Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Bruno City Council, September 13, 2022

"The City with a Heart"
Rico Medina, Mayor
Linda Mason, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember
Michael Salazar, Councilmember
AB361
CORONAVIRUS COVID19
On September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed AB361 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the CDC’s social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the San Bruno City Council meetings are being conducted electronically. The meeting is not available for inperson attendance. Members of the public may attend the meeting by video or phone linked in this agenda or watch by livestream at youtube.com/user/cityofsanbruno. CityNet Services Channel 1 will air the meeting live and the recorded meeting will be made available for viewing on the City’s YouTube channel after the meeting has concluded.

If you would like to make a Public Comment on an item not on the agenda, or comment on a particular agenda item, please email [email protected]. Emails received before the special or regular meeting start time will be forwarded to the City Council, posted on the City’s website and will become part of the public record for that meeting. If emailed comments are received after the meeting start time, or after the meeting ends, they will be forwarded to the City Council and filed with the agenda packet becoming part of the public record for that meeting. Emails received will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Individuals who require special assistance of a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact the City Clerk 48 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 6167070 or by email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of San Bruno to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.

AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2022
7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Details
https://sanbrunocagov.zoom.us/j/88407278778?
pwd=aFhnMlVnMEp3RW9EOUdha0xqVGZ3Zz09
Webinar or Meeting ID: 884 0727 8778
Webinar or Meeting Password: 485218
Zoom Phone Line: 16465588656 (same webinar ID and password as above)
City Council meetings are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. All regular Council meetings are recorded and televised on CityNet Services Channel 1 and replayed the following Thursday, at 2:00 pm.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Individuals allowed three minutes. It is the Council’s policy to refer matters raised in this forum to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate. The Brown Act prohibits the Council from discussing or acting upon any matter not agendized pursuant to State Law.

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
a. Issue Proclamation Declaring September 15 – October 15, 2022 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of San Bruno
b. Issue Proclamation Declaring September 2022 as Suicide Awareness Month in the City of San Bruno
c. Be where the action is and get involved! Apply to serve on one of several Citizen Advisory Commissions, Boards and Committees. Apply by Friday, September 30, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. online at www.sanbruno.ca.gov or contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 6167061. There are currently vacancies on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Citizens Crime Prevention Committee, Culture & Arts Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission Youth Representative (Must be a high school student) and the Traffic Safety & Parking Committee.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items are considered routine or implement an earlier Council action and may be enacted by one motion; there will be no separate discussion, unless requested. a. Approve Accounts Payable for August 15, 2022, August 16, 2022 and August 22, 2022
b. Accept Payroll for August 14, 2022 and August 28, 2022 c. Approve Investment Report Dated July 31, 2022
d. Receive Written Update on the City’s Response Efforts to COVID19 e. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Receipt and Expenditure of $80,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Funds to Facilitate the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) #PT23166
f. Receive Report on the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way Intersection Control Study
g. Adopt Resolution Approving Publicly Available Pay Schedule Effective September 13, 2022 Pursuant to the Public Employee’s Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)

7. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
a. Hold Public Hearing and Introduce, Read by Title Only, and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance of the City of San Bruno Approving the First Amendment to a Development Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Williams Portfolio 16 for the Construction of the Mills Park Center Residential and Commercial Development at 601799 El Camino Real and the Adjacent Site at 601611 El Camino Real. CEQA Determination: It Has Been Determined That the Proposed Amendments Are Within the Scope of the Prior Project CEQA Documentation and Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to Sections 15168 (Program EIR), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15183 (Projects Consistent With a Community Plan or Zoning) and Section 15061(B)(3) Because It Can Be Seen With Certainty That the Extension of the Term of the Agreement and Other Deadlines in the Agreement Have No Possibility of Having a Significant Effect on the Environment

8. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
a. Receive Report From Voting Delegate on Attendance at the Annual League of California Cities Conference Held in Long Beach, California on September 7 – 9, 2022
b. Linda Mason:

1. Discuss directing staff to schedule an in person townhall style meeting in October of 2022 with a focus on development projects, including the timeline for the Recreation and Aquatics Center, for the San Bruno Community.

2. Request Discussion and Direction that the Fall and Spring flea market be in downtown San Bruno due to construction in City Park through 2023

3. Discussion of Plan and Process for incoming San Bruno funds

4. Discussion of Charter City next steps

9. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on September 27, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

1 of 244

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. Request Discussion and Direction that the Fall and Spring flea market be in downtown San Bruno due to construction in City Park through 2023

3. Discussion of Plan and Process for incoming San Bruno funds

4. Discussion of Charter City next steps

9. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on September 27, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

2 of 244

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. Request Discussion and Direction that the Fall and Spring flea market be in downtown San Bruno due to construction in City Park through 2023

3. Discussion of Plan and Process for incoming San Bruno funds

4. Discussion of Charter City next steps

9. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on September 27, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

3 of 244

4 of 244

5 of 244

6 of 244

7 of 244

8 of 244

9 of 244

10 of 244

11 of 244

12 of 244

13 of 244

14 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: September 13, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

PREPARED BY: Anh Tran, Management Analyst II

SUBJECT: Payroll Acceptance

City Council acceptance of the City payroll distributed August 19, 2022 is recommended. The Labor Summary report reflecting the total payroll amount of $1,801,150.66 for bi-weekly pay period ending August 14, 2022 by fund is shown below:

Fund Amount

Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND 1,348,946.73
Fund: 006 - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT 69,376.69
Fund: 122 - SOLID WAIST/RECYCL. 244.49
Fund: 132 - AGENCY ON AGING 1,566.17
Fund: 137 - DEVELOPER PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 5,241.92
Fund: 201 - PARKS AND FACILITIES CAPITAL 403.96
Fund: 203 - STREET IMPROVE. PROJECTS 6,681.41
Fund: 611 - WATER FUND 81,880.72
Fund: 621 - STORMWATER FUND 27,524.69
Fund: 631 - WASTEWATER FUND 90,201.44
Fund: 641 - CITYNET SERVICES FUND 88,482.90
Fund: 701 - CENTRAL GARAGE 13,719.38
Fund: 702 - FACILITY MAINT.FUND 38,201.77
Fund: 707 - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 21,354.94
Fund: 711 - SELF INSURANCE 7,323.45

Total: 1,801,150.66

_________________________________
Bobby Magee, Interim Finance Director Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 3EEB9607-F79F-45BA-A76C-CE69779477BF 9/1/2022

15 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: September 13, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

PREPARED BY: Anh Tran, Management Analyst II

SUBJECT: Payroll Acceptance

City Council acceptance of the City payroll distributed September 2, 2022 is recommended. The Labor Summary report reflecting the total payroll amount of $1,702,182.16 for bi-weekly pay period ending August 28, 2022 by fund is shown below:

Fund Amount

Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND 1,252,981.19
Fund: 006 - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT 60,399.67
Fund: 122 - SOLID WAIST/RECYCL. 245.03
Fund: 132 - AGENCY ON AGING 1,561.77
Fund: 137 - DEVELOPER PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 4,842.85
Fund: 201 - PARKS AND FACILITIES CAPITAL 488.57
Fund: 203 - STREET IMPROVE. PROJECTS 10,178.12
Fund: 611 - WATER FUND 82,394.55
Fund: 621 - STORMWATER FUND 28,740.66
Fund: 631 - WASTEWATER FUND 87,451.47
Fund: 641 - CITYNET SERVICES FUND 90,246.01
Fund: 701 - CENTRAL GARAGE 14,416.45
Fund: 702 - FACILITY MAINT.FUND 38,713.37
Fund: 707 - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 22,182.24
Fund: 711 - SELF INSURANCE 7,340.21

Total: 1,702,182.16

_________________________________
Bobby Magee, Interim Finance Director Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 86E69167-5F2F-4DDE-BD58-49CB980E75FB 9/1/2022

16 of 244

17 of 244

 
18 of 244

 
19 of 244

 
20 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:September 13, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:Jovan Grogan, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Jennifer Dianos, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Receive Written Update on the City’s Response Efforts to COVID-19 BACKGROUND: This report is to provide an update on the City’s response efforts to COVID- 19, while the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated. The information provided in this report is as of the time it was produced and may be subject to change.

DISCUSSION: San Mateo County Health provides regular COVID-19 data dashboards through their website, smchealth.org. San Mateo County Health reports as of September 1, 2022, there were a total of 468 cases within the last 30 days in the City of San Bruno; and approximately

94.1% of San Bruno residents are vaccinated. Additional statistics are attached to this report.

The San Bruno Emergency Operations Center (EOC) continues to review City services and modifications. There are no operational modifications to report to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT: Since the declaration of emergency in March of 2020, the City of San Bruno has recorded the emergency expenditure of $200,120 out of the City’s emergency reserve funds for COVID related operations. In total, the City has recorded a total COVID related expenditure of $2.08 million including facilities enhancement projects (i.e. keyless entry system to City Hall), COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies, and initial response and adaptation to remote programming/services. There are no additional expenditures to report for the specific period of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact. The action is not a project subject to CEQA.  City Council’s action is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive Written Update on the City’s Response Efforts to COVID-19 ALTERNATIVES: The City of San Bruno’s Emergency Operations Center remains activated and there are no alternatives proposed at this time.

21 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS: 1. San Mateo County Health Department COVID-19 Data Dashboard

22 of 244

Source: https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboards
(Dashboard screen shots taken on 9/1/2022 @ 4:10 p.m.)
ATTACHMENT 1

23 of 244

Source: https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboards
1 4
5 24 of 244

Source: https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboards
1 4
5 25 of 244

Source: https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboards
1 4
5 26 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:September 13, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM:Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ryan Johansen, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Receipt and Expenditure of $80,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Funds to Facilitate the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) #PT23166
BACKGROUND: Impaired driving and other dangerous driving activities result in fatalities, injuries, and property damage, which constitute a public safety concern that negatively impacts the San Bruno community. In an effort to help address this concern and reduce the negative impacts, the San Bruno Police Department applied for and has been awarded a grant through OTS. This grant funds a project that is intended to enhance public awareness and education regarding impaired driving and other dangerous driving practices, and reduce such practices through enforcement. The San Bruno Police Department has received grant funds from OTS for this program consistently over the last several years, and these funds serve a critical role in helping us to address the substantial traffic safety challenges facing our City.

