψϭϯϳ͕ϴϬϳ Ψϲϰϱ͕ϴϰϮ ůĚŐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬϱ͕ϭϬϬ ΨϭϬϴ͕ϱϭϲ ΨϭϭϮ͕Ϭϰϯ Ψϭϭϱ͕ϲϴϰ Ψϱϰϭ͕ϯϰϯ hƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ ΨϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϭϬϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϰϳϯ͕ϬϬϬ /ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐǇ Ψϰϰ͕ϯϮϲ Ψϰϲ͕ϬϮϬ Ψϰϳ͕ϱϭϲ Ψϰϵ͕ϬϲϬ ΨϱϬ͕ϲϱϰ ΨϮϯϳ͕ϱϳϲ :ĂŶŝƚŽƌŝĂů Ψϳϲ͕ϮϬϬ Ψϳϲ͕ϮϬϬ Ψϳϴ͕ϰϴϲ ΨϴϬ͕ϴϰϭ Ψϴϯ͕Ϯϲϲ Ψϯϵϰ͕ϵϵϯ /ŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ Ψϲϱ͕ϬϬϬ Ψϳϰ͕ϳϱϬ Ψϳϲ͕ϵϵϯ Ψϳϵ͕ϯϬϯ Ψϴϭ͕ϲϴϮ Ψϯϳϳ͕ϳϮϴ ŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ψϯϵ͕ϴϬϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϮϵϬ Ψϰϰ͕ϲϬϲ Ψϯϵ͕ϭϳϬ ΨϰϬ͕ϴϴϳ ΨϮϬϰ͕ϳϱϯ ZĞƐĞƌǀĞƐΎ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ ΨϬ
dKd> Ψϱϯϱ͕ϰϮϱ Ψϱϱϳ͕ϱϱϵ Ψϱϳϱ͕ϯϴϱ Ψϱϵϯ͕ϴϴϲ ΨϲϭϮ͕ϵϴϬ ΨϮ͕ϴϳϱ͕Ϯϯϱ WZK:
d&hE/E'͗
DĞĂƐƵƌĞ< Ψϱϯϱ͕ϰϮϱ Ψϱϱϳ͕ϱϱϵ Ψϱϳϱ͕ϯϴϱ Ψϱϵϯ͕ϴϴϲ ΨϲϭϮ͕ϵϴϬ ΨϮ͕ϴϳϱ͕Ϯϯϱ ΨϬ
ΨϬ
dKd> Ψϱϯϱ͕ϰϮϱ Ψϱϱϳ͕ϱϱϵ Ψϱϳϱ͕ϯϴϱ Ψϱϵϯ͕ϴϴϲ ΨϲϭϮ͕ϵϴϬ ΨϮ͕ϴϳϱ͕Ϯϯϱ WZK:
d
E
&/d͗
WƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŽŶŐŽŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƚŽƚŚŝƐŝƚǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘
Ύ&ƵŶĚďĂůĂŶĐĞŽĨΨϳϱ͕ϬϬϬĂŶŶƵĂůůǇĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ h/>/E'
>/ZZzD/Ed
EE
E

^
dŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůů>ŝďƌĂƌǇŽƉĞŶĞĚŝŶ:ƵůǇϮϬϮϮ͘dŚĞĂŶŶƵĂůĂǀĞƌĂŐĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĐŽƐƚŽĨ>ŝďƌĂƌǇĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǆƚ ĨŝǀĞǇĞĂƌƐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ͕ƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞΨϰϲϰ͕ϬϬϬ͘ ŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ&zϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϵ Capital Improvement Plan 32 FY 2024-2029
WZK:
dEhD
Z͗ D<ͲϬϬϱ

WZdD
Ed͗ &ŝŶĂŶĐĞ

^d/Dd
h'
d͗ Ψϭ͕ϰϳϱ͕ϵϯϵ
KhEd͗ ϭϬϯͲϱϭϬϱ
WZK:
d
^Z/Wd/KE͗
WZK:
d^KW
͗
&zϮϬϮϰͲϮϱ &zϮϬϮϱͲϮϲ &zϮϬϮϲͲϮϳ &zϮϬϮϳͲϮϴ &zϮϬϮϴͲϮϵ dKd>^ DŽŶĚĂǇ,ŽƵƌƐ ΨϮϰϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϱϱ͕ϰϰϬ ΨϮϲϯ͕ϭϬϯ ΨϮϳϬ͕ϵϵϲ ΨϮϳϵ͕ϭϮϲ Ψϭ͕ϯϭϲ͕ϲϲϱ >ŝďƌĂƌǇ>ĞĂƐĞ
ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ΨϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϯϬ͕ϵϬϬ Ψϯϭ͕ϴϮϳ ΨϯϮ͕ϳϴϮ Ψϯϯ͕ϳϲϱ Ψϭϱϵ͕Ϯϳϰ ΨϬ
ΨϬ
ΨϬ
dKd> ΨϮϳϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϴϲ͕ϯϰϬ ΨϮϵϰ͕ϵϯϬ ΨϯϬϯ͕ϳϳϴ ΨϯϭϮ͕ϴϵϭ Ψϭ͕ϰϳϱ͕ϵϯϵ WZK:
d&hE/E'͗
DĞĂƐƵƌĞ< ΨϮϳϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϴϲ͕ϯϰϬ ΨϮϵϰ͕ϵϯϬ ΨϯϬϯ͕ϳϳϴ ΨϯϭϮ͕ϴϵϭ Ψϭ͕ϰϳϱ͕ϵϯϵ ΨϬ
ΨϬ
ΨϬ
dKd> ΨϮϳϴ͕ϬϬϬ ΨϮϴϲ͕ϯϰϬ ΨϮϵϰ͕ϵϯϬ ΨϯϬϯ͕ϳϳϴ ΨϯϭϮ͕ϴϵϭ Ψϭ͕ϰϳϱ͕ϵϯϵ WZK:
d
E
&/d͗
WƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŚŽƵƌƐĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇ͘ h/>/E'
>/ZZzDKEz,KhZ^
DŽŶĚĂǇŚŽƵƌƐĂƌĞĂĚĞƐŝƌĞĚƵƐĞŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂůůƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞ>ŝďƌĂƌǇ͘ ŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ&zϮϬϮϰͲϮϬϮϵ Capital Improvement Plan 33 FY 2024-2029

FUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ001
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $200,000
ACCOUNT: 306Ͳ5088
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 Engineering Staff $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 620131 Project Admin. $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,000 800030 Construction $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $140,000 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure J (306) $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000 Other* $0
$0
$0
TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Maintains traffic deliniation devices to provide safe movement of vehicles on City streets. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STREETS & ROADS

EXISTING STREET SIGNING AND STRIPING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This program funds the maintenance of pavement striping, markings, reflectors, curb painting and signs which degrade due to exposure to natural elements and vehicular wear and require continuous upkeep.These are important roadway features and are required for the safe movement of vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles on the roadway.

The program may also include funding of new striping and signs based on recommendations from the Traffic Safety Commission.The program may be implemented in conjunction with the Street Resurfacing Program to minimize project administration, contract advertising and construction management costs. Capital Improvement Plan 34 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ002
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $385,000
ACCOUNT: 231Ͳ5020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 620123 Permits $10,000 $10,000
800030 Construction $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 $0
$0
$0
TOTAL $85,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $385,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

NPDES (231) $85,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $385,000 $0
$0
TOTAL $85,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $385,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides clearing of creeks and culverts of obstructions and debris minimizing the potential of future flooding.

STORM DRAIN

ANNUAL CREEK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The City's Annual Creek Maintenance Program is a citywide maintenance effort that began after flooding in January 1997. Since then, the City works with property owners that abut one of the many creeks in the City (Murderer's, Matson, Grayson, Ellinwood, Linda, North and Belle ditch) to clear them of debris and vegetation that have accumulated and grown over the years, in accordance with the City's "Directions and Guidelines for Creek Maintenance." This program also funds the silt removal under the bridge facilities every other year, which requires the City to obtain permits from the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.Lastly, the program funds the cleanup of creek areas maintained by the City, as well as culvert and drainage facilities that drain into the creek system.This work will be completed by Maintenance staff.

Capital Improvement Plan 35 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ003
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $1,709,863
ACCOUNT: ϮϯϭͲϱϬϮϱ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $75,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $155,000 611010 Engineering Staff $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $105,000 620131 Project Admin. $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 800030 Construction $502,251 $230,653 $230,653 $230,653 $230,653 $1,424,863 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $607,251 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $1,709,863 PROJECT FUNDING:

NPDES $265,653 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $1,368,265 *Other $341,598 $341,598
$0
$0
TOTAL $607,251 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $275,653 $1,709,863 PROJECT BENEFIT:

Maintains existing Citywide storm drain facilities.
*unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STORM DRAIN

STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
This program provides for the maintenance of existing storm drain facilities, including: metal storm drain facilities, storm drain pipes, valley gutters, storm drain inlets, curbs/gutters, and roadside drainage ditches.The program will repair or replace deteriorated and nonͲfunctional facilities.

Capital Improvement Plan 36 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ004
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $239,476
ACCOUNT: 306Ͳ50ϭϳ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $10,000 $10,000
611010 Engineering Staff $25,000 $25,000
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $46,017 $11,938 $47,876 $48,834 $49,811 $204,476 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $46,017 $46,938 $47,876 $48,834 $49,811 $239,476
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure J (306) $46,017 $46,938 $47,876 $48,834 $49,811 $239,476 $0
$0
TOTAL $46,017 $46,938 $47,876 $48,834 $49,811 $239,476
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides safer sidewalks and minimizes the number and severity of liability claims to the City.

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE

SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE/GAP CLOSURE PROGRAM
On February 7, 2000, City Council approved the creation of a Sidewalk Repair Program to assist property owners comply with City Ordinance No. 729 for general sidewalk maintenance.This ordinance places the responsibility of a sidewalk repair and third person liability on the adjacent property owner.

Raised, cracked or sunken sidewalks are common throughout the City.Damaged sidewalks are not only an eyesore, but they constitute a tripping hazard as well.The City desires to reduce sidewalk hazards in areas of high pedestrian traffic, including areas near schools, senior centers, and other pedestrian destinations.This program will also fund the City sidewalk gap closure projects.