DISCUSSION: Grant funds for this program will be used to cover the costs of overtime, equipment, and other expenses associated with selective enforcement and education activities aimed at reducing fatalities, injuries, and property damage associated with unsafe driving on San Bruno roadways.

Some of the activities covered by this grant project will include:
•Driving Under the Influence (DUI)/Driver’s License Checkpoints •DUI Saturation Patrols
•Court Stings
•Warrant Services
•Stakeouts
•Know Your Limit Programs
•Traffic Enforcement
•Distracted Driving Enforcement
•Motorcycle Safety Programs
•Pedestrian & Bicycle Enforcement
•Presentations
•Street Racing Enforcement
This grant will be managed by the San Bruno Police Department. The grant period in which all operations are to be conducted is October 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023.

27 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

7 3
FISCAL IMPACT: The current fiscal impact for this item is $80,000, all of which will be reimbursed through this OTS grant.

This item requires a budget appropriation in the amount of $80,000, but the grant reimbursements will create a revenue item in the same amount ($80,000).

There is no net fiscal impact to the General Fund as the full $80,000 appropriation will be reimbursed through the grant.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the receipt and expenditure of $80,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant funds to facilitate the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) #PT23166.

ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, City Council can choose not to adopt the Resolution and decline acceptance of the grant funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Authorizing the Receipt and Expenditure of $80,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Funds to Facilitate the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) #PT23166

2. Grant Agreement PT23166

28 of 244

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - __

Resolution Authorizing the Receipt and Expenditure of $80,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Funds to Facilitate the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) #PT23166

WHEREAS, The San Bruno Police Department is charged with providing for the safety and security of the people within City limits and beyond; and

WHERAS, there are substantial traffic safety challenges on San Bruno roadways that negatively impact that safety and security; and

WHEREAS, increased education and enforcement regarding impaired and other unsafe driving practices can reduce those negative impacts; and

WHEREAS, funding the overtime, equipment, and other expenses associated with this education and enforcement presents a fiscal challenge for the City ; and

WHEREAS, the San Bruno Police Department and the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) have collaborated to establish goals and objectives for the 2022-2023 Federal Fiscal Year to have a positive impact on traffic safety challenges in San Bruno; and

WHEREAS, the San Bruno Police Department has applied for and received an offer of an OTS Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant #PT23166, providing funding in furtherance of these goals and objectives.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief of Police for the San Bruno Police Department or his/her designee is authorized to execute on behalf of the City of San Bruno the attached agreement, including any extensions or amendments thereof and any subsequent contract with the state in relation thereto.

IT IS AGREED that any liability arising out of the performance of this contract, including civil court actions for damages, shall be the responsibility of the grant recipient and the authorizing agency. The State of California, and OTS disclaim responsibility for any such liability.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.

IT IS ALSO AGREED that this award is not subject to local hiring freezes.

I, the undersigned hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022 – ___ was duly adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 13, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ATTEST:
__________________________________
Vicky Hasha
Deputy City Clerk

29 of 244

30 of 244

31 of 244

32 of 244

33 of 244

34 of 244

35 of 244

36 of 244

37 of 244

38 of 244

39 of 244

40 of 244

41 of 244

42 of 244

43 of 244

44 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:September 13, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Matthew Lee, Director
SUBJECT: Receive Report on the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way Intersection Control Study
BACKGROUND: Based on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the proposed San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center (SBRAC), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was formulated. The MMRP for the Transportation and Circulation section states that, “The proposed project would add more than 10 trips to the critical movement of the all-way stop controlled intersection of Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way during peak hour and meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant for this intersection during “Existing Plus Project” and “Cumulative Plus Project” conditions.

The Mitigation Measure of the MMRP states that “The San Bruno Walk ’n Bike Plan recommends a mini-roundabout at the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection to simplify the intersection control and calm traffic. However, the plan also noted that this improvement should be further studied to determine the feasibility of a mini-roundabout at this location given the relatively large number of school children activity. Therefore, to reduce the level of service impact at this intersection, either a mini-roundabout (if determined to be feasible) or a traffic signal shall be installed at the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection.” In June 2022, DKS Associates prepared an Intersection Control Evaluation Technical Memorandum (Study) to select the most cost effective intersection control strategy, based on delay, safety, and cost. The Study is based on guidelines set forth in the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Process Informational Guide.

The Study concludes that installing a traffic signal at this intersection is the better option. A copy of the Study is attached as Attachment 1.

Staff presented this item to the TSPC on August 3, 2022 and the TSPC agreed with the conclusion of the Study.

45 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

3 0
8 DISCUSSION: In accordance with the San Bruno Municipal Code Section 7.12.010 “Designated Authority”, the city engineer of the city shall function as the city traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer shall cause official traffic control devices or signals to be placed or maintained wherever he or she is required or authorized by law to do so.

The existing intersection of Crystal Springs and Oak Avenue/City Park Way is a four- legged intersection and is all-way stop controlled. There are marked high visibility crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection.

The Study included analyzing the existing conditions, level of service (LOS) and crash data. An engineering analysis was performed to assess the changes in level of service and crashes that would result from the intersection control change, and a safety benefit- cost ratio (BCR) was calculated. Also, an engineering review was completed, taking into account factors such as feasibility/constructability, footprint, surrounding context, vulnerable road users and cost, to determine the more effective control for the intersection.

The intersection controls evaluated included the following:

1. All-way Stop (existing)

2. Traffic Signal

3. Mini Roundabout

The Study finds that under the Existing Year traffic conditions, the intersection operates unacceptably at LOS E or worse. With a traffic signal or a roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during both AM and PM peak periods under the Existing Year traffic conditions. Under the Horizon Year (2042) traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to continue to operate unacceptably at LOS F.

Installing a traffic signal is expected to operate the intersection at an acceptable LOS D or better while a mini roundabout is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F.

With a traffic signal, the available storage for queueing in the eastbound approach is exceeded during the AM Peak under Existing (2022) and during both AM and PM peak periods under Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions. Under the Horizon year traffic conditions, the available storage is also expected to exceed for the westbound left-turn movement (during the AM peak) and the westbound through movements (during both AM and PM peaks).

With a roundabout, the available storage is expected to be exceeded during both AM and PM peak periods under the Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions. The queueing length far exceeds the available storage in a roundabout option than a traffic signal option.

The Study finds that the benefit/cost ratio is slightly higher for a traffic signal as compared to a mini-roundabout for the study intersection. This is the result of the initial high cost of a roundabout.

46 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

3 0
8 It is also worth mentioning that a mini-roundabout would not accommodate emergency vehicle turn templates due to the restricted radius. Emergency vehicles and trucks taking this intersection would need to drive over the central circle of the mini- roundabout.

Based on the Level of Service (LOS) analysis, queuing analysis, and benefit cost ratio, it is found that installing a traffic signal at this intersection is a better and preferred option.

The Study concludes that taking all of the measure of performance into consideration (delay, operations and maintenance, safety, and initial capital cost), a traffic signal is a preferred option for traffic control at this intersection. Staff is in agreement with the conclusion of the Study.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City’s budget from providing this report.

The design and construction of a traffic signal at this intersection is already included in the Oak and Crystal Springs Intersection Improvements project budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report and Adopted CEQA Findings, Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting for the San Bruno Recreation and Aquatics Center project. Recommended Council action associated with intersection improvements at Oak Avenue and Crystal Springs Road addresses Mitigation Measure TRA-1.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on the Crystal Springs/Oak Avenue/City Park Way Intersection Study.

ALTERNATIVES: None.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Intersection Control Evaluation Technical Memorandum (Study)

47 of 244

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION TECHNICAL

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 08, 2022
TO: Hae Won Ritchie, PE | City of San Bruno
David Wong, PE, QSD/P | City of San Bruno
FROM: Meron Shiferaw, PE, PTOE | DKS Associates
Frank Appiah | DKS Associates
David Mahama, PE | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Crystal Springs Road / Oak Ave/City Park Way Intersection Improvements Project #22051-000

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides a summary of the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection, including methodology, results and recommendations. The purpose of this study is to select the most cost effective intersection control strategy, based on delay, safety, and cost. The results of the intersection control evaluation was considered with a traffic signal warrant analysis, site observations and engineering judgment to form a basis for DKS’s recommendations.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ROADWAY NETWORK
The intersection of Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way is a four-legged intersection and is currently all-way stop controlled. There are marked high visibility crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection. The City’s Walk-n-Bike plan identifies the intersection as a potential candidate for a mini-roundabout traffic control.

Crystal Springs Road runs east-west at the study intersection and is a two-lane roadway with curb- side parking on both sides. The City of San Bruno General Plan designates Crystal Springs Road as an arterial. The posted speed limit along Crystal Springs Road is 25 MPH. The City’s Walk-n-Bike Plan recommends a Class III bikeway along Crystal Springs Road with bicyclists sharing the road with motorists.

48 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 2

North of the study intersection, Oak Avenue is a two-lane local roadway providing access to a residential neighborhood. South of the study intersection, City Park Way is a two-lane local roadway providing access to the proposed Recreation and Aquatics Center. The posted speed limit along City Park Way is 15 MPH near the study intersection. There is no posted speed limit along Oak Avenue, and is assumed to be 25 MPH. The City’s Walk-n-Bike Plan recommends a Class III bikeway along Crystal Oak Avenue/City Park Way with bicyclists sharing the road with motorists.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Pre pandemic traffic volume data for the analysis was obtained from the San Bruno Recreation and Aquatics Center Transportation Impact Analysis report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., January 13, 2020). This study used AM and PM peak period turning movement counts collected on January 23rd, 2019 and added the estimated trips generated by the development to produce the intersection turning movement volumes shown in Table 1. These volumes were used in the Intersection Control Evaluation presented in this technical memorandum as existing traffic volumes. Because the traffic counts were collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is assumed that they provide a basis for a conservative operational analysis as compared to the current year’s traffic demand near the project area. Therefore an additional growth factor was not applied.