Capital Improvement Plan 37 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ005
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $190,000
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5055
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $40,000 $40,000
611010 Engineering Staff $10,000 $10,000
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $140,000 $140,000
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Gas Tax (301) $0
Other* $190,000 $190,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrades and maintains citywide bridges.
*unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STREETS & ROADS

CITYWIDE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The City owns and maintains 34 bridges.There are 16 longͲspan bridges and 18 shortͲspan bridges.The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) inspects the longͲspan bridges every 24 to 48 months through a federally mandated program.CalTrans provides the City with each bridge inspections report which identifies needed repairs.The City hires a consultant to inspect shortͲspan bridges.All inspections are performed by licensed engineers with an expertise in structures.

This program funds the implementation of recommended bridge repairs which are needed to maintain a reliable transportation system.The City's current backlog of bridge repair needs within the City is estimated at $17.4 million. Capital Improvement Plan 38 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ006
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $250,000
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 Engineering Staff $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $20,000 620131 Project Admin. $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 800030 Construction $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $225,000 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Gas Tax (301) $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0
$0
TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Addresses speeding concerns as determined by the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council.

STREETS & ROADS

TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This program will install traffic calming devices as recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council in compliance with the Traffic Calming Program.

Traffic calming devices are used to slow vehicle speeds, discourage bypass vehicle traffic on residential streets, and enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety.Traffic calming devices installed in past years have generally been radar speed signs along arterial can collector roadways (e.g. Patterson Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road, Gregory Lane, Oak Park Boulevard and Viking Drive).

Other types of traffic calming devices include but are not limited too: raised intersections, traffic circles, roundabouts, chicanes, concrete bulbͲout, traffic diverters and pavement striping.

Capital Improvement Plan 39 FY 2024Ͳ2029
PROJECT NUMBER: MͲ007
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $375,000
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5057
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $16,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $40,000 611010 Engineering Staff $5,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $17,000 620131 Project Admin. $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $6,000 800030 Construction $50,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $310,000 630018 C. Management $2,000 $2,000
TOTAL $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Gas Tax (301) $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 $0
$0
TOTAL $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides compliance with mandated Federal ADA requirements.

STREETS & ROADS

ADA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enacted on July 26, 1990 provides civil rights protection to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government service, access to public accomodations, transportation and telecommunications.This program will identify and remove physical obstacles in public facilities that are not readily accessible to and usable by indviduals with disabilities.Implementation of improvements are based on availability of appropriated funds.
A focus of the ADA Improvement Program is to provide for the construction of ADA compliant curb ramps throughout the City.There are a number of locations where curb ramps do not exist and are needed, especially along school and public facility pedestrian routes.This program may also fund ADA ramp retrofit and traffic signal upgrades at signalized intersections to meet current ADA design standards at signalized intersections.The City's current backlog of ADA improvements within the City is estimated at $5.1 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 40 FY 2024-2029

FUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

CITY FUNDED PROJECTS
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ001
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $67,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϲͲϱϭϰϭͲϮϰϬϭ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 Engineering Staff $2,000 $2,000
620131 Project Admin. $2,000 $2,000
800030 Construction $60,000 $60,000
630018 C. Management $3,000 $3,000
TOTAL $67,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure J (306) $67,000 $67,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $67,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrades and replaces traffic signs and striping throughout the City to meet current needs and standards.

STREETS & ROADS

SIGN INSTALLATION PROJECT
This project will install new signs and pavement striping throughout the City based on resident requests,Traffic Safety Commission recommendations, and Engineering staff evaluations.This includes "No Parking" zones, pedestrian crossing enhancements, street name signs, and school zone signing. Capital Improvement Plan 41 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ002
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $204,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϮϰϬϮ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $180,000 $180,000
611010 Engineering Staff $20,000 $20,000
620131 Project Admin. $4,000 $4,000
800030 Construction $0
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $204,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $204,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTALS
Other* $204,000 $204,000
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL $204,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $204,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Identifies nearͲterm and longͲterm traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvments. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25 from the bicycle/pedestrian program

STREETS & ROADS

GREGORY LANE COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT STUDY
This project will study complete streets improvements along the Gregory Lane corridor between Pleasant Hill Road and Contra Costa Boulevard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.The study will include extensive community outreach and develop a vision and concept plans that reconfigure the street to better serve all roadway users and improve safety.This will include improved pedestrian facilities and new bicycle facilities that provide multimodal connections between Downtown, City Hall, Pleasant Hill Park, Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and the Contra Costa Canal Trail.

The study will be a guiding document and will be used to pursue grant funding for design and construction.

Capital Improvement Plan 42 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ003
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $124,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϮϰϬϯ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $100,000 $100,000
611010 Engineering Staff $20,000 $20,000
620131 Project Admin. $4,000 $4,000
800030 Construction $0
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $124,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTALS
Other* $124,000 $124,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $124,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Identifies nearͲterm and longͲterm traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25 from the bicycle/pedestrian program

STREETS & ROADS

OAK PARK BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CORRIDOR
This project will study complete streets improvements along the Oak Park Boulevard corridor between Pleasant Hill Road and Patterson Bouelvard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.The study will include extensive community outreach and develop a vision and concept plans that reconfigure the street to better serve all roadway users and improve safety.This will include improved pedestrian facilities and new bicycle that provide multimodal connections between Pleasant Hill Elementary, the Contra Costa Canal Trail, Pleasant Hill Library, Pleasant Hill Middle School, and shopping areas.The study will consider tradeͲoffs between constraints along the corridor.

The study will be a guiding document and will be used to pursue grant funding for design and construction.

Capital Improvement Plan 43 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ004
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $2,568,306
ACCOUNT: 30ϴͲ5148
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2023Ͳ24 FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $39,039 $240,570 $279,609
611010 Engineering Staff $15,000 $75,000 $90,000
620131 Project Admin. $10,000 $10,000
800030 Construction $2,188,697 $2,188,697
TOTAL $54,039 $2,514,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,568,306
PROJECT FUNDING:

ARPA $54,039 $815,961 $870,000
ADA Improvements (Gas Tax Fund 301) $150,000 $150,000
Sidewalk Maintenance (Measure JͲ306) $98,306 $98,306
Measure K $1,450,000 $1,450,000
TOTAL $54,039 $2,514,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,568,306
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Renovates the existing pond, fountain, and walkway.

BUILDING

CITY HALL POND AND FOUNTAIN REHABILITATION PROJECT
Constructed in 1991, the Pleasant Hill City Hall consists of three structures, including a twoͲstory office building, council chamber, a singleͲstory community room, and a water feature. Based on a building assessment study, several components of City Hall have been selected for renovation and/or replacement; including the existing pond, fountain, and walkway to address the following issues:

The pond currently suffers from poor water quality, proliferation of algae and sediment. Additionally, the mechanical equipment needs to either be serviced, cleaned and/or replaced. The fountain conveys hard and abrasive well water that has caused extensive damage to the fountain’s tile.

The walkway is comprised of concrete and decorative tiles, that overtime have cracked and broken, creating a tripping hazard.

The City Hall Pond and Fountain Rehabilitation Project provides for needed renovation of the existing pond, fountain, and walkway.

Capital Improvement Plan 44 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ005
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $300,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϴͲϱϬϬϳͲϮϰϬϱ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 PSC Staff $10,000 $10,000
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $290,000 $290,000
620123 Permits $0
TOTAL $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure K $300,000 $300,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides a new roofing system for the Police Department Building.

BUILDING

POLICE DEPARTMENT ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
In 2018, the City hired an outside consultant to perform a roof survey.The study determined that the Police Department Facility constructed in 1981 had 0Ͳ2 years of service left and would need to be replaced.The replacement value was estimated at approximately$220,444.

Capital Improvement Plan 45 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ006
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $80,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϴͲϱϬϬϯͲϮϰϬϲ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $2,500 $2,500
611010 PSC Staff $7,500 $7,500
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $70,000 $70,000
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Building Fund (308) $80,000 $80,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Remedies hazards and provides a cleaner appearance to City Hall. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

BUILDING

CITY HALL CARPET REPLACEMENT (FIRST FLOOR OFFICES)
This project will replace existing carpet in the first floor offices in the City Hall Building.In 2014, the existing carpet within the cubicles, hallway and lobby areas of the City Hall building was replaced.The remaining office carpet has deteriorated due to age (30+ years) and is becoming a trip hazard.The installation of the new carpet will remedy immediate hazards and provide a cleaner appearance to City Hall.

The project consists of removing the existing carpet and installing new tile carpet with a direct glue down application.This carpet system has been used at other locations within City Hall and a the Police Department with high success.The superior wear, durability, and ease of cleaning are positive maintenance considerations.The product has a lifetime product limited warranty as well as a useful lifespan of approximately 20Ͳ25 years. Capital Improvement Plan 46 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ007
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $755,260
ACCOUNT: ϮϵϱͲϱϰϭϳͲϮϰϬϳ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 PSC Staff $20,000 $20,000
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $735,260 $735,260
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $755,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $755,260
PROJECT FUNDING:

ARPA $755,260 $755,260
Rec and Park (*) $0
$0
$0
TOTAL $755,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $755,260
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Allows for an efficient, safe response to emergency conditions within the City. (*)City is negotiating with the Recreation and Park District on cost sharing

BUILDING

CITY HALL/PSC & COMMUNITY CENTER EMERGENCY GENERATOR
This project would install an emergency generator at City Hall and at the Corporation Yard (PSC).During power outages caused by an earthquake or a major weather event, City Hall staff and the Maintenance Division may need to activate the Emergency Response system.With a backup electrical power system at both locations, staff could respond in a more efficient and safe manner to emergency and urgent needs.Power could be maintained for up to a week or longer, depending on deliveries of propane gas to replenish the generator.A proposed generator capacity to maintain 80% of current electrical demand would be the most cost efficient option for our emergency needs.

Capital Improvement Plan 47 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER:

DEPARTMENT:

ESTIMATED BUDGET:

ACCOUNT:

CPͲ24Ͳ008
Police Department
$50,000
ϯϬϴͲϱϬϬϳͲϮϰϬϴ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 PSC Staff $0
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $50,000 $50,000
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

SLESF $25,000 $25,000
PEG $25,000 $25,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Allows the City to more efficiently release public outreach information to the general public.

BUILDING

POLICE DEPARTMENT ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD
This project will install one electronic message board near the City Police Department to more effectively communicate City notifications and public outreach information to the general public.In 2018, one elctronic message board was installed at City Hall.The proposed electronic message sign will replace the existing wooden AͲframe signs currently used for public noticing purposes at the Police Department.

Capital Improvement Plan 48 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ009
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $58,708
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϴͲϱϬϬϯͲϮϰϬϵ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $0
611010 PSC Staff $0
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $58,708 $58,708
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $0 $58,708 $0 $0 $0 $58,708
PROJECT FUNDING:

Capital Outlay Fund (309) $58,708 $58,708
$0
$0
TOTAL $0 $58,708 $0 $0 $0 $58,708
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides needed upgrades in the locker rooms and public restrooms to conform with current ADAAG.

BUILDING

CITY HALL ADA UPGRADES
The ADA Transition Plan, used for all City Hall facilities, is used to document the access barriers in the City’s facilities and the City’s approach to transitioning from noncompliance to compliance. The documented access barriers identify existing building conditions that deviate from current State and federal standards for new construction. For each barrier, this ADA Transition Plan outlines the code deviations and requirements from the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the Accessibility Standards in the California Building Standards Code (CBC). This project will address needed ADA upgrades at City Hall.

Capital Improvement Plan 49 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ010
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $750,000
ACCOUNT: ϱϬϮͲϱϱϯϴͲϮϰϭϬ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 611010 PSC Staff $0
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000 630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 PROJECT FUNDING:

DVWS Fund $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 $0
$0
TOTAL $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides design for needed Capital Improvement and will eliminates contaminates from the source water.

BUILDING
DVWS&ILTER INSTALLATION/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DESIGN
The City of Pleasant Hill (City) operates 5 miles of a nonͲpotable water system, the Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS), which supplies irrigation raw water to approximately 470 homes within the City.Water is supplied to the DVWS by a pump station which draws untreated water from a canal (operated by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). In order to provide a quality product to the DVWS customers, the DVWS Advisory Board desires to install a selfͲcleaning water filter on the 12” main, adjacent to the pump house.Additonal funding will be for the design and operation of needed Capital Improvement Projects.

Capital Improvement Plan 50 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ011
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $100,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϮϰϭϭ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $85,000 $85,000
611010 Engineering Staff $10,000 $10,000
620131 Project Admin. $5,000 $5,000
800030 Construction $0
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Other* $100,000 $100,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

ProvidesŶĞǁƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĂůŽŶŐdĂǇůŽƌŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͘
*unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25: $90,000 from bicycle/pedestrian program͘

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE

TAYLOR BOULEVARD SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE
This project will develop design plans for construction of an ADA compliant sidewalk on Taylor Boulevard between Civic Drive and Lucille Lane/Norse Drive connecting recently complete projects at both intersections.The design process will include determining which side of Taylor Boulevard is most appropriate for the facility.The project will include development of construction cost estimates at which time construction funding will be sought.

Capital Improvement Plan 51 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ012
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $56,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϮϰϭϮ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $10,000 $10,000
611010 Engineering Staff $2,000 $2,000
620131 Project Admin. $2,000 $2,000
800030 Construction $40,000 $40,000
630018 C. Management $2,000 $2,000
TOTAL $56,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Other* $56,000 $56,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $56,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides for installation of new RRFB beacon at the Contra Costa Canal Trail/Westover Drive trail crossing. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25: $30,000 allocated for this project and $26,000 additional from bicycle/pedestrian program.

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE

CONTRA COSTA CANAL TRAIL/WESTOVER DRIVE RRFB INSTALLATION The proposed project is a part of the approved 5Ͳyear project list for the City's Measure K Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Program.The project scope includes the installation of a new rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) and crosswalk upgrades at the Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing at Westover Drive.When complete the project will improve the overall safety and visibility between trail users and approaching vehicle traffic.

Capital Improvement Plan 52 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ013
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $222,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϮϰϭϯ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $50,000 $150,000 $200,000
611010 Engineering Staff $5,000 $15,000 $20,000
620131 Project Admin. $1,000 $1,000 $2,000
800030 Construction $0
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $56,000 $166,000 $0 $0 $0 $222,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Other* $56,000 $166,000 $222,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $56,000 $166,000 $0 $0 $0 $222,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Studies improved access along the Contra Costa Canal Trail and is needed to pursue grant funding for construction. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25 from bicycle/pedestrian program

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE

CONTRA COSTA CANAL TRAIL CROSSING AT TAYLOR BOULEVARD
This project will study and design an extension of the Contra Costa Canal Trail on the east side of the canal across from Las Juntas Open Space and a new signalized crossing at Taylor Boulevard as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP).Currently trail users wishing to continue on the Trail across Taylor Boulevard must divert through Las Junatas Open Space and to the Morello Avenue/Taylor Boulevard intersection.This project would provide a more direct route to destinations such as Diablo Valley College and College Park High School.

The project will require coordination with different agencies including Contra Costa Water District and East Bay Regional Park District.

The design documents developed during this study will be used to identify future funding for construction.

Capital Improvement Plan 53 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ014
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $275,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϬϭϵͲϮϰϭϰ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 611010 Engineering Staff $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 620131 Project Admin. $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0
$0
$0
TOTAL $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $275,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure K $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $220,000
Other* $55,000 $55,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $275,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides key metrics for City streets that can be used for grants, enforcement, project prioritization, and before/after project studies.
*unspent allocated funds from traffic calming fund in FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25

STREETS & ROADS

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION
Utilizing available data sources, this will fund purchase of Citywide vehicle speed and traffic volume data for every street in Pleasant Hill.This data will be updated on a regular basis and include up to one year of past data by time of day and day of the week.This data will be used to prioritize traffic calming improvements and potential speed enforcement priorities in coordination with the Police Department.This data will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures by doing a before/after comparison.

Capital Improvement Plan 54 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ015
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $215,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϲͲϰϬϬϰͲϮϰϭϱ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630038 Plan Preparation $150,000 $50,000 $200,000
611010 Planning Staff $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL $160,000 $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $215,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

Measure J $160,000 $55,000 $215,000
TOTAL $160,000 $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $215,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Satisfies a mitigation measure and General Plan program and plays a role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for future residents of the City of Pleasant Hill, reducing the effects of global climate warming.

PLANNING

PLEASANT HILL CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
In 2023, the City of Pleasant Hill adopted the 2040 General Plan.As part of the General Plan was an associated Environmental Impact Report.As part of this analysis was a mitigation measure that required the preparation of a Climate Action Plan that would be completed by Summer 2025.The climate action plan would include targets to be consistent with SB32, with a reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and AB 1279 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

The plan could include zero net energy requirement for development in the City, an electrification ordinance, expanding infrastructure for electric vehicle charging, and other implementation measures from the 2017 and 2022 California Climate Change Scoping plans.The Plan would also include CEQA GHG Emissions thresholds of significance.

Capital Improvement Plan 55 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: CPͲ24Ͳ016
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $75,000
ACCOUNT: ϭϬϭͲϰϬϬϰͲϮϰϭϲ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630038 Plan Preparation $70,000 $70,000
611010 Planning Staff $5,000 $5,000
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

General Fund $75,000 $75,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Satisfies a General Plan program and provides additional information to the City regarding the continued requirement of undergrounding offͲsite utilities, which helps to improve safety (removing obstacles) and improves the appearance of the City (removing above ground utility poles and wires).

PLANNING

PLEASANT HILL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES STUDY
In 2023, the City of Pleasant Hill adopted the 2040 General Plan.As part of the General Plan was Program in the Land Use Element, Program F, noted that the City would complete an underground utility study that would analyze the feasibility of requiring undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with the installation or modification of private improvements. The study would review if the existing offͲsite undergrounding utility requirement is affecting feasiblity of residential and commercial development.The study could also review whether an alternative provision could be considered including imposing an inͲlieu fee or not requiring this provision for certain type of projects.

Capital Improvement Plan 56 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: GͲ001
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $8,708,479
ACCOUNT: 301Ͳ5137
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

Actual Projected
FY 2022Ͳ23 FY 2023Ͳ24 FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 TOTALS 630034 Design $466,142 $113,984 $45,187 $625,313
611010 Engineering Staff $58,066 $35,000 $30,000 $123,066 620131 Project Admin. $1,000 $6,000 $7,000
800030 Construction $7,553,100 $7,553,100
630018 C. Management $400,000 $400,000
TOTAL $524,208 $149,984 $8,034,287 $0 $0 $0 $8,708,479
PROJECT FUNDING:

CCͲTLC Grant $3,792,000 $3,792,000
PBTF Grant $1,000,000 $1,000,000
*SB1/RMRA $778,050 $778,050
ULD $600,000 $600,000
Traffic Mitigation (305) $136,139 $136,139
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (Fund 232) $118,355 $118,355 Measure K* $4,208 $13,845 $1,305,882 $1,323,935
City of Concord $440,000 $440,000
Other** $520,000 $520,000
TOTAL $524,208 $149,984 $8,034,287 $0 $0 $0 $8,708,479
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Constructs complete streets enhancements along CCB including bike lanes, sidewalk and LED street lights.

NOTES: *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25, including Measure K **unspent allocated funds from FY21Ͳ22 rolled over to FY22Ͳ23 and FY23Ͳ24

STREETS & ROADS
CONTRA COSTA BOULEVARD IMP. PROJECT (Viking Drive to Harriet Drive) This project will construct corridor "complete streets" enhancements along Contra Costa Boulevard (CCB), between Viking Drive and Harriet Drive.Project improvements will follow previously adopted landscaping, street lighting and bike/pedestrian design templates along CCB.Key project components include intersection geometry modification and traffic signal improvements at the CCB/Taylor Boulevard intersection, a new traffic signal at CCB/Alan Drive, new concrete sidewalks, new landscaping along median and sidewalk areas, new bike lanes, and new LED street lighting.

Project implementation will be jointly developed and implemented with the City of Concord at the CCB/Taylor Boulevard intersection, as the westbound approach lies within the City of Concord.