TABLE 1: CRYSTAL SPRING ROAD/OAK AVENUE/C ITY PARK WAY EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT

VOLUMES (OBTAINED FROM THE SAN BRUNO RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT)

PEAK PERIOD

MOVEMENT

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM 215 46 70 121 65 55 15 288 245 26 268 59
PM 123 52 63 37 48 22 20 327 189 78 304 45
The Intersection Control Evaluation also considered traffic operations 20 years after the intersection improvements are constructed. To obtain the Horizon Year (2042) turning movement counts, the existing traffic volumes were projected to the year 2042 based on an annual growth rate of 2%. The turning movement counts used for the Horizon Year (2042) delay analysis are provided in Table 2.

TABLE 2: CRYSTAL SPRING ROAD/OAK AVEN UE/CITY PARK WAY HORIZON YEAR (2042)

TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

PEAK PERIOD

MOVEMENT

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM 339 73 110 191 102 87 24 454 386 41 423 93
PM 194 82 99 58 76 35 32 516 298 123 479 71

49 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 3

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This study is based on guidelines set forth in the Caltrans ICE Process Informational Guide. The first step is to analyze the existing conditions, including level of service and crash data. An engineering analysis was performed to assess the changes in level of service and crashes that would result from an intersection control change, and a safety benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was calculated. Finally, an engineering review was completed, taking into account factors such as feasibility/constructability, footprint, the surrounding context, vulnerable road users, and cost, to determine the more effective control for the intersection.

The intersection controls evaluated are:
 All-way Stop (existing)
 Traffic signal
 Single lane or mini roundabout

LEVEL OF SERVICE
A key mobility metric is level of service (LOS), which is based on average vehicle delay. LOS is a quantitative stratification of performance that represents quality of service. There are six levels of service, ranging from A to F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst. In accordance with the City of San Bruno General Plan’s Policy T- B, the standard for acceptable operation of City intersections is LOS “D” or better.

AM and PM peak period conditions for the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection were modeled using both Synchro and SIDRA.

Synchro (Version 11) was used to assess the intersection operations with an all-way stop control and a traffic signal. Synchro is an industry standard analysis tool used for the analysis of signalized and unsignalized intersections. Synchro incorporates the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodologies, which were used to calculate the control delay and LOS.

SIDRA (Version 9.0) was used to assess the intersection operations with a roundabout. SIDRA incorporates the HCM 2010 methodologies. HCM delay equations were used to determine the control delay and LOS. SIDRA Standard model was also reviewed as HCM delay equations do not include geometric delay.

SAFETY BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
Intersection Control Evaluations provide guidance on the type of control that is most appropriate.

The improvement should result in a safer and more efficient intersection.

DKS developed a spreadsheet, consistent with the Caltrans’ safety benefit and cost ratio (BCR) methodology, and used it to perform the ICE analysis. Modifying intersection control will change both the crash rate, as well as the average cost (due to change in severity) of crashes. The benefits are calculated as the annual value of crash savings from the control change. The costs are calculated as the annualized initial construction cost, plus annual costs for operating and maintaining the modified intersection. The planning-level construction costs of converting stop-

50 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 4

controlled intersections to signal and roundabout control are shown in TABLE 3. These assumed costs are based on preliminary cost-estimates and improvements at similar intersections.

TABLE 3: CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FOR CONTROL TYPES

INTERSECTION TYPE SIGNAL COST MINI-ROUNDABOUT COST
4 – LEG (SINGLE LANE) $400,000 $880,000 1
1POTENTIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST The initial construction cost was converted into an annualized cost based on a discount/interest rate of 3% and life cycle of 20 years, which are often applied to public works construction projects.

In addition to the construction costs, Table 4 provides a breakdown of the operations and maintenance costs for all control types (stop, signal and roundabout). These assumed costs are based off similar improvement projects.

TABLE 4: ANNUAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST BREAKDOWN FOR CONTROL TYPES

TYPE OF COST STOP SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT COST
LUMINAIRES – ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION AND
MAINTENANCE $331 $663 $1,326

ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION BY TRAFFIC
SIGNALS $0 $841 $0
SIGNAL RETIMING $0 $1,667 $0
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE $0 $4,500 $0
ROUNDABOUT LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $2,000
ANNUAL COST $331 $7,670 $3,326
Figure 1 shows the California Local Roadway Safety Manual’s1 recommended Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) for countermeasures at Non-Signalized Intersections. The countermeasure NS03 “Install Signals” provides a CRF of 30% (CMF 0.7) for signalizing an unsignalized intersection, and countermeasure NS04 provides varying CRF values (12-78%) for converting an intersection from all-way stop control to a roundabout.

1 Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Version 1.5, 2020

51 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 5

FIGURE 1: LRSM COUNTERMEASURES FOR NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The crash reduction factor for converting an intersection to a roundabout is dependent on the ADT, project location, and roundabout type. DKS reviewed available sources in The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse to obtain the CMF for this study. CMF ID: 206 was used which sites a publication2 that analyzed before and after crash rates at 23 intersections across 7 U.S. states. The results suggest a 72% reduction in all crash types (CMF 0.28) from converting a stop controlled intersection to a roundabout. However, it should be noted that the study primarily looked at side- street stop controlled intersections and thus the results of the actual safety benefits for the Oak Avenue and Crystal Spring Road intersection may be lower than calculated. Other available all-way stop control to roundabout conversion CMFs were found to have low quality ratings which indicate low quality or confidence in the results of the studies producing the CMFs.

The average crash costs were obtained from Caltrans’ Annual Collision Data on California State Highways as shown in Figure 2.

Table 5 includes the existing condition, to (signal or a single-lane roundabout), CMF, base average crash cost (cost of collision with existing control) and new average crash cost (cost of collision in proposed conditions). The crash cost calculations are described in the Safety Benefit/Cost Ratio section below. As can be seen, the crash cost with both a traffic signal and a roundabout are lower as compared with the existing AWSC.

The safety benefits are calculated based on the crash reduction savings. The conversion of a stop- controlled intersection into a signalized intersection, or roundabout, reduces the severity of the collision.

2 Observational Before-After Study Of The Safety Effect Of U.S. Roundabout Conversions Using The Empirical Bayes Method, Persaud Et Al., 2001

52 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 6

FIGURE 2: CALTRANS ANNUAL COLLISION DATA AVERAGE CRASH RATE TABLE FOR

INTERECTIONS
TABLE 5: BREAKDOWN OF CRASH REDUCTION SAVINGS

EXISTING

CONTROL TO CMF BASE AVERAGE CRASH COST NEW AVERAGE CRASH COST AWSC SIGNAL 0.7 $159,700 $132,100
AWSC RAB-1 0.28 $159,700 $142,000
NOTE: RAB-1 = SINGLE LANE ROUNDABOUT , CMF = CRASH MODIFICATION FACTOR.

VOLUME DATA
To estimate the annual crash cost savings of the alternative intersection controls, planning-level 20-year projected entering volumes are needed. These were estimated from existing entering volumes, based on an annual growth rate of 2%, and at 11% ratio of PM peak hour volumes to average daily volumes. The entering volumes were used for the crash analysis.

CRASH DATA
Raw collision data was retrieved from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the City of San Bruno for the most recent five years (01/01/2017-01/01/2022). The dataset

53 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 7

includes a multitude of information for each collision: date, time, location, traffic control, weather, severity, primary collision factor, lighting and CHP notes. Per the Caltrans’ methodology, the total number of collisions at an intersection for all types is used for the ICE analysis.

SAFETY BENEFIT /COST RATIO
The number of collisions in the most recent five-year period is converted to collision rate, based on the number of entering vehicles as follows:

Next, the collision rate is used to determine the expected 20-year collisions (based on 20-year projected volume), assuming no change in control. The average annual collision frequency is calculated over the 20 years. The annual collision cost is calculated based on Caltrans’ average crash cost data, which takes into account all severity types (property damage, injury, fatality).

Lastly, the annual crash cost savings are calculated based on the crash costs of the proposed condition, minus the crash costs of the existing condition. The annual crash cost savings are counted as the “benefits” in the BCR calculation. The annual benefits are divided by the annual costs (construction, operations, and maintenance) to determine the safety benefit-cost ratio.

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION RESULTS
The intersection control evaluation worksheet is provided in Appendix A.

Table 6 summarizes the AM and PM peak LOS and control delay (seconds per vehicle) for the three intersection control types analyzed under both Existing (2022) and Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions. HCM LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B.

54 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 8

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF LOS AND CONTROL DELA Y UNDER ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION CONTROL

CONDITIONS

MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE

EXISTING (AWSC) TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT

AM PM AM PM AM PM
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

LOS F E B B B B
CONTROL DELAY (SEC/VEH) 80.0 43.8 19.6 14.1 13.3 11.4
HORIZON YEAR (2042) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

LOS F F D C F F
CONTROL DELAY (SEC/VEH) 389.4 284.2 54.0 26.3 80.0 52.8 NOTE: BOLD (UNACCEPTABLE LOS)
As shown in Table 6, under Existing Year traffic conditions, the intersection operates unacceptably at LOS E or worst. With a traffic signal or a roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during both AM and PM peak periods under Existing Year traffic conditions.

Under the Horizon Year traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to continue to operate unacceptably at LOS F. Installing a traffic signal is expected to operate the intersection at an acceptable LOS D or better while a single-lane roundabout is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F.