Capital Improvement Plan 57 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: GͲ002
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $50,000
ACCOUNT: ϯϬϭͲϱϭϯϵͲϰϬϬϮ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design $40,000 $40,000
611010 Engineering Staff $10,000 $10,000
620131 Project Admin. $0
800030 Construction $0
630018 C. Management $0
TOTAL $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

MTC Technical Assistance Grant $40,000 $40,000
Other* $10,000 $10,000
$0
$0
TOTAL $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Enhances/expands previously completed studies to better compete for grant funding. *unspent allocated funds from FY23Ͳ24 rolled over to FY24Ͳ25 from the bicycle/pedestrian program

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE
MONUMENT BKhL
VZD/IͲ680 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN STUDY
In May 2022, the City completed the Monument Boulevard/IͲ680 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Feasability Study. Key project improvements identified in the study include modifications to the IͲ680 onͲramps and offͲramps, 10Ͳft wide shared use paths with 5Ͳft buffer (Class I), and connections to the Iron Horse Trail.The project will also provide stormwater treatment in accordance with the City's Green Infrastructure plan, and landscaped medians.

This update to the study will expand the limits of the proposed project to include connection to the East Bay Municipal Utility District Trail at Contra Costa Boulevard, creating additional community benefit for the project.Additional community outreach will also be part of this effort.

This update will make the project more competitive for grant funding opportunities.

Capital Improvement Plan 58 FY 2024-2029
2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

UNFUNDED PROJECTS
There are 10 Unfunded Projects identified in the FY 2024-2029 CIP. The City Council set a goal of evaluating each unfunded project as part of the FY 2024–2029 CIP update process. Unfunded Projects are desired projects that have no secured funding and require new revenues to cover their cost.

Unfunded Projects are not prioritized and will be implemented as funding becomes available.

The FY 2024-2029 CIP also identified long term funding shortfalls for 8 key infrastructure programs. The City conducted a long term infrastructure assessment analysis, through which the various infrastructure shortfalls were identified.

NUMBER MAJOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROJECT COST
UNͲ1 Pleasant Hill Road Improvements (Phase IIͲV) $8,024,000 UNͲ2 Taylor Boulevard Slide Repairs $558,000
UNͲ3 ReͲLandscape Medians along Taylor Boulevard $675,000 UNͲ4 City Hall Roof Replacement $720,000
UNͲ5 City Facilities Painting Project $600,000
UNͲ6 Police Department ADA Upgrades $250,000
UNͲ7 Corporation Yard (PSC) Solar Panel Installation $354,000 UNͲ8 Boyd Road & Pleasant Hill Road Signal $689,000
UNͲ9 Monument Boulevard/IͲ680 Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Project $10,000,000 UNͲ10 Coggins Drive Complete Street Improvement Project $2,500,000 SUBTOTAL $24,370,000
Note: Projects are not listed in priority order, projects will be funded based on new funding sources (e.g. Grants) or as approved by City Council.

NUMBER LONG TERM MAJOR FACILITY & PROGRAM NEEDS (thru 2038) PROJECT COST UNͲLT1 Street Resurfacing Program Needs $96,400,000
UNͲLT2 Storm Drain Improvement Program Needs $40,184,550 UNͲLT3 Citywide Pedestrian & Bike Program Needs $25,249,926 UNͲLT4 City Building Facilities Needs $69,477,000
UNͲLT5 ADA Improvement Program Needs $5,102,020
UNͲLT6 Citywide Bridge Program Maintenance Needs $17,395,000 UNͲLT7 Traffic Signal System Needs $6,938,990
UNͲLT8 Diablo Vista Water System Needs $5,526,585
SUBTOTAL LTMF $266,274,071
SUBTOTAL MAJOR PROJECTS $24,370,000
TOTAL COST OF UNFUNDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS $266,274,071 $290,644,071

UNFUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024Ͳ2029 CIP
Capital Improvement Plan 59 FY 2024-2029

UNFUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MAJOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ1
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $8,024,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $8,024,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $8,024,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements and gateway enhancements along the Pleasant Hill Road corridor.

UNFUNDED
PLEASANT HILL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE IIͲV)

UNFUNDED
A concept plan was developed and adopted by City Council on February 7, 2000.The plan identified five phases in order to divide the project in fundͲable sections.Phase I (Cumberland Drive to Cumberland Drive) was completed in 2003.Phase II (Cumberland Drive to Boyd Road) was partially completed in 2004.In 2013, a portion of Phase III improvements was completed at the Pleasant Hill Road/Geary Road intersection, including a new gateway structure at the northwest corner.

This project includes four phases of work between three key corridor sections:Cumberland Drive and Boyd Road (Phase II). Diablo View Road and Lucinda Lane (Phase IV), and Boyd Road and Gregory Lane (Phase V).Project scope of work includes pedestrian/bicycle access improvements, addition of onͲstreet parking, and roadway repairs (as needed).Project improvements are consistent with the adopted Pleasant Hill Road Corridor Concept Study guidelines.

Capital Improvement Plan 60 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ2
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $558,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $558,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $558,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Stabilizes and corrects a potential land erosion adjacent to the roadway.

UNFUNDED

TAYLOR BOULEVARD SLIDE REPAIRS

UNFUNDED
The project is intended to prevent land erosion along Taylor Boulevard and eliminate the potential threat of a land slide during rain events, which may result in the closing of one eastbound lane on Taylor Boulevard.The project would stabilize the slope by replacing affected pavement and installing a retaining wall.

Currently, the City maintenance staff removes excess spoils as needed behind the retaining wall.

Capital Improvement Plan 61 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ3
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $675,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $675,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $675,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Replaces deteriorating landscaping and beautifies a heavily traveled section of Taylor Boulevard.

UNFUNDED
REͲLANDSCAPE MEDIANS ALONG TAYLOR BOULEVARD

UNFUNDED
This project will replace existing deteriorated landscape at medians along Taylor Boulevard between Grayson Road and the south city limits.

The project may include:
1) Replacement of existing concrete in narrow islands with ornamental concrete. 2) Replacement of landscape only in wide median areas that are safe for maintenance activities. 3) Widening of islands to provice a traffic calming effect.

Since this project is located at one of the City's gateways, the final appearance and scope may require hiring a landscape architectural firm to develop conceptual plans and final design level plans.

Capital Improvement Plan 62 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ4
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $720,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $720,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $720,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides a new roofing system for the City Hall Building.

UNFUNDED

CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT

UNFUNDED
In 2018, the City hired an outside consultant to perform a building assessment study to determine and budget needed annual maintenance at our City's facilities, including City Hall.The study determined that the City Hall facility will reach the end of it's useful life in 2037, at which time its replacement value will be $25,018,099.It was recommended that capital maintenance projects be programmed and scheduled to extend the useful life of the building.

The existing roof is a 24 gauge Kynar preͲfinished standing seam roof with builtͲin down spouts and gutters.The roof has begun to leak in several locations.A roof survey was completed and it was determined that the roof has 5Ͳ7 years of service left and will need to be replaced.
Capital Improvement Plan 63 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ5
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $600,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $600,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $600,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Repairs and refreshes the exterior of the City Hall Building.

UNFUNDED

CITY FACILITIES PAINTING PROJECT

UNFUNDED
This project will paint the exterior of City Hall, the Police Department and the Public Services Center.The project will maintain the condition of the existing exterior siding as well as the appearance of the City owned buildings.

The project will include replacing deteriorated siding, surface preparation and painting the facilities to match the existing conditions.

Capital Improvement Plan 64 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ6
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $250,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $250,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $250,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Provides needed upgrades in the locker rooms and public restrooms to conform with current ADAAG.

UNFUNDED

POLICE DEPARTMENT ADA UPGRADES

UNFUNDED
Title 28 CFR Part 35, NonͲDiscrimination on the basis of disability in State and Local Government Services, requires that a public entity evaluate the following policies, procedures and practices in relation to accessibility; communication, auxiliary aides and services, emergency response, publications, determination of undue burden, public activities, employment, new construction of facilities, and physical accessibility to City facilities.The City's ADA Transition was created and adopted based on these evaluations.
The ADA Transition plan is used to document the access barriers in the City's facilities and the City's approach to transitioning from noncompliance to compliance.The documented access barriers identify existing building conditions that deviate from current State and Federal standards for new construction.For each barrier, the ADA Transition Plan outlines the code deviations and requirements from the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the Accessibility Standards in the California Building Standards Code (CBC).The ADA Transition Plan covers all the City's buildings including the Police Department Facility.

Capital Improvement Plan 65 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ7
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $354,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $354,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $354,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Reduces the overall electricity costs to the City.

UNFUNDED

CORPORATION YARD (PSC) SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATION

UNFUNDED
The project will install a solar system (purchased or leased) to provide 100% of the electricity at the Corporation Yard.If purchased, the system could pay for itself in approximately 12Ͳ15 years and will be a cost benefit from year 15 forward, depending on the life expectancy of the unit.The system will reduce the City's electrical demands and provide various other environmental benefits.

The system would be installed on the parking lot roof structure that has ideal solar exposure with no blockage from trees.Over the 30 year design life the system will reduce smog emissions, acid rain, global warming and natural gas.Maintenance will consist of monitoring the output and washing the panels twice per year.Since the Corporation Yard houses the City and Parks & Recreation staff and equipment, both will benefit.
Leasing of the solar panels is the preferred option for the City and will be explored as part of the project implementation.

Capital Improvement Plan 66 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ8
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $689,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $689,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $689,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Improves intersection access and safety.

UNFUNDED

BOYD ROAD/PLEASANT HILL ROAD SIGNAL INSTALLATION PROJECT

UNFUNDED
This project will install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Boyd Road and Pleasant Hill Road.The intersection experiences a high level of delay at the Boyd Road approach in the morning peak hours.A traffic signal will greatly improve access merging from Boyd Road onto Pleasant Hill Road.

Key project components include the installation of a traffic signal, ADA curb ramps, new left turn pockets and pavement reͲ striping.

Capital Improvement Plan 67 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ9
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $10,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $10,000,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $10,000,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Improves access and safety for people walking and biking along Monument Boulevard.

UNFUNDED
MONUMENT BLVD/IͲ680 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

UNFUNDED
This project will improve pedestrian and bicycle access through the Monument Boulevard corridor.Bicyclists and pedestrians are currently reluctant to utilize Monument Boulevard as a safe path of travel due to motorized traffic and congestions at the IͲ 680 interchange.

Key project improvements include modifications to the IͲ680 onͲramps and offͲramps, 10Ͳft wide shared use paths with 5Ͳft buffer (Class I), and connections to the Iron Horse Trail.The project will also provide stormwater treatment in accordance with the City's Green Infrastructure plan, and landscaped medians.

City staff has submitted an Active Transportation Grant application for funding of the entire project.

Capital Improvement Plan 68 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲ10
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $2,500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $2,500,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $2,500,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Improves access and safety for people walking and biking along Oak Park Boulevard and Coggins Drive.

UNFUNDED

COGGINS DRIVE COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

UNFUNDED
This project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity on Coggins Drive from the Iron Horse Trail to Oak Park Boulevard, across the Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing (across IͲ680) and throughout the Pleasant Valley Road intersection as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.This will include new separated bikeways (Class IV) and traffic signal improvements at Oak Park Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue/Coggins Drive and Oak Park Boulevard/Pleasant Valley Drive.This project provides eastͲ west connectivity through the City including to the BART station.

Capital Improvement Plan 69 FY 2024-2029

UNFUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

LONG-TERM MAJOR FACILITY AND PROGRAM NEEDS
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT1
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $96,400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $96,400,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $96,400,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Reduces overall deferred maintenance costs and improves the PCI for city streets.

UNFUNDED

STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
The Street Resurfacing Program maintains 110 miles of City streets and is proposed at a funding level of $2.5 million per year over the next two years.This funding level will stabilize the City's PCI (Pavement Condition Index) at 70.However, the deferred maintenance level will increase over the next five years.This portion of the street program identifies the unscheduled part of the Street Resurfacing Program that is being deferred and not funded with the CIP. Funding the unscheduled portion of the Street Resurfacing Program would eliminate the backlog of deferred street maintenance, ultimately increasing the City's overall PCI from 70 to 82.The City will then be in a cost effective preventative maintenance mode, in which roadways will receive multiple cycles of crack sealing and slurry seals over time instead of expensive repairs and pavement overlay treatments.The City's deferred maintenance for street maintenance is estimated at $96.4 million over the next 20 years.

Capital Improvement Plan 70 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT2
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $40,184,550
ACCOUNT: 231Ͳ5065
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $40,184,550
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $40,184,550
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrade, improve capacity and enhance reliability of Citywide storm drain facilities.

UNFUNDED

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
This program provides installation of new storm drain facilities and the upgrade and/or repair of existing storm drain facilities. Projects funded through this program will be implemented per the priority list included in the City's Storm Drain Master Plan. New storm drain improvements may be incorporated into the priority list during the year as needed.

The program primarily addresses locations of poor drainage or areas with localized flooding problems, but program funds may also be used to supplement other funding programs to reduce flooding from large infrequent storms. Given the limited funds available for storm drain improvements, the Storm Drain Program list is prioritized to favor projects with low cost improvements that may have the greatest impact (localized flooding).The lining of corrugated metal pipes along the creek and channel where ponding and flooding most frequently occurs will be a priority.The City's current backlog of storm drain improvement needs within the City is estimated at $40.1 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 71 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST
Astrid Drive at Cleaveland Road
Repair 200Ͳft failing west bank.DeͲsilt and reͲgrade creek to improve capacity for large storm events.Install 3,000 sf detention basin and treat storm water in accordance with NPDES MRP

3.0 requirements.
$2,923,000.00
Boyd Road at Poshard Street Add detention basin/swale upstream of existing drainage system in accordance with NPDES MRP 3.0 requirements. $591,000.00
Boyd Road at Poshard Street ConstructionͲReplace threeͲpipe network with larger pipes, install new catch basin and flap gate at creek. $356,000
Citywide Slipline and/or replace corrugated metal pipes (CMP). $2,158,550.00 Citywide Replace undersized culverts and bridges that impede the flow of storm water.Several of these bridges are also included on the Citywide Bridge Program Needs List. $10,888,000 Citywide Minor facilities including drainage inlets, curb and gutter, valley gutters, asphalt berms, bicycle friendly grates, minor pipeline repairs, etc. $1,600,000.00 Cumberland Drive to Hamilton Drive Install 75Ͳfeet storm drain pipe to connect two existing systems $201,000.00 Devonshire Court Install new 18Ͳinch storm drain system. $404,000.00 Diablo View Road/Barnett Terrace ConstructionͲSlipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipe(s). $85,000 Diablo View Road/Pleasant Hill Road Construct 782Ͳft of 18" storm drain pipe, 6 manholes and 1 catch basin.ReͲroute storm water from upstream subdivision from private ditch to public drainage system. $535,000 Jeanette Drive at Ardith Drive 200 LF Replace SD, inlets, flap gate $494,000.00 Linda Ditch (drainage reserves in backyards of properties on Doris Drive and Kathryn Drive, between Linda Drive and Topographic survey, preliminary engineering, and acquisition of easements to improve drainage and fulfill new requirements per NPDES MRP 3.0 requirements. $950,000 Murderer's Creek at Boyd Road Install 1Ͳmile long bypass system to divert high flows to the confluence of Murderer's Creek and Grayson Creek. $11,906,000
Matson Creek ( Elliot to Oakvue) Green Infrastructure/peak flow mitigation. $4,352,000.00 Matson Creek at Oakvue Road Design and install a new concrete headwall and wingwalls $173,000.00 Oak Park Road at Boyd Road Install drainage inlet and sediment trap. $46,000.00 Patterson Boulevard at Santa Barbara Road Construction of improvements determined by engineering study to alleviate flooding. $575,000 Ruth Drive at Taylor Boulevard, Adria Drive, Jennie Drive, & Maxine Drive
Slipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipes.Easements will be needed for pipes located on private drainage reserves. $675,000
Shelly Drive at Byron Drive & Collins Drive Slipline and/or replace corroded corrugated metal pipes.Easements will be needed for pipes located on private drainage reserves. $385,000
Viking Drive at Grayson Creek Install a low 1,600 ft floodwall. $887,000 $40,184,550
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMͲNEEDS
Capital Improvement Plan 72 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT3
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $25,249,926
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $25,249,926
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $25,249,926
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Design and construct access and safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists along public roadways.

UNFUNDED

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
This program funds the installation of new pedestrian and bicycle improvements at high priority areas in the City. The objective of the program is to make our streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.The program targets areas adjacent to schools and senior care facilities.

The 2024 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) provides a consistent, longͲterm guide to the City in developing connected networks of mulitpurpose paths, bikeways, sidewalks, and street crossings.The BPMP compliments the City's General Plan Circulation Element and provides focused visions and goals towards the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.The BPMP provides general improvement recommendations and design guidelines for the City to promote consistent, safe and efficient integration of bicyle and pedestrian facilities on City streets and near transit facilities.

Capital Improvement Plan 73 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Coggins Drive (east of Back Forty BBQ) Crosswalk $5,885.00 Contra Costa Boulevard/Chilpancingo Parkway (free right turn lanes) High visibility crosswalk $5,885.00
Crescent Drive (north of Crescent Plaza) Crosswalks $5,885.00 Crescent Drive (in front of Century Theater) High visibility crosswalk $2,354.00 Doray Drive and Shirley Drive High visibility crosswalk $4,119.50 Ellinwood Drive and Stonebridge Way High visibility crosswalk $4,119.50 Geary Road and Barnett Terrace Colored crosswalk $3,531.00 Geary Road and Bonnie Lane Colored crosswalk $3,531.00
Geary Road and Coralie Drive Colored crosswalk $3,531.00 Geary Road and Creston Road Colored crosswalk $3,531.00 Geary Road and Dorothy Drive Colored crosswalk $3,531.00 Geary Road and Vessing Road Colored crosswalk $3,531.00 Golf Club Road/College Drive High visibility crosswalk $5,885.00 Gregory Lane and Kahrs Avenue bulb out, signs, beacons. $176,550.00 Gregory Lane and Kahrs Avenue Crosswalk $5,885.00
Kiki Drive and Stugun Court High visibility crosswalk $2,942.50 Lisa Lane and Iron Horse Trail High visibility crosswalk $2,354.00 Lockwood Lane and Contra Costa Canal Trail High visibility crosswalk $2,354.00 Norse Drive and Contra Costa Canal Trail Crossing High visibility crosswalk $2,942.50 Oak Park Boulevard and Douglas Lane Crosswalk $3,531.00 Oak Park Boulevard andManor Avenue Crosswalk $3,531.00 Oak Park Boulevard and Monte Cresta Drive New Signs $1,765.50 Oak Park Boulevard and Monte Cresta Drive Crosswalks $2,354.00 Paso Nogal Road and Pasa Tiempo Court High visibility crosswalk $5,296.50 Paso Nogal Road and Stayhorn Road High Visibility crosswalk $2,942.50 Patterson Boulevard and Longfellow Drive High visibility crosswalk $2,942.50 Patterson Boulevard and Santa Barbara Road High visibility crosswalk $2,942.50 Pleasant Hill Road and Diablo View Road High visibility crosswalk $3,531.00 Putnam Boulevard and Hoover Avenue High visibility crosswalk $3,531.00 Trelany Road (in front of City Hall) High visibility crosswalk $1,765.50 Viking Drive and Odin Drive High visibility crosswalk $6,473.50 Westover Drive at Contra Costa Canal Trail New signs, pedestrian beacons, and crosswalk enhancement funded Westover Drive and Eloise Avenue High visibility crosswalks $7,062.00 $296,016