Table 7 summarizes the AM and PM peak 95
th percentile queue for the three intersection control
types analyzed under both Existing (2022) and Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions.

With a Stop-control, the available storage in the eastbound and westbound approaches is exceeded during both AM and PM peak periods under both Existing (2022) and Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions.

With a Traffic Signal, the available storage in the eastbound approach is exceeded during the AM Peak under Existing (2022), and during both AM and PM peak periods under Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions. Under the Horizon year traffic conditions, the available storage is also expected to be exceeded for the westbound left-turn movement (during the AM peak) and the westbound through movements (during both AM and PM peaks).

With a roundabout, the available storage is expected to be exceeded during both AM and PM peak periods under Horizon year (2042) traffic conditions

55 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 9

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF 95 TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTHS UN DER ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION

CONTROL CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL MOVEMENT

AVAILABLE

STORAGE
(FT)
95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTH (FEET)
EXISTING (2022) HORIZON (2042)
AM Peak PM Peak
AM
Peak
PM Peak

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL
EB 315 615 382.5 1445 1327.5
WB 180 200 232.5 602.5 832.5
NB 950 130 57.5 385 140
SB 680 100 27.5 275 57.5

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

CONTROL
EBL 100 16 17 25 27
EBT 315 367 254 816 632
WBL 100 27 59 77 198
WBT 180 180 161 354 338
NBL/NBT 950 134 87 412 243
SBL 100 88 38 202 83
SBT 680 66 50 176 124

ROUNDABOUT CONTROL
EB 315 232.4 152.8 2096.5 1677.8
WB 180 69.0 76.4 428.4 701.3
NB 950 88.0 37.7 548.4 149.2
SB 680 52.1 16.4 283.5 43.8

Table 8 summarizes the benefit-cost ratios for a traffic signal control versus a roundabout at the study intersection. This table also includes the number of collisions that were reported to have occurred within or near the intersection in the past five years. A total of four crashes occurred at the intersection during the study period. Three were broadside collisions and one involved a motor vehicle hitting an object. One resulted in injury/complaint of pain.

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF SAFETY BENEFIT/COST RATIOS

SAFETY BENEFIT/COST RATIO

NUMBER OF COLLISIONS

IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT

1.3 1.2 4
As shown in Table 8, the benefit/cost ratio is slightly higher for a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout for the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection. This is the result of the initial high cost of a roundabout.

56 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 10

FOOTPRINT DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Crystal Springs Road has a width of 55 feet curb-to-curb with two travel lanes and on-street parking on either side of the roadway. The eastbound and southbound approaches of the intersections could be restriped to add turn lanes to accommodate an increase in demand and provide protected phases for left-turning vehicles. Oak Avenue north of the intersection has a width of 40 feet curb-to-curb with two travel lanes and on-street parking on either side. The southbound approach of the intersection could also be restriped to add a turn lane and provide protected phases for left-turning vehicles. City Park Way currently has two lanes for the northbound approach striped as a shared left/thru lane and a right-turn only lane.

There are overhead electric and cable lines along the south side of Crystal Springs Road that may conflict with traffic signal poles and mast arms. Curb extensions may be needed for the placement of poles to avoid conflict with overhead utility lines and also reduce pedestrian crossing distances at the intersection.

ROUNDABOUT
A traditional single lane roundabout has a typical inscribed circle diameter of 90 feet to 180 feet, while a mini-roundabout has a typical inscribed circle diameter of 45 feet to 90 feet and is generally more compact than traditional single-lane roundabouts. The typical design vehicle for mini-roundabouts is a Single Unit (SU-30) truck. The central island and splitter islands will need to be fully mountable in order to accommodate larger vehicles. Figure 3 summarizes fundamental design and operational elements for single-lane and mini roundabouts

3. FIGURE 3: ROUNABOUT CATEGORY COMPARISON

3 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition, 2010

57 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 11

A preliminary concept was developed for a small single-lane roundabout with an 84-foot inscribed circle. As shown in Figure 4, a single-lane roundabout would require additional right-of-way and will impact adjacent residential parcels.

A preliminary concept was developed for a mini-roundabout with a 75-foot inscribed circle. As shown in Figure 5, the footprint of a mini-roundabout would not likely impact adjacent parcels.

Turn templates were checked for the preliminary concept plan which showed that passenger vehicles can be accommodated through a mini-roundabout. However, the design vehicle of SU-30 will need to traverse over the central and splitter islands to be able to maneuver the majority of the movements through the intersection. Turn template exhibits are provided in Appendix C. High volumes of vehicles larger than a passenger vehicle (buses, delivery trucks, maintenance trucks etc.) through the intersection may lead to increased delay at the intersection.

FIGURE 4: CRYSTAL SPRING ROAD/OAK AVEN UE/CITY SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT PLAN

58 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 12

FIGURE 5: CRYSTAL SPRING ROAD/OAK AV ENUE/CITY MINI-ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT PLAN  
59 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 13

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION

PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATION
Crosswalks at roundabouts are generally set-back 20-25 feet from the entry point to accommodate storage of one vehicle length. This reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians; separates vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflict points and improves visibility of pedestrians to entering vehicles upstream of the crosswalk as they wait for drivers ahead to enter the roundabout4. Splitter islands should be cut through to accommodate wheelchair users, and where possible, should be wide enough to be used as refuge areas for pedestrians. The design of mini- roundabouts typically does not allow for wide splitter islands, thus requiring pedestrians to pay attention to on-coming traffic from two approaches to cross the road in one stage.

Unlike traffic signals, roundabouts do not provide audible cues and thus pose a unique safety challenge in accommodating visually impaired pedestrians.

BICYCLE ACCOMODATION
Given the low speed along the project’s roadways, and the lack of designated bike lanes, bicyclists can generally navigate through the intersection by sharing the road with motor vehicles, or dismount and use marked crosswalks.

KEY FINDINGS
 The benefit/cost ratio is higher for a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout for the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection. This is the result of the initial high cost of a roundabout.
 A mini-roundabout may be accommodated within the existing footprint of the intersection and is feasible under near-term traffic conditions. Turn templates showed that vehicles larger than a passenger car will need to traverse over the mountable central and splitter islands when navigating through the mini-roundabout.
 Under Existing traffic volume conditions, the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection operates unacceptably at LOS E or worse with the existing all-way stop control. With the installation of a traffic signal or a roundabout, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during both AM and PM peak periods.  Under Horizon Year (2042) traffic volume conditions, the Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way intersection is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with the existing all-way stop control. With the installation of a traffic signal, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the AM peak and LOS C during the PM Peak. The intersection is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F with a roundabout.

4 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition, 2010

60 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022 14

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The estimated construction cost of a traffic signal is $400,000 which is lower as compared with the estimated construction cost of $800,000 for a mini-roundabout. Under Horizon Year (2042) traffic conditions, a traffic signal would operate acceptably while a mini-roundabout is expected to operate unacceptably under both AM and PM peak periods. The City should consider the high initial cost of a roundabout and the future costs of mitigation measures when the capacity of the roundabout is exceeded by demand. Potential future improvements are:
 Replace the roundabout with a traffic signal, or
 Replace the mini-roundabout with a multi-lane roundabout which would have significant right-of-way cost and displacement implications as the adjacent tracts are currently developed.

A traffic signal will have a higher maintenance and operations cost as compared with a roundabout.

The ongoing maintenance costs for roundabouts are typically associated with lighting and landscaping.

A roundabout is expected to have lower crash costs than a traffic signal. Pedestrians and bicyclists can safely be accommodated with both a traffic signal and a roundabout. However, roundabouts pose a unique challenge to visually impaired pedestrians who may not be familiar with the area because they lack audible cues.

Taking all of the measures of performance into consideration (delay, operations and maintenance, safety, and initial capital cost), a traffic signal shows a higher benefit-cost ratio (1.3) as compared with a roundabout (1.2). Based on these results, the intersection of Crystal Springs Road and Oak Avenue/City Park Way is a candidate for a traffic signal.

61 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022

APPENDIX

CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION WORKSHEET
APPENDIX B: LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX C: MINI-ROUNDABOUT TURN TEMPLATES

62 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022

APPENDIX A. INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

WORKSHEET

63 of 244

Intersection Data
ID: 1 AM Entering Volume
Geometry: 4‐Leg Intersection F 1,473
Existing Control: All‐Way Stop Control AWSC PM Entering Volume Proposed Control #1: Signal Signal 1,308
Proposed Control #2: Single Lane Roundabout RAB‐1
Major Roadway Data Minor Roadway Data
Street: Crystal Springs Street: Oak Ave/City Park Way
Direction: E/W Direction: N/S
Measures of Performance: Delay Existing Signal Roundabout Exisiting Signal Roundabout
AM Peak Hour AM LOS FB B
AM Average Delay (secs/veh) 80 19.6 13.3
PM Peak Hour PM LOS EB B
PM Average Delay (secs/veh) 43.8 14.1 11.4
Measures of Performance: Operations & Maintenance Signal Roundabout 331$                              663$                                  1,326$ ‐ 841$                                  ‐
‐ 6,167$                              ‐
‐‐ 2,000$
‐ ‐‐ $
$                            331 7,670$                              3,326$ Measures of Performance: Safety Existing Signal Roundabout 14,533 14,533 14,533
21,596 21,596 21,596
4 ‐ ‐

0.151 ‐ ‐
20 14 6

0.99 0.70 0.28
159,700$                      132,100$                          142,000$ 158,802$                      91,950$                            39,537$ ‐ 66,852$                            119,266$
Measures of Performance: Capital Outlay Existing Signal Roundabout ‐ 400,000$                          880,000$
‐ ‐$                                   ‐$
‐ 44,810$                            98,583.04$
Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculation Signal Roundabout
Capital Costs 44,810$                            98,583$ Operations & Maintenance 7,670$                              3,326$ Total 52,481$                            101,909$
Collision Savings 66,852$                            119,266$ Total 66,852$                            119,266$