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Apollo Way Madeira Way to Taylor Boulevard $28,462.50
Astrid Drive Contra Costa Boulevard to EBMUD Trail $123,337.50 Bridge Road Contra Costa Canal Trail to Elliott Drive $18,975.00 Byron Drive Stevenson Drive to Shelly Drive $208,725.00 Chilpancingo Parkway Ryan Drive to Camelback Road $142,312.50 Cleaveland Road Babette Court to Astrid Drive $161,287.50 Doray Drive Leslie Drive to Shirley Drive $303,600.00
Elinora Drive Gregory Lane to Maureen Lane $218,212.50
Elinora Drive Maureen Lane to Leslie Drive $151,800.00
Ellinwood Way Contra Costa Boulevard to Longbrook Way $142,312.50 Ellinwood Way Longbrook DriveͲEllinwood Way Loop $237,187.50 Evelyn Drive Merian Drive to Mary Drive $199,237.50
Geraldine Drive Hookston Road to Fair Oaks Drive $256,162.50 Golf Club Road Contra Costa Canal Trail to Paso Nogal Road $28,462.50 Golf Club Road Stubbs Road to Contra Costa Canal Trail $37,950.00 Grayson Road Mohawk Drive to 150Ͳft east of Buttner Road $85,387.50 SubtotalͲPedestrian Crosswalk Enhancements
CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAMͲNEEDS
Pedestrian Crosswalk Enhancements
Sidewalk Enhancements
Capital Improvement Plan 74 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Hawthorne Drive Shelly Drive to Pleasant Hill Middle School $275,137.50 Hookston Road Contra Costa Boulevard to Clara Court $75,900.00 Hoover Avenue Dorothy Drive to Ellis Court $208,725.00
Kahrs Avenue Turrin Drive to Beswick Court $75,900.00
Kathleen Drive Lucille Lane to Mary Drive $123,337.50
Leslie Drive Elinora Drive to Doray Drive $56,925.00
Longbrook Drive Longbrook DriveͲEllinwood Way Loop $607,200.00 Longfellow Drive Keats Circle to Patterson Boulevard $170,775.00 Lucille Lane Gladys Drive to Kathleen Drive $341,550.00 Lucille Lane Taylor Boulevard to 350' south Of Taylor Boulevard $47,437.50 Madeira Way 300Ͳft southwest of Del Vista Court to Apollo Way $113,850.00 Mary Drive Kathleen Drive to Harriet Drive $398,475.00
Maureen Lane Rose Lane to Elinora Drive $294,112.50
Merian Drive Mary Drive to Evelyn Drive $170,775.00
Moiso Lane Gregory Lane to Sequoia Middle School $75,900.00 Morello Avenue Contra Costa Country Club Frontage $56,925.00 Morello Avenue Paso Nogal Road to Morello Court $218,212.50 Oak Park Boulevard Hook Avenue to Monticello Avenue funded Oak Park Boulevard Pleasant Valley Drive to Buskirk Avenue $123,337.50 Pacheco Boulevard 940Ͳft north of Chilpancingo Parkway to Chilpancingo Parkway $170,775.00 Pleasant Hill Road Wendell Lane to Boyd Road $1,072,087.50 Pleasant Valley Drive Astrid Drive to IͲ680 Ramp $275,137.50 Pleasant View Drive Pleasant Hill Road to Contra Costa Canal Trail $113,850.00 Rose Lane Gladys Drive to Maureen Lane $218,212.50
Shelly Drive Byron Drive to Hawthorne Drive $66,412.50
Shirley Drive Taylor Boulevard to Doray Drive $474,375.00 Stevenson Drive Elliot Drive to Byron Drive $104,362.50 Strand Avenue Grayson Road to Pleasant Hill Road $341,550.00 Taylor Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard to Civic Drive funded Treadway Lane Vivian Drive to Mazie Drive $47,437.50
Viking Drive Stubbs Road to Ruth Drive $360,525.00
Vivian Drive Treadway Lane to Contra Costa Boulevard $142,312.50 Wendell Lane Oak Park Boulevard to Pleasant Hill Road $132,825.00 $9,297,750
PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION Cost
Ellinwood Creek Connector Path End of Santa Monica Drive to Longbrook Way $33,000.00 Ellinwood Creek/EBMUD ROW Santa Monica Drive to Pleasant Hill Shopping Center $1,309,000.00 Grayson Creek MUP Viking Drive to North City Limit $1,298,000.00 Paso Nogal Road (North) Alhambra Avenue to Morello Avenue $1,012,000.00 Pleasant Hill Shopping Center Woodsworth Lane to Ellinwood Creek/EBMUD ROW $1,859,000.00 Taylor Boulevard Grayson Road to Civic Drive $1,859,000.00 $7,370,000
Morello Avenue Paso Nogal Road to Ridgeview Drive $387,500.00 Taylor Boulevard City Boundary to Grayson Road $587,500.00 Viking Drive Norse Drive to Ruth Drive $650,000.00
$1,625,000
Alhambra Avenue Taylor Boulevard to Paso Nogal Road $101,750.00 Cleaveland Road Boyd Road to Gregory Lane $85,250.00
Coggins Drive Buskirk Avenue to Las Juntas Way $132,000.00 Contra Costa Boulevard Chilpancingo Parkway to Existing Bike Lane on Pacheco Boulevard $49,500.00 Contra Costa Boulevard Viking Drive to Harriet Drive $137,500.00 SubtotalͲClass I MultiͲUse Paths
Class IV Facilities
SubtotalͲClass IV Facilities
Class II Bike Lanes
Class I MultiͲUse Paths
SubtotalͲSidewalk Enhancements
Capital Improvement Plan 75 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill Road to Cleaveland Road $272,250.00 Monument Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard to Buskirk Avenue $74,250.00 Monument Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard to East City Limit $71,500.00 Morello Avenue Paso Nogal Road (North) to Taylor Boulevard $244,750.00 Oak Park Boulevard North Main Street to Buskirk Avenue $27,500.00 Oak Park Boulevard North Main Street to EBMUD Trail $90,750.00 Oak Park Boulevard Pleasant Hill Road to Contra Costa Canal Trail $68,750.00 Pleasant Hill Road Boyd Road to Cumberland Drive $132,000.00 $1,487,750
Apollo Way Mercury Way to Taylor Boulevard $135,987.50
Boies Drive Hannan Drive to Boies Drive Connector $41,112.50 Boyd Road Cortsen Connector Path to Old Rogers Ranch Connector Path $31,625.00 Boyd Road Pleasant Hill Road to Contra Costa Boulevard $332,062.50 ByronͲHawthorne Route Contra Costa Canal Trail to Oak Park Boulevard $218,212.50 Camelback Road Old Quarry Road to City Limit $227,700.00 College Drive Golf Club Road to Harriet Drive $278,300.00 Cortsen Road Grayson Road to 285Ͳft north of Boyd Road $79,062.50 Cumberland Drive Pleasant Hill Road to Cumberland Drive (NͲS) $47,437.50 Devon Avenue Alhambra Avenue to Madeira Way $60,087.50
Devon Avenue Madeira Way to Hannan Drive $126,500.00
Doray Drive Susan Lane to Contra Costa Boulevard $28,462.50 ElmiraͲGeraldine Connector Route Geraldine Drive to Elmira Lane $9,487.50 GeraldineͲFair OaksͲMarcia Route Claire Drive to Lisa Lane $104,362.50 Gladys Drive Elinora Drive to Strandwood Elementary School $98,037.50 Golf Club Road Paso Nogal Road to Contra Costa Boulevard $9,487.50 Hamilton/Cumberland Hamilton Connector Path to Dinosaur Park $284,625.00 Hannan Drive Madeira Way to Boies Drive $12,650.00
Harriet Drive Shirley Drive to Gregory Gardens School $91,712.50 Helen Road Gladys Drive to Gregory Lane $50,600.00
Kahrs Avenue Boyd Road to Gregory Lane $98,037.50
Kathleen Drive Mary Drive to Lucille Lane $41,112.50
Kiki Drive Morello Avenue to Valhalla Elementary School $253,000.00 Longbrook/Ellinwood Loop Loop around Neighborhood $335,225.00 Lucille Lane Maureen Lane to Gladys Drive $69,575.00
Lucille Lane Taylor Boulevard to Maureen Lane $173,937.50 Margie/Leslie/Elinora Susan Lane to Gregory Lane $265,650.00 Mary/Roche Kathleen Drive to Harriet Drive $132,825.00
Maureen/Chadima Elinora Drive to Eloise Avenue $129,662.50 Mercury/Vineyard Pleasant Hill Road to Taylor Boulevard $259,325.00 Norse Drive Paso Nogal Road to Taylor Boulevard $164,450.00 Old Rogers Ranch/Twinview Old Rogers Ranch Connector Path to Hamilton Connector Path $25,300.00 OsourneͲLas Juntas Route Lucille Lane to Contra Costa Canal Trail $60,087.50 Putnam Boulevard Oak Park Boulevard to Geary Road $161,287.50 Santa Monica Drive City Limit to Ellinwood Creek $53,762.50 Shirley Drive Taylor Boulevard to Harriet Drive $113,850.00 Soule Avenue Boyd Road to Patterson Boulevard $91,712.50 StrandͲWestoverͲEloise Grayson Road to Pleasant Hill Road $113,850.00 Susan Lane Margie Drive to Doray Drive $12,650.00
TreadwayͲVivianͲLindaͲDorisͲSusan Route Woodsworth Lane to Margie Drive $139,150.00 WestoverͲEloise Grayson Road to Pleasant Hill Road $161,287.50 $5,123,250
Bridge Road Contra Costa Canal Trail to Pleasant Hill Road $3,080.00 SubtotalͲClass III Neighborhood Bike Routes
Class III Signed Bike Routes
SubtotalͲClass II Bike Lanes
Class III Neighborhood Bike Routes
Capital Improvement Plan 76 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Buskirk Avenue Hookston Road to Coggins Drive $11,440.00 Contra Costa Boulevard South City Limit to Coggins Drive $2,420.00 Contra Costa Boulevard Woodsworth Lane to Astrid Drive $10,120.00 Elderwood Drive Alhambra Avenue to North City Limit $11,660.00 Hookston Road Buskirk Avenue to City Limit $2,420.00
Hookston Road EBMUD Trail to Cleaveland Road $3,300.00
Monument Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard to East City Limit $5,720.00 $50,160
$25,249,926
SubtotalͲClass III Signed Bike Routes
Capital Improvement Plan 77 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNLTͲ4
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $69,477,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $69,477,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $69,477,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Maintain and construct improvements for City owned public buildings and facilities.

UNFUNDED

CITY BUILDING FACILITY NEEDS

UNFUNDED
The City of Pleasant Hill retained a consultant to perform building assessment services in connection with the City's 20 year Infrastructure Plan of 2018.This assessment provides at a planning level the optimal annual maintenance and replacement budget as well as the facility replacement date and cost of the City's buildings.The buildings include the existing Police Headquarters, Public Service Center (PSC), City Hall, Downtown Parking Garage and the Library.

The City Building Facility needs over the next 20 years is estimated at $69.48M and is the sum of the current replacement value (CRV) of the Police Headquarters and PSC (anticipated replacement structures over the next 20 years); plus the Capital expenditures (CapEx) in all facilities which include outlay for replacement of systems in the buildings.

Capital Improvement Plan 78 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT5
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $5,102,020
ACCOUNT:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $5,102,020
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $5,102,020
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Comply with mandated Federal ADA requirements.

UNFUNDED

ADA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enacted on July 26, 1990 provides civil rights protection to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government service, access to public accomodations, transportation and telecommunications.This program will identify and remove physical obstacles in public facilities that are not readily accessible to and usable by indviduals with disabilities.Implementation of improvements are based on availability of appropriated funds.
A focus of the ADA Improvement Program is to provide for the construction of ADA compliant curb ramps throughout the City. There are a number of locations where curb ramps do not exist and are needed, especially along school and public facility pedestrian routes.This program may also fund ADA ramp retrofit and traffic signal upgrades at signalized intersections to meet current ADA design standards at signalized intersections.The City's current backlog of ADA improvements within the City is estimated at $5.1 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 79 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
City Hall Property and Facility Identified interior and exterior ADA barriers in office building and community building $247,400 Police Department Identified interior and exterior ADA barriers at Police Department Facility $278,512 Public Services Center Identified interior and exterior ADA barriers at Public Service Center $379,383 Public Parking Garage Identified interior ADA barriers at Downtown Parking Garage $45,392 ADA Curb Ramps Identified approximately 600 ADA compliant curb ramps required citywide $4,044,600 ADA Ped Button Identified ADA compliant pedestrian pushbuttons requried citywide $84,263 Pedestrian Heads Identified ADA compliant pedestrian heads requried citywide $22,470 Pedestrian Barriers No cost identifiedͲwill be addressed on an as needed basis $5,102,020
ADA PROGRAM FACILITYͲNEEDS
Capital Improvement Plan 80 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT6
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $17,395,000
ACCOUNT:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $17,395,000
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $17,395,000
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrade and maintain citywide bridges.

UNFUNDED

CITYWIDE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
The City owns and maintains 34 bridges.There are 16 longͲspan bridges and 18 shortͲspan bridges.The California Department of Transporation (CalTrans)inspects the longͲspan bridges every 24Ͳ48 months through a federally mandated program. CalTrans provides the City with each bridge inspection report which identifies needed repairs.The City hires a consultant to inspect shortͲspan bridges.All inspections are performed by licensed engineers with an expertise in structures. This progam funds the implementation of recommended bridge repairs which are needed to maintain a reliable transportation system.The City's current backlog of bridge repair needs within the City is estimated at $17.4 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 81 FY 2024-2029

LONG SPAN SHORT SPAN
Viking Drive over Grayson Creek X Repair scour.Incorporate countermeasures to prevent scour.Clean dirt and debris at Abutment 2.Fix loose armored joint at Abutment 2. $150,000.00 Chilpancingo Parkway over Grayson Creek X Repair damaged sidewalks and drain inlets. $65,000.00 Viking Drive over Grayson Creek X Revise HecͲRas model to determine adequacy of low flood walls.Improve floodwall. $1,000,000.00 Shelly Drive over Murderer's Creek X Replace timber deck with reinforced concrete deck.Replace timber railing. $100,000.00 Corp Yard over Grayson Creek X Replace chain link railing.Paint steel girders. $300,000.00 Pleasant Hill Road (culvert) at Grayson Creek (west fork) X Repair scour. $25,000.00 Soule Avenue over Murderer's Creek X Repair scour. $20,000.00 Gregory Lane over Contra Costa Canal X Repair or replace damaged section of the concrete lining in the channel near Abutment 1. $25,000.00
Monument Boulevard over Walnut Creek Flood Control
Channel X Provide access to Abutment 1.Involves fencing.Shared with City of Concord. $10,000.00 Shelly Drive over Murderer's Creek X Replace wooden bridge with concrete clear span bridge. $1,550,000.00 Boyd Road over Murderer's Creek X Replace bridge with new clear span bridge.Raise road profile. $2,900,000.00 Oak Park Boulevard over Grayson Creek X Replace multiple culverts with box culvert.Raise road profile. $3,700,000.00 Soule Avenue over Murderer's Creek X Replace wooden bridge with concrete clear span bridge. $1,550,000.00 Hawthorne Drive over Murderer's Creek X Replace wooden bridge with concrete clear span bridge. $1,550,000.00 Roberta Avenue over Murderer's Creek X Replace wooden bridge with concrete clear span bridge. $1,550,000.00 Oak Park Boulevard over Murderer's Creek X Restore banks.Install upstream detention basin. $2,900,000.00 $17,395,000
CITYWIDE BRIDGE PROGRAMͲNEEDS

BRIDGE NAME CATEGORY
SHORT TERM PROJECTSͲMAINTENANCE

LONG TERM PROJECTS

DESCRIPTION COST
Capital Improvement Plan 82 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT7
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $6,938,990
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $6,938,990
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $6,938,990
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Ugrade, maintain or replace existing traffic signal systems.Install new traffic signal systems.

UNFUNDED

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
This program will provide for needed improvements, upgrades and replacements of existing traffic signal infrastructure, as well as the installation of new traffic signals in the City.

The City's current backlog of traffic signal system needs within the City is estimated at $6.9 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 83 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Contra Costa Blvd/Taylor Blvd Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Contra Costa Blvd/Taylor Blvd intersection. Grant Funded Contra Costa Blvd/Beth Dr/Doray Dr Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Contra Costa Boulevard/Beth Drive/Doray Drive intersection. $695,500
Taylor Blvd/Ruth Drive Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Taylor Boulevard/Ruth Drive intersection. $695,500 Taylor Blvd/Apollo Way Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Taylor Boulevard/Apollo Way $695,500 Oak Park Blvd/Buskirk Ave Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Oak Park Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue intersection. $749,000
Oak Park Blvd/Pleasant Valley Dr Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Oak Park Boulevard/Pleasant Valley Drive intersection. $802,500
Alhambra Ave/Devon Ave Signal Replacement Replace existing traffic signal at Alhambra Avenue/Devon Avenue intersection. $749,000
Gregory Lane Signal Interconnect Installation Install signal interconnect along Gregory Lane between Pleasant Hill Road and Cleveland Road. $206,510
Contra Costa Blvd Signal Interconnect Installation Install signal interconnect along Contra Costa Boulevard from Boyd Road to Oak Park Boulevard. $144,450
Oak Park Blvd Signal Interconnect Installation Install signal interconnect along Oak Park Boulevard between Patterson Boulevard and Contra Costa Boulevard. $154,080
City Hall Signal Server Software Upgrade Upgrade existing McCain QuicNet software. $160,500 $5,052,540

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Contra Costa Blvd/Taylor Blvd Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. Grant Funded Cleveland Road/Boyd Road Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Cleveland Road/Crescent Plaza Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Cleveland Road/Gregory Lane Signal Install two video detection cameras at intersection (EB and WB directions). $34,240 Contra Costa Blvd/North Main/Oak Park Blvd Signal Install six video detection cameras at intersection (all approaches). $102,720 Pleasant Hill Road/Devon Avenue Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Pleasant Hill Road/Westover Drive Signal Replace signal controller cabinet. $30,000 Taylor Boulevard/Ruth Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Taylor Boulevard/Lucille Lane/Norse Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Taylor Boulevard/Morello Avenue Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Taylor Boulevard/Apollo Way Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Taylor Boulevard/Grayson Road Signal Install two video detection cameras at intersection (EB and WB directions). $34,240 Contra Costa Boulevard/Beth Drive/Doray Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Contra Costa Boulevard/Boyd Road Signal Install three video detection cameras at intersection. $51,360 Contra Costa Boulevard/Crescent Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Contra Costa Blvd/Monument Blvd Signal Install one video detection camera at intersection. $17,120 Contra Costa Boulevard/Vivian Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Contra Costa Boulevard/Woodsworth Lane Signal Install three video detection cameras at intersection. $51,360 Contra Costa Boulevard/Astrid Drive Signal Install three video detection cameras at intersection. $51,360 Gregory Lane/Helen Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Gregory Lane/Moiso Lane Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Oak Park Boulevard/Pleasant Valley Drive Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Oak Park Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 Crescent Drive/Crescent Plaza Signal Install four video detection cameras at intersection. $68,480 $1,228,400

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM NEEDS
Traffic Signal Video Detection Upgrade
Traffic Signal System Installation/Replacement Projects Capital Improvement Plan 84 FY 2024-2029

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION COST
Contra Costa Boulevard/Taylor Boulevard Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. Grant Funded Cleveland Road/Boyd Road Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Cleveland Road/Crescent Plaza Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Cleveland Road/Gregory Lane Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/Beth Drive/Doray Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/Crescent Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/Monument Boulevard Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/Woodsworth Lane Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/Astrid Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Contra Costa Boulevard/North Main/Oak Park Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Crescent Drive/Crescent Plaza Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Gregory Lane/Helen Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Oak Park Boulevard/Pleasant Valley Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Oak Park Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Pleasant Hil Road/Devon Avenue Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Taylor Boulevard/Grayson Road Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Taylor Boulevard/Morello Avenue Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Taylor Boulevard/Lucille Lane/Norse Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 Taylor Boulevard/Ruth Drive Signal Replace existing push button with audible push button. $9,630 $173,340
General Signal Maintenance General signal infrastructure maintenance.(Per Year) $214,000 City Hall Signal Server Software Update Service Monthly software support services with McCain for the City Hall signal server software. (Per Year) $117,700
Signal Pole Painting
Repaint existing signal standards, framework, vehicle heads, ped heads, PPB housing. Paint black.

Total 13 Locations: CCB/Boyd Road, CCB/Monument Blvd, CCB/Crescent Drive, CCB/Vivian Drive, CCB/Beth Drive, Crescent Drive/Crescent Plaza, Cleveland Road/Boyd Road, Cleveland Road/Crescent Plaza, TaylorBlvd/Ruth Drive, Taylor Blvd/Lucille Lane, Taylor Blvd/Morello Avenue, Taylor Blvd/Apollo Way, Pleasant Hill Road/Devon Avenue. Cost Estimate $11,000 per intersection
$153,010
$484,710
Cost
$5,052,540
$1,228,400
$173,340
$484,710
Total $6,938,990
Traffic Signal Audible Pedestrian Button Upgrade
Traffic Signal Maintenance (Per Year)
Traffic Signal System Installation/Replacement Projects Traffic Signal Maintenance (Per Year)
Traffic Signal Audible Pedestrian Button Upgrade
Traffic Signal Video Detection Upgrade
Traffic Signal System Categories
Capital Improvement Plan 85 FY 2024-2029
PROJECT NUMBER: UNͲLT8
DEPARTMENT: Engineering
ESTIMATED BUDGET: $5,526,585
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT SCOPE:

FY 2024Ͳ25 FY 2025Ͳ26 FY 2026Ͳ27 FY 2027Ͳ28 FY 2028Ͳ29 TOTALS 630034 Design
611010 Engineering Staff
620131 Project Admin.
800030 Construction
630018 C. Management
TOTAL $5,526,585
PROJECT FUNDING:

TOTAL $5,526,585
PROJECT BENEFIT:

Upgrade, maintain or replace exisiting facilities within the Diablo Vista Water System.