1.3 1.2
Annual Benefits
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Collision Rate (collisions/MV)
Entering Volume (veh/day)
Base Collisions (5 year period)
Expected 20‐Year Collisions
Average Collision Cost
Annual Collision Frequency (collisions/year)
Annual Costs
20‐Year Projected Entering Volume (veh/day)
Roundabout CCTV Maintenance
Total
Initial Construction Cost
Right‐of‐Way Costs
Annualized Present Capital Cost (i=0.03, N=20)
Annual Crash Cost Savings1
Annual Collision Cost
Roundabout Landscaping Cost
Luminaires ‐ Annual Electrical Consumption and Maintenance Electrical Consumption (Traffic Signal Equipment)
Signal Retiming and Maintenance
Intersection Performance Measures
Intersection #1: Crystal Springs and Oak Ave/City Park Way Operations

64 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022

APPENDIX B. LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY WORKSHEETS

65 of 244

HCM 2010 AWSC AM Existing Conditions AWSC
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 05/06/2022
CRYSTAL SPRINGS&OAK AVE-All WAY STOP(AM PEAK) 4:20 pm 04/30/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 80
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 288 245 26 268 59 215 46 70 121 64 55 Future Vol, veh/h 15 288 245 26 268 59 215 46 70 121 64 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 313 266 28 291 64 234 50 76 132 70 60
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 157.9 43.1 28.8 27

HCM LOS F E D D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 82% 0% 3% 7% 50%
Vol Thru, % 18% 0% 53% 76% 27%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 45% 17% 23%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 261 70 548 353 240
LT Vol 215 0 15 26 121
Through Vol 46 0 288 268 64
RT Vol 0 70 245 59 55
Lane Flow Rate 284 76 596 384 261
Geometry Grp 7 7 2 2 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.708 0.167 1.262 0.84 0.623
Departure Headway (Hd) 9.778 8.618 7.628 8.614 9.516
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 372 419 482 422 383
Service Time 7.478 6.318 5.628 6.614 7.516
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.763 0.181 1.237 0.91 0.681
HCM Control Delay 33 13 157.9 43.1 27
HCM Lane LOS D B F E D
HCM 95th-tile Q 5.2 0.6 24.6 8 4

66 of 244

HCM 2010 AWSC PM Existing Conditions AWSC
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 05/06/2022
AWSC -PM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 43.8
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 327 187 78 304 45 123 52 63 37 48 22 Future Vol, veh/h 20 327 187 78 304 45 123 52 63 37 48 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 355 203 85 330 49 134 57 68 40 52 24
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 66.5 38.2 16.3 14.4

HCM LOS F E C B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 70% 0% 4% 18% 35%
Vol Thru, % 30% 0% 61% 71% 45%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 35% 11% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 175 63 534 427 107
LT Vol 123 0 20 78 37
Through Vol 52 0 327 304 48
RT Vol 0 63 187 45 22
Lane Flow Rate 190 68 580 464 116
Geometry Grp 7 7 2 2 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.448 0.141 1.015 0.861 0.269
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.484 7.397 6.298 6.68 8.312
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 424 484 580 543 430
Service Time 6.245 5.156 4.318 4.703 6.39
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.448 0.14 1 0.855 0.27
HCM Control Delay 18 11.4 66.5 38.2 14.4
HCM Lane LOS C B F E B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 0.5 15.3 9.3 1.1

67 of 244

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM Existing Conditions Traffic Signal 2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS
05/06/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 288 245 26 268 59 215 46 70 121 64 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 288 245 26 268 59 215 46 70 121 64 55 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1937 1937 1976 1937 1937 1976 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 313 266 28 291 64 234 50 76 132 70 60 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 398 366 311 219 586 129 312 146 222 208 150 128 Arrive On Green 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1051 957 813 860 1531 337 1774 655 995 1774 907 778 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 0 579 28 0 355 234 0 126 132 0 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1051 0 1771 860 0 1868 1774 0 1649 1774 0 1685 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 14.6 1.5 0.0 7.1 6.1 0.0 3.1 3.5 0.0 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 14.6 16.1 0.0 7.1 6.1 0.0 3.1 3.5 0.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 398 0 678 219 0 715 312 0 369 208 0 278 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.85 0.13 0.00 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.34 0.64 0.00 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 0 740 249 0 781 658 0 608 658 0 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 13.8 21.2 0.0 11.5 19.1 0.0 15.9 20.6 0.0 18.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 3.6 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 8.8 0.4 0.0 3.8 3.3 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.0 1.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 0.0 22.8 21.5 0.0 12.0 22.7 0.0 16.5 23.8 0.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS B C C B C B C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 595 383 360 262
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 12.7 20.5 21.7
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.2 10.2 15.4 23.2 13.1 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.4 18.1 18.0 20.4 18.1 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.6 5.5 5.1 18.1 8.1 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.6
HCM 2010 LOS B

68 of 244

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM Existing Conditions Traffic Signal 2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS
05/06/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 327 189 78 304 45 123 52 63 37 48 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 327 189 78 304 45 123 52 63 37 48 22 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1937 1937 1976 1937 1937 1976 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 355 205 85 330 49 134 57 68 40 52 24 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 450 490 283 307 704 105 215 127 152 194 186 86 Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1030 1144 660 875 1644 244 1774 756 902 1774 1188 548 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 0 560 85 0 379 134 0 125 40 0 76 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1030 0 1804 875 0 1888 1774 0 1658 1774 0 1736 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 11.8 4.1 0.0 6.6 3.3 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 11.8 15.9 0.0 6.6 3.3 0.0 3.1 0.9 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.32
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 450 0 772 307 0 808 215 0 279 194 0 271 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.00 0.72 0.28 0.00 0.47 0.62 0.00 0.45 0.21 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 578 0 996 415 0 1042 701 0 655 701 0 685 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 0.0 10.9 17.5 0.0 9.4 19.2 0.0 17.2 18.6 0.0 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.4 3.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 6.2 1.0 0.0 3.5 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 12.8 17.9 0.0 9.8 22.1 0.0 18.3 19.1 0.0 17.6 LnGrp LOS B B B A C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 582 464 259 116
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 11.3 20.3 18.1
Approach LOS B B C B
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.1 9.5 12.2 24.1 10.0 11.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.3 18.1 18.1 25.3 18.1 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 2.9 5.1 17.9 5.3 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.1
HCM 2010 LOS B

69 of 244

Queues AM Existing Conditions Traffic Signal
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 06/08/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 579 28 355 234 126 132 130
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.78 0.18 0.47 0.58 0.32 0.43 0.43
Control Delay 14.1 24.5 17.7 16.3 25.2 11.7 25.5 18.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.1 24.5 17.7 16.3 25.2 11.7 25.5 18.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 137 6 78 67 13 38 21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 #367 27 180 134 52 88 66
Internal Link Dist (ft) 294 342 259 398
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100
Base Capacity (vph) 354 783 165 795 606 611 606 623
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.74 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.21 0.22 0.21 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

70 of 244

Queues PM Existing Conditions Traffic Signal
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 06/08/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 560 85 379 134 125 40 76
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.69 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.33 0.17 0.28
Control Delay 10.8 17.4 18.9 13.4 24.5 13.3 24.5 19.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.8 17.4 18.9 13.4 24.5 13.3 24.5 19.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 118 17 75 39 16 12 15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 254 59 161 87 55 38 50
Internal Link Dist (ft) 294 342 259 398
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100
Base Capacity (vph) 472 1030 269 1062 650 655 650 663
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.54 0.32 0.36 0.21 0.19 0.06 0.11 Intersection Summary

71 of 244

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [AM Existing Conditions Roundabout (Site Folder:

General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.

No.

Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: City Park Way
3 L2 215 2.0 234 2.0 0.520 13.3 LOS B 3.5 88.0 0.66 0.83 1.00 11. 5 8 T1 46 2.0 50 2.0 0.520 13.3 LOS B 3.5 88.0 0.66 0.83 1.00 14.9 18 R2 70 2.0 76 2.0 0.520 13.3 LOS B 3.5 88.0 0.66 0.83 1.00 12.0 Approach 331 2.0 360 2.0 0.520 13.3 LOS B 3.5 88.0 0.66 0.83 1.00 12.1 East: Crystal Springs Rd
1 L2 26 2.0 28 2.0 0.471 10.7 LOS B 2.7 69.0 0.55 0.55 0.65 15.1 6 T1 268 2.0 291 2.0 0.471 10.7 LOS B 2.7 69.0 0.55 0.55 0.65 8.7 16 R2 59 2.0 64 2.0 0.471 10.7 LOS B 2.7 69.0 0.55 0.55 0.65 13.1 Approach 353 2.0 384 2.0 0.471 10.7 LOS B 2.7 69.0 0.55 0.55 0.65 10.0 North: Oak Ave
7 L2 121 2.0 132 2.0 0.415 11.8 LOS B 2.0 52.1 0.63 0.73 0.83 9.5 4 T1 64 2.0 70 2.0 0.415 11.8 LOS B 2.0 52.1 0.63 0.73 0.83 15.6 14 R2 55 2.0 60 2.0 0.415 11.8 LOS B 2.0 52.1 0.63 0.73 0.83 12.5 Approach 240 2.0 261 2.0 0.415 11.8 LOS B 2.0 52.1 0.63 0.73 0.83 11.8 West: Crystal Springs Rd
5 L2 15 2.0 16 2.0 0.680 15.7 LOS C 9.1 232.4 0.67 0.86 1.11 11.9 2 T1 288 2.0 313 2.0 0.680 15.7 LOS C 9.1 232.4 0.67 0.86 1.11 6. 2 12 R2 245 2.0 266 2.0 0.680 15.7 LOS C 9.1 232.4 0.67 0.86 1.11 1 2.5 Approach 548 2.0 596 2.0 0.680 15.7 LOS C 9.1 232.4 0.67 0.86 1.11 9.3 All Vehicles 1472 2.0 1600 2.0 0.680 13.3 LOS B 9.1 232.4 0.6 3 0.76 0.93 10.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per mov ement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000 -2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 7:04:38 PM Project: \\dksoakfs1\P\22\22051-000 Oak Ave at Crystal Spring Rd Improvements\05 Analysis\02 Synchro & SIDRA\SIDRA\Cumulative + Project condition\AM\Crystal Springs & oak AveCity Park Way-Roundabout-LOS-AM_ms.sip9

72 of 244

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [PM Existing Conditions Roundabout (Site Folder:

General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.