UNFUNDED

DIABLO VISTA WATER SYSTEM NEEDS

UNFUNDED
The City operates a nonͲpotable water system; Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) which supplies irrigation water to approximately 470 homes within the Poets Corner neighborhood.Water is supplied to the DVWS by the pump station which draws untreated wawater from a canal operated by the Contra Costa Water District. This program will provide onͲgoing maintenance and upgrades for the DVWS.The City's current backlog for the DVWS 5Ͳyear Capital Improvement Program is estimated at $5.53 million.

Capital Improvement Plan 86 FY 2024-2029
202ϰ-202ϵ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

APPENDICES

COMPLETED CIP PROJECTS
Project Cost
2021 Street Resurfacing Project $1,104,000
2021 ADA Improvement Project $105,000
2021 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project $100,000 2021 Signage & Striping Project $116,000
2022 Street Resurfacing Project $5,226,080
2022 ADA Improvement Project $150,000
2022 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project $275,000 2023 Intersection & Crosswalk Improvement Project $838,685

Gregory Gardens Storm Drain Improvement Project* $1,464,702

Diablo View Road Storm Drain Improvement Project* $368,728 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan $69,200
Taylor Boulevard/Civic Drive Intersection Imp. Project $2,223,300 Local Road Safety Plan $40,000
Pleasant Hill Library $33,569,103
Oak Park Boulevard & Monticello Ave Imp. Project $5,889,973 Oak Park Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project $887,802 Storm Drain Improvement – Random Way & Poshard Street $28,490 Downtown Street Tree Replacement Project – Phase I* $333,266 Grayson Creek Restoration & Mitigation Project $40,900
Grayson Woods Landslide Repair Project $25,000
Pleasant Hill Road Sidewalk Improvement Project $516,000 Chadima Lane Emergency Sinkhole Repair $38,451
LED Downtown Streetlight Conversion Project $25,000
*ARPA Funded
Capital Improvement Plan 87 FY 2024-2029
Capital Improvement Plan 88 FY 2024-2029
Capital Improvement Plan 89 FY 2024-2029

ATTACHMENT (G)

7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM
Ordinance 97-15
Adopted November 25, 1997

ATTACHMENT (H)

9. ADOPTION OF THE MEASURE J GROWTH

MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Resolution No. 37-13 (Adopted July 1st, 2013)

ATTACHMENT (I)

10. POSTING OF SIGNS
Taylor Boulevard Improvement Project
(Civic Drive to Ruth Drive)
Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project
(Viking Drive to Harriet Drive)
Taylor Boulevard Improvement Project (Civic Drive to Ruth Drive) Contra Costa Boulevard Improvement Project (Viking Drive to Harriet Drive)

ATTACHMENT (J)

11. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT (MoE)
Maintenance of Effort Expenditures - FY 2021-2022
Maintenance of Effort Expenditures - FY 2022-2023
City of Pleasant Hill
MOE Compliance Calculations
For FY 2021-22
Measure J MOE = $624,952
Audited
6/30/2022 MEASURE J
Applicable to MOE
$ %$
General Fund 01:

Public Wks Eng Dept Exp (01-5300-xxxx) $988,659 25% $247,165 Public Wks Maint Dept Exp (01-5400-xxxx) 3,190,790 20% 638,158 Street/Road Projects:

Sidewalk Repair Pgm (01-5307-xxxx) 0 100% 0
Golf Club Bridge Replacement (01-5513-xxxx) 0 100% 0
So PH Basin (01-5325-xxxx) 0 100% 0
PH Road Retaining Wall (01-5342-xxxx) 0 100% 0
Contrib to CIP_Sidewalks (01-5341-9001) 0 100% 0
Contrib to CIP_Pothole Repair (01-5390-9001) 0 100% 0
Contrib to CIP_Taylor Pavement Overlay (01-5544-9001) 0 100% 0 Contrib to CIP Wendall Storm Drain (01-5515-9001) 0 100% 0 Contrib to CIP_Street Resurfacing (01-5364-9001) 0 100% 0 Contrib toward L&L Dist 20 Exp (01-546x-9001) 97,946 100% 97,946 Contrib toward L&L Dist 22 Exp (01-547x-9001) 8,005 100% 8,005 Bedroom Tax Fund 10:

ADA Improvement Plan Contribution 0 100% 0
Traffic Safety Fund 11:

Street-related expenditures 0 100% 0
Landscaping and Lighting Assmt Districts:

AD 20 (Fund 18): Total Exp less Fund 01 Contrib above 548,692 100% 548,692 AD 22 (Fund 32): Total Exp less Fund 01 Contrib above 56,834 100% 56,834 Totals $4,890,927 $1,596,800
City of Pleasant Hill
MOE Compliance Calculations
For FY 2022-23
Measure J MOE = $624,952
Audited
6/30/2023 MEASURE J
Applicable to MOE
$ %$
General Fund 01:

Public Wks Eng Dept Exp (01-5300-xxxx) $1,180,443 25% $295,111 Public Wks Maint Dept Exp (01-5400-xxxx) 2,358,851 20% 471,770 Street/Road Projects:

ADA Improvement Plan Contribution 0 100% 0
Traffic Safety Fund 11:

Street-related expenditures 0 100% 0
Landscaping and Lighting Assmt Districts:

AD 20 (Fund 18): Total Exp less Fund 01 Contrib above 640,151 100% 640,151 AD 22 (Fund 32): Total Exp less Fund 01 Contrib above 57,695 100% 57,695 Totals $4,340,441 $1,568,028

ATTACHMENT (K)

12. SUBMITTAL OF LSM REPORTING FORM
& AUDIT REPORTING FORM
LSM Reporting Form & Audit Reporting Form FY 2021-2022
LSM Reporting Form & Audit Reporting Form FY 2022-2023
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597

ANNUAL REPORTING FORM
for MEASURE J LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS (LSM) FUNDS (18% LSM FUNDS & 2.09% ADDITIONAL FUNDS)
FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES DURING FISCAL YEAR 2021Ͳ22
Jurisdiction:__City of Pleasant Hill________________________________ If you have any questions regarding this form, please contact Matt Kelly at CCTA, [email protected]. Please return the form to CCTA, along with the LSM Audit Reporting Form spreadsheet, Attn: Jackie Reyes (at address listed below or [email protected])
Total for FY 2021Ͳ22
Starting Balance as of July 1, 2021 $483,448
18% + 2.09% Funds Received during FY 2021Ͳ22 (actual, not accrued) $989,663 LSM Eligible Expenditures(Please describe all expenditures in excess of $10,000 on the LSM Audit Reporting spreadsheet)
Local Street and Roads $1,375,765
Growth Management Planning and Compliance $35,765
Transit Capital and Operations
Trails
Parking Facilities
Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Management
Total LSM Expenditures during FY 2021Ͳ22 $1,411,530
Funds Remaining $61,581
Interest Earned $795
Ending Balance as of June 30, 2022 $62,376
Form prepared by:Erick Cheung__________________ Phone:_925Ͳ671Ͳ5231____________ Email:[email protected]_
Title:_Finance Manager_________________________ Date:01/18/2023________________
Jurisdiction: City of Pleasant Hill
Reporting Period: FY 2021-2022
Project Type Project Name Project Description (Location, Limits) Measure J Funds
Expended ($) Reporting Metric (see instructions)
Local Streets and Roads 2021 Signage & Striping Project Install traffic striping, legends, markings, posts, signs and raised pavement markers at various locations throughout the City. These devices are important roadway features and are required for the safe movement of vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles on the roadway. $ 110,181
Installation of 6,340 linear feet of pavement striping, 22 pavement arrows, 1,074 square feet of pavement messages, 1,919 pavement markers, 91 new traffic signs.

Local Streets and Roads 2021 Street Resurfacing Project Pavement resurface treatment $ 700,000 Used 6,661 tons of HMA overlay on 20 residential streets, installed 10 ADA compliant curb ramps, repaired 235 linear feet of curb and gutter, updated thermoplastic pavement markings, reflectors and striping on 5 lane miles of project streets.

CCTA Measure J Local Streets & Roads Maintenance Audit Reporting Form (for expenditures of $10,000 or more)

ANNUAL LSM SUMMARY REPORTING FORM

Please return the form to CCTA, along with the LSM Audit Reporting Form spreadsheet, Attn: Jackie Reyes (at address listed below or [email protected])

Total for FY 2022-23
Starting Balance as of July 1, 2022
18% + 2.09% Funds Received during FY 2022-23 (actual, not accrued) LSM Eligible Expenditures(Please describe all expenditures in excess of $10,000 on the LSM Audit Reporting spreadsheet)
Local Street and Roads
Growth Management Planning and Compliance
Transit Capital and Operations
Trails
Parking Facilities
Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Management
Total LSM Expenditures during FY 2022-23
Funds Remaining
Interest Earned
Ending Balance as of June 30, 2023
Form prepared by: ______________________________ Phone: _______________________ Email: _______________________
Title: _________________________________________
Date: ________________
City of Pleasant Hill
$62,376.00
$1,709,773.00
$309,540.01
$40,226.00
$349,766.01
$21,762.76
$1,444,145.75
Erick Cheung 925-671-5231
Finance Manager
[email protected]
1/5/24
Jurisdiction: City of Pleasant Hill
Reporting Period: FY 2022-2023
Project Type Project Name Project Description (Location, Limits) Measure J Funds
Expended ($) Reporting Metric (see instructions)
TDM/TSM Traffic Signal Operations & Maintenance Maintenance of Traffic Signals $ 349,312 Maintenance of 49 traffic signals throughout the City of Pleasant Hill.

Other TRANSPAC Annual Contribution $ 40,226
CCTA Measure J Local Streets & Roads Maintenance Audit Reporting Form (for expenditures of $10,000 or more)

Pleasant Hill City CouncilMarch 17, 2025

Pleasant Hill City Council
March 17, 2025