No.

Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: City Park Way
3 L2 123 2.0 134 2.0 0.358 9.5 LOS A 1.5 37.7 0.56 0.54 0.56 12.8 8 T1 52 2.0 57 2.0 0.358 9.5 LOS A 1.5 37.7 0.56 0.54 0.56 16.6 18 R2 63 2.0 68 2.0 0.358 9.5 LOS A 1.5 37.7 0.56 0.54 0.56 13.6 Approach 238 2.0 259 2.0 0.358 9.5 LOS A 1.5 37.7 0.56 0.54 0.56 13.8 East: Crystal Springs Rd
1 L2 78 2.0 85 2.0 0.521 10.9 LOS B 3.0 76.4 0.52 0.43 0.53 14.8 6 T1 304 2.0 330 2.0 0.521 10.9 LOS B 3.0 76.4 0.52 0.43 0.53 8.6 16 R2 45 2.0 49 2.0 0.521 10.9 LOS B 3.0 76.4 0.52 0.43 0.53 12.8 Approach 427 2.0 464 2.0 0.521 10.9 LOS B 3.0 76.4 0.52 0.43 0.53 10.3 North: Oak Ave
7 L2 37 2.0 40 2.0 0.184 7.9 LOS A 0.6 16.4 0.54 0.54 0.54 10.7 4 T1 48 2.0 52 2.0 0.184 7.9 LOS A 0.6 16.4 0.54 0.54 0.54 17.7 14 R2 22 2.0 24 2.0 0.184 7.9 LOS A 0.6 16.4 0.54 0.54 0.54 14.5 Approach 107 2.0 116 2.0 0.184 7.9 LOS A 0.6 16.4 0.54 0.54 0.54 14.7 West: Crystal Springs Rd
5 L2 20 2.0 22 2.0 0.628 13.4 LOS B 6.0 152.8 0.57 0.53 0.71 12.9 2 T1 327 2.0 355 2.0 0.628 13.4 LOS B 6.0 152.8 0.57 0.53 0.71 6. 8 12 R2 187 2.0 203 2.0 0.628 13.4 LOS B 6.0 152.8 0.57 0.53 0.71 1 3.4 Approach 534 2.0 580 2.0 0.628 13.4 LOS B 6.0 152.8 0.57 0.53 0.71 9.5 All Vehicles 1306 2.0 1420 2.0 0.628 11.4 LOS B 6.0 152.8 0.5 5 0.50 0.61 11.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per mov ement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000 -2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 7:10:29 PM Project: \\dksoakfs1\P\22\22051-000 Oak Ave at Crystal Spring Rd Improvements\05 Analysis\02 Synchro & SIDRA\SIDRA\Cumulative + Project condition\PM\Crystal Springs & oak AveCity Park Way-Roundabout-LOS-PM_ms.sip9

73 of 244

HCM 2010 AWSC AM Horizon Year Conditions AWSC
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 05/06/2022
CRYSTAL SPRINGS&OAK AVE-All WAY STOP(AM PEAK) 4:20 pm 04/30/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 389.4
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 454 386 41 423 93 339 73 110 191 102 87 Future Vol, veh/h 24 454 386 41 423 93 339 73 110 191 102 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 26 493 420 45 460 101 368 79 120 208 111 95
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 684.7 325.5 151.1 139.2

HCM LOS F F F F

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 82% 0% 3% 7% 50%
Vol Thru, % 18% 0% 53% 76% 27%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 45% 17% 23%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 412 110 864 557 380
LT Vol 339 0 24 41 191
Through Vol 73 0 454 423 102
RT Vol 0 110 386 93 87
Lane Flow Rate 448 120 939 605 413
Geometry Grp 7 7 2 2 5
Degree of Util (X) 1.262 0.3 2.443 1.605 1.109
Departure Headway (Hd) 14.812 13.627 12.226 15.012 16.825 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 251 265 310 248 219
Service Time 12.512 11.327 10.226 13.012 14.825
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.785 0.453 3.029 2.44 1.886
HCM Control Delay 185.5 22.1 684.7 325.5 139.2
HCM Lane LOS F C F F F
HCM 95th-tile Q 15.4 1.2 57.8 24.1 11

74 of 244

HCM 2010 AWSC PM Horizon Year Conditions AWSC
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 05/06/2022
AWSC -PM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 284.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 516 298 123 479 71 194 82 99 58 76 35 Future Vol, veh/h 32 516 298 123 479 71 194 82 99 58 76 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 35 561 324 134 521 77 211 89 108 63 83 38
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 442.2 289.5 34.4 26.8

HCM LOS F F D D

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 70% 0% 4% 18% 34%
Vol Thru, % 30% 0% 61% 71% 45%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 35% 11% 21%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 276 99 846 673 169
LT Vol 194 0 32 123 58
Through Vol 82 0 516 479 76
RT Vol 0 99 298 71 35
Lane Flow Rate 300 108 920 732 184
Geometry Grp 7 7 2 2 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.745 0.236 1.918 1.562 0.466
Departure Headway (Hd) 11.355 10.242 8.696 9.509 12.988 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 321 353 432 388 279
Service Time 9.055 7.942 6.696 7.509 10.988
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.935 0.306 2.13 1.887 0.659
HCM Control Delay 40.9 16.1 442.2 289.5 26.8
HCM Lane LOS E C F F D
HCM 95th-tile Q 5.6 0.9 53.1 33.3 2.3

75 of 244

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM Horizon Year Conditions Traffic Signal 2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS
05/06/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 454 386 41 423 93 339 73 110 191 102 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 24 454 386 41 423 93 339 73 110 191 102 87 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1937 1937 1976 1937 1937 1976 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 493 420 45 460 101 368 79 120 208 111 95 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 302 461 393 74 738 162 396 159 241 244 142 121 Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 879 958 816 633 1534 337 1774 656 996 1774 907 776 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 913 45 0 561 368 0 199 208 0 206 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 879 0 1775 633 0 1870 1774 0 1652 1774 0 1683 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 21.6 19.8 0.0 10.1 11.1 0.0 11.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.8 0.0 46.8 46.8 0.0 21.6 19.8 0.0 10.1 11.1 0.0 11.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 302 0 854 74 0 900 396 0 400 244 0 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.00 1.07 0.61 0.00 0.62 0.93 0.00 0.50 0.85 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 302 0 854 74 0 900 396 0 400 330 0 312 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.5 0.0 25.2 48.6 0.0 18.7 37.0 0.0 31.8 40.9 0.0 39.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 50.8 13.4 0.0 1.3 28.2 0.0 1.0 14.5 0.0 10.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 34.8 1.5 0.0 11.4 12.8 0.0 4.7 6.4 0.0 6.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.6 0.0 76.0 62.1 0.0 20.0 65.2 0.0 32.7 55.5 0.0 49.8 LnGrp LOS C F E C E C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 939 606 567 414
Approach Delay, s/veh 74.6 23.1 53.8 52.7
Approach LOS E C D D
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.3 17.9 28.0 51.3 26.2 19.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.8 18.1 21.6 46.8 21.7 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 48.8 13.1 12.1 48.8 21.8 13.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.0
HCM 2010 LOS D

76 of 244

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM Horizon Year Conditions Traffic Signal 2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS
05/06/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 516 298 123 479 71 194 82 99 58 76 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 516 298 123 479 71 194 82 99 58 76 35 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1937 1937 1976 1937 1937 1976 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 561 324 134 521 77 211 89 108 63 83 38 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 431 694 401 220 996 147 246 152 185 99 142 65 Arrive On Green 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 850 1146 662 650 1647 243 1774 752 912 1774 1185 543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 0 885 134 0 598 211 0 197 63 0 121 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 850 0 1809 650 0 1890 1774 0 1663 1774 0 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 37.5 19.9 0.0 18.1 11.5 0.0 10.6 3.4 0.0 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.6 0.0 37.5 57.4 0.0 18.1 11.5 0.0 10.6 3.4 0.0 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.31
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 0 1094 220 0 1144 246 0 338 99 0 207 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.00 0.81 0.61 0.00 0.52 0.86 0.00 0.58 0.64 0.00 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 0 1104 223 0 1153 322 0 338 322 0 314 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.3 0.0 15.1 37.3 0.0 11.3 41.7 0.0 35.7 45.8 0.0 41.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.4 16.1 0.0 2.6 6.6 0.0 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 19.8 3.9 0.0 9.4 6.7 0.0 5.1 1.9 0.0 3.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.3 0.0 19.7 42.0 0.0 11.7 57.8 0.0 38.3 52.4 0.0 43.9 LnGrp LOS B B D B E D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 920 732 408 184
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 17.3 48.4 46.8
Approach LOS B B D D
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 64.5 10.0 24.6 64.5 18.3 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.5 18.0 18.0 60.5 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 39.5 5.4 12.6 59.4 13.5 8.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.3
HCM 2010 LOS C

77 of 244

Queues AM Horizon Year Conditions Traffic Signal
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 06/08/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 913 45 561 368 199 208 206
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.95 0.51 0.57 0.92 0.49 0.74 0.72
Control Delay 15.6 43.2 43.8 20.4 67.2 26.3 54.8 46.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 15.6 43.2 43.8 20.4 67.2 26.3 54.8 46.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 494 18 230 223 69 122 99
Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 #816 #77 354 #412 141 202 176 Internal Link Dist (ft) 294 342 259 398
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100
Base Capacity (vph) 290 974 89 1004 403 425 336 354
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.94 0.51 0.56 0.91 0.47 0.62 0.58 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

78 of 244

Queues PM Horizon Year Conditions Traffic Signal
2: CITY PARK WAY/OAK AVE & CRYSTAL SPRINGS 06/08/2022
SIGNALIZED -AM PEAK CRYSTAL SPRINGS/OAK AVE 043022 12:00 am 04/30/2022 Synchro 11 Report FA Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 885 134 598 211 197 63 121
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.74 0.49 0.76 0.59 0.40 0.57
Control Delay 11.0 20.1 45.4 13.9 60.1 36.7 52.3 47.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.0 20.1 45.4 13.9 60.1 36.7 52.3 47.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 390 62 211 132 89 40 65
Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 632 #198 338 #243 168 83 124
Internal Link Dist (ft) 294 342 259 398
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100
Base Capacity (vph) 410 1189 180 1231 315 360 315 328
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.74 0.49 0.67 0.55 0.20 0.37 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

79 of 244

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [AM Horizon Year Conditions Roundabout (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.

No.

Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: City Park Way
3 L2 339 2.0 368 2.0 0.982 59.6 LOS F 21.6 548.4 1.00 2.40 4.00 5 .4 8 T1 73 2.0 79 2.0 0.982 59.6 LOS F 21.6 548.4 1.00 2.40 4.00 6.9 18 R2 110 2.0 120 2.0 0.982 59.6 LOS F 21.6 548.4 1.00 2.40 4.00 5.2 Approach 522 2.0 567 2.0 0.982 59.6 LOS F 21.6 548.4 1.00 2.40 4.00 5.6 East: Crystal Springs Rd
1 L2 41 2.0 45 2.0 0.881 35.7 LOS E 16.9 428.4 0.97 1.87 2.72 7.9 6 T1 423 2.0 460 2.0 0.881 35.7 LOS E 16.9 428.4 0.97 1.87 2.72 4 .3 16 R2 93 2.0 101 2.0 0.881 35.7 LOS E 16.9 428.4 0.97 1.87 2.72 6 .7 Approach 557 2.0 605 2.0 0.881 35.7 LOS E 16.9 428.4 0.97 1.87 2.72 5.0 North: Oak Ave
7 L2 191 2.0 208 2.0 0.906 51.8 LOS F 11.2 283.5 0.93 1.81 3.03 4 .5 4 T1 102 2.0 111 2.0 0.906 51.8 LOS F 11.2 283.5 0.93 1.81 3.03 7 .6 14 R2 87 2.0 95 2.0 0.906 51.8 LOS F 11.2 283.5 0.93 1.81 3.03 5. 5 Approach 380 2.0 413 2.0 0.906 51.8 LOS F 11.2 283.5 0.93 1.81 3.03 5.6 West: Crystal Springs Rd
5 L2 24 2.0 26 2.0 1.228 133.3 LOS F 82.5 2096.5 1.00 4.57 7.30 2 .5 2 T1 454 2.0 493 2.0 1.228 133.3 LOS F 82.5 2096.5 1.00 4.57 7.3 0 1.4 12 R2 386 2.0 420 2.0 1.228 133.3 LOS F 82.5 2096.5 1.00 4.57 7. 30 2.9 Approach 864 2.0 939 2.0 1.228 133.3 LOS F 82.5 2096.5 1.00 4.57 7.30 2.1 All Vehicles 2323 2.0 2525 2.0 1.228 80.0 LOS F 82.5 2096.5 0 .98 2.98 4.76 3.5 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per mov ement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000 -2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:17:20 AM Project: \\dksoakfs1\P\22\22051-000 Oak Ave at Crystal Spring Rd Improvements\05 Analysis\02 Synchro & SIDRA\Projected Volumes\Horizon Year 2042\Crystal Springs & oak AveCity Park Way-Roundabout-LOS-AM_HOR.sip9

80 of 244

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [PM Horizon Year Conditions Roundabout (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
INPUT

VOLUMES
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUE
Mov
ID
Turn Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Effective
Stop
Rate
Aver.

No.

Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: City Park Way
3 L2 194 2.0 211 2.0 0.685 21.6 LOS C 5.9 149.2 0.79 1.16 1.58 9. 6 8 T1 82 2.0 89 2.0 0.685 21.6 LOS C 5.9 149.2 0.79 1.16 1.58 12.4 18 R2 99 2.0 108 2.0 0.685 21.6 LOS C 5.9 149.2 0.79 1.16 1.58 9. 8 Approach 375 2.0 408 2.0 0.685 21.6 LOS C 5.9 149.2 0.79 1.16 1.58 10.3 East: Crystal Springs Rd
1 L2 123 2.0 134 2.0 0.928 39.5 LOS E 27.6 701.3 1.00 2.16 2.98 7 .4 6 T1 479 2.0 521 2.0 0.928 39.5 LOS E 27.6 701.3 1.00 2.16 2.98 4 .0 16 R2 71 2.0 77 2.0 0.928 39.5 LOS E 27.6 701.3 1.00 2.16 2.98 6. 2 Approach 673 2.0 732 2.0 0.928 39.5 LOS E 27.6 701.3 1.00 2.16 2.98 4.9 North: Oak Ave
7 L2 58 2.0 63 2.0 0.401 15.0 LOS C 1.7 43.8 0.70 0.81 0.97 8.8 4 T1 76 2.0 83 2.0 0.401 15.0 LOS C 1.7 43.8 0.70 0.81 0.97 14.6 14 R2 35 2.0 38 2.0 0.401 15.0 LOS C 1.7 43.8 0.70 0.81 0.97 11.5 Approach 169 2.0 184 2.0 0.401 15.0 LOS C 1.7 43.8 0.70 0.81 0.97 12.0 West: Crystal Springs Rd
5 L2 32 2.0 35 2.0 1.104 84.7 LOS F 66.1 1677.8 1.00 3.41 4.93 3. 8 2 T1 516 2.0 561 2.0 1.104 84.7 LOS F 66.1 1677.8 1.00 3.41 4.93 2.0 12 R2 298 2.0 324 2.0 1.104 84.7 LOS F 66.1 1677.8 1.00 3.41 4.9 3 4.3 Approach 846 2.0 920 2.0 1.104 84.7 LOS F 66.1 1677.8 1.00 3.41 4.93 2.9 All Vehicles 2063 2.0 2242 2.0 1.104 52.8 LOS F 66.1 1677.8 0 .94 2.38 3.36 4.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per mov ement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000 -2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: PLUS / Enterprise | Processed: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:21:58 AM Project: \\dksoakfs1\P\22\22051-000 Oak Ave at Crystal Spring Rd Improvements\05 Analysis\02 Synchro & SIDRA\Projected Volumes\Horizon Year 2042\Crystal Springs & oak AveCity Park Way-Roundabout-LOS-PM_HOR.sip9

81 of 244

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD / OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS • INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION • 05/06/2022

APPENDIX C. MINI-ROUNDABOUT TURN TEMPLATE EXHIBITS

82 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYSU-30 TRUCK AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
83 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYSU-30 TRUCK AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
84 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYSU-30 TRUCK AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
85 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYSU-30 TRUCK AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
86 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYSU-30 TRUCK AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
87 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYPASSENGER VEHICLE AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
88 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYPASSENGER VEHICLE AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
89 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYPASSENGER VEHICLE AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
90 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYPASSENGER VEHICLE AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
91 of 244

R E V I S I O N S 30% SUBMITTALNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARYCRYSTAL SPRINGS AND OAK AVE/CITY PARK WAYPASSENGER VEHICLE AUTOTURN-

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

OAK AVECITY PARK WAYYIELD

YIELDYIELD
YIELD
 
92 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:September 13, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:Jovan Grogan, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Monica Walker, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving Publicly Available Pay Schedule Effective September 13, 2022 Pursuant to the Public Employee’s Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)

BACKGROUND
Based on recent salary changes resulting from bargaining unit contracts approved by City Council, staff proposes to adopt a resolution approving the current salary schedule for public posting. Per CalPERS Circular Letter 200-00320 issued January 8, 2020 (Exhibit A), the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) require employees to be paid pursuant to a publicly available pay schedule that meets the requirements of CCR Section 570.5(a) to qualify as both compensation earnable and pensionable compensation that is reportable to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

While the City has historically met all requirements for publication of pay schedules, action to adopt a single unified pay schedule is required by the CalPERS Circular Letter. Adoption of the unified pay schedule does not affect the salary or compensation paid to any City employee, but merely restates pay rates that have already been approved by the City Council at public meetings.

DISCUSSION
At this time, changes to the salary schedule are needed to reflect salary changes resulting from bargaining unit contracts with the City’s Public Safety Mid-Management, Miscellaneous, and Mid-Management bargaining units, as well as equivalent increases granted to unrepresented classifications, which were approved by City Council during the June 14, June 28, August 3, and August 23, 2022 meetings, respectively.

There are eight (8) requirements that must be met by a publicly available pay schedule for it to be used to determine pay rates per the CalPERS Circular Letter:
1) Be duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws.
2) Identify the position title for every employee position. 3) Show the pay rate as a single amount or multiple amounts within a range for each identified position.

93 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

3 0
7 4) Indicate the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourly, daily, bi- weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually.
5) Be posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer's website. 6) Indicate an effective date and date of any revisions. 7) Is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years. 8) Does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate.

Historically, the City of San Bruno has consistently met all requirements for publicly available pay schedules. A compliant salary schedule is retained for at least five years, posted on the City’s website, and available for public inspection in the Human Resources Department.

The City’s governing body (City Council) has approved every tentative agreement or side letter containing salary increases that arise from negotiations with the City’s various bargaining units.

Subsequently, City Council grants approval of a “single document” salary schedule as required by CalPERS. Going forward, each time there is an action to delete or add a classification or change the salary range for any position on the salary schedule, the City will include the authorization to amend the unified salary schedule when the City Council approved the change to any salary range or classification.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution Approving Publicly Available Pay Schedule Effective September 13, 2022 Pursuant to the Public Employee’s Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt a publicly available pay schedule pursuant to the Public Employees’ Retirement Law and risk potential penalties.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Salary Schedule

3. CalPERS Circular Letter 200-00320

94 of 244

RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022, PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT LAW (PERL), PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2013 (PEPRA), AND TITLE 2 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR)

WHEREAS, the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) require employee pay rates to be paid pursuant to a publicly available pay schedule that meets the requirements of CCR Section 570.5(a) to qualify as both compensation earnable and pensionable compensation that is reportable to CalPERS; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must be duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws; and,

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must identify the position title for every employee position; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must show the pay rate as a single amount or multiple amounts within a range for each identified position; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must indicate the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourly, daily, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must be posted at the o ffice of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer's website; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must indicate an effective date and date of any revisions; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must be retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years; and

WHEREAS, publicly available pay schedules must not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate; and

WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno has historically adopted publicly available pay schedules that conform with state law, and that adoption of a unified pay schedule per CalPERS Circular Letter 200- 00320 will not change the salary or compensation of any City employee.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Bruno City Council hereby approves the Publicly Available Pay Schedule Effective September 13, 2022 (Attachment 2) Pursuant to the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) attached as Exhibit A.

---oOo---

I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2022 -
was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 13, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

_________________________________
Vicky Hasha
Deputy City Clerk

95 of 244

CITY MANAGER Exempt (By Contract) Effective 01/03/2022 21,517 CITY ATTORNEY Exempt (By Contract) Effective 02/07/2021 20,031

CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT EFFECTIVE DATE Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 ACCOUNTANT Mid-Management 01/03/22 6,955 7,320 7,705 8,109 8,535 ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 4,705 4,952 5,212 5,486 5,774 ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,409 5,693 5,992 6,307 6,638 ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP III Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,222 6,549 6,893 7,255 7,636 ACCOUNTING MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Exempt (Management Benefits) 01/07/19 15,423 16,233 17,085 17,982 18,926 ASSISTANT ENGINEER Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,066 8,489 8,935 9,404 9,898 ASSISTANT PLANNER Mid-Management 01/03/22 6,686 7,037 7,406 7,795 8,204 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER Exempt (Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,276 9,763 10,276 10,815 11,383 ASSOCIATE PLANNER Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,688 8,092 8,516 8,963 9,434 BUILDING INSPECTOR I Mid-Management 01/03/22 6,853 7,212 7,591 7,990 8,409 BUILDING INSPECTOR II Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,688 8,092 8,516 8,963 9,434 CATV BUSINESS MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 CATV DIRECTOR (CITYNET SERVICES DIRECTOR) Management 11/23/20 14,968 15,753 16,581 17,451 18,367 CATV HEADEND TECHNICIAN Miscellaneous 01/03/22 7,191 7,569 7,966 8,384 8,824 MEDIA MANAGER (FORMERLY CATV PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY MANAGER) Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,071 8,495 8,941 9,410 9,904 CATV SYSTEM ENGINEER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 CATV TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,162 6,485 6,825 7,183 7,560 CATV TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 CATV TECHNICIAN III Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,538 6,881 7,242 7,622 8,022 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,737 11,301 11,894 12,519 13,176 CITY CLERK Exempt (Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 9,581 10,084 10,613 11,170 11,756 CITYNET SERVICES TECHNICAL MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,216 9,700 10,209 10,745 11,309 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I Police 01/03/22 6,401 6,737 7,091 7,463 7,855 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II Police 01/03/22 7,041 7,411 7,800 8,209 8,640 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Management 01/07/19 14,047 14,785 15,561 16,378 17,238 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR Management 01/07/19 14,134 14,876 15,657 16,479 17,344 COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER II Police 01/03/22 4,782 5,033 5,297 5,575 5,868 COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,746 10,257 10,796 11,362 11,959 COMPUTER SUPPORT TECHNICIAN Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,319 6,651 7,000 7,368 7,755 CUSTODIAN Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,029 5,293 5,571 5,864 6,172 CUSTODIAN LEAD Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,784 6,088 6,408 6,744 7,098 DEPUTY CITY CLERK Exempt (Miscellaneous Benefits) 01/03/22 6,062 6,380 6,715 7,068 7,439 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES Mid-Management 01/03/22 11,233 11,822 12,443 13,096 13,784 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Admin & Engineering Mid-Management 01/03/22 12,702 13,369 14,071 14,810 15,587 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Utilities & Operations Mid-Management 01/03/22 11,557 12,164 12,802 13,475 14,182 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Utilities & Operations with PE Mid-Management 01/03/22 12,702 13,369 14,071 14,810 15,587 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Exempt (Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 ENGINEER TECH/PW INSPECTOR Miscellaneous 01/03/22 7,240 7,620 8,020 8,441 8,884 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,945 6,257 6,585 6,931 7,295 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER Exempt (Miscellaneous Benefits) 01/03/22 6,676 7,026 7,395 7,783 8,192 FACILITIES TECH II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 FACILITIES TECH l Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 FIELD SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,151 7,526 7,921 8,337 8,775 FIELD SUPERVISOR - CATV Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,151 7,526 7,921 8,337 8,775 FIELD SUPERVISOR - PARKS Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,151 7,526 7,921 8,337 8,775 FINANCE DIRECTOR Management 01/07/19 14,047 14,785 15,561 16,378 17,238 FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 FINANCIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,976 8,394 8,835 9,299 9,787 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF Public Safety Mid-Management 01/03/22 13,274 13,971 14,704 15,476 16,289 FIRE CAPTAIN Fire 01/03/22 10,294 10,834 11,403 12,002 12,632 FIRE CHIEF Management 01/07/19 14,968 15,753 16,581 17,451 18,367 FIRE INSPECTOR Fire 01/03/22 7,869 8,282 8,717 9,175 9,657 FIREFIGHTER Fire 01/03/22 8,507 8,954 9,424 9,919 10,440 FIREFIGHTER RECRUIT Fire 01/03/22 7,656 - - - - FOOD SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,824 6,130 6,452 6,791 7,148 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Exempt (Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 9,868 10,386 10,931 11,505 12,109 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATE Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,338 7,724 8,129 8,556 9,005 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,253 10,792 11,358 11,954 12,582 LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE & TECH SUPPORT REP Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,969 7,335 7,720 8,125 8,552 LEAD MAINTENANCE WORKER Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 LEAD WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR - PUMPS Miscellaneous 01/03/22 7,402 7,791 8,200 8,631 9,084 LEAD WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR - FIELD Miscellaneous 01/03/22 7,402 7,791 8,200 8,631 9,084 LEAD WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR - WELLS Miscellaneous 01/03/22 7,402 7,791 8,200 8,631 9,084 LEGAL SECRETARY Exempt (Miscellaneous Benefits) 01/03/22 6,676 7,026 7,395 7,783 8,192 LIBRARIAN I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,788 6,092 6,412 6,749 7,103 LIBRARIAN II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,656 7,005 7,373 7,760 8,167 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 4,405 4,636 4,879 5,135 5,405 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,066 5,332 5,612 5,907 6,217 LIBRARY SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,824 6,130 6,452 6,791 7,148 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,032 9,506 10,005 10,530 11,083 MAINTENANCE SERVICES MANAGER SERIES Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,216 9,700 10,209 10,745 11,309 MAINTENANCE WORKER I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 4,797 5,049 5,314 5,593 5,887 MAINTENANCE WORKER II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 MANAGEMENT ANALYST I Mid-Management (HR - Exempt Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 6,918 7,281 7,663 8,065 8,488 MANAGEMENT ANALYST II Mid-Management (HR - Exempt Mid-Management Benefits) 01/03/22 7,953 8,371 8,810 9,273 9,760 MECHANIC I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 MECHANIC II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 NUTRITION PROGRAM MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,151 7,526 7,921 8,337 8,775

CITY OF SAN BRUNO MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
Currently In Negotiations: SBMEA (Management)

96 of 244

CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT EFFECTIVE DATE Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 PARKS AND FACILITIES MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,334 9,824 10,340 10,883 11,454 PARKS MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 PARKS MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 PLANNING AND HOUSING MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,058 10,586 11,141 11,726 12,342 POLICE CAPTAIN Public Safety Mid-Management 01/03/22 14,850 15,630 16,451 17,315 18,224 POLICE CHIEF Management 01/07/19 14,968 15,753 16,581 17,451 18,367 POLICE CLERK I Police 01/03/22 5,133 5,403 5,687 5,986 6,300 POLICE CLERK II Police 01/03/22 5,648 5,944 6,256 6,584 6,930 POLICE COMMUNICATIONS & RECORDS SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,082 10,611 11,169 11,755 12,372 POLICE CORPORAL Police 01/03/22 9,203 9,686 10,195 10,730 11,293 POLICE LIEUTENANT Public Safety Mid-Management 01/03/22 13,076 13,762 14,485 15,245 16,045 POLICE OFFICER Police 01/03/22 8,561 9,010 9,483 9,981 10,505 POLICE RECRUIT Police 01/03/22 7,705 - - - - POLICE SERGEANT Public Safety Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,543 11,097 11,680 12,293 12,938 PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 01/03/22 11,165 11,751 12,368 13,018 13,701 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I Police 01/03/22 6,695 7,047 7,417 7,806 8,216 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER II Police 01/03/22 7,363 7,750 8,157 8,585 9,036 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Management 10/11/21 14,968 15,753 16,581 17,451 18,367 PUMP MECHANIC I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 PUMP MECHANIC II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 RECREATION SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,824 6,130 6,452 6,791 7,148 RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,279 8,713 9,171 9,652 10,159 RECREATION SERVICES SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 7,151 7,526 7,921 8,337 8,775 SECRETARY Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,403 5,687 5,986 6,300 6,631 SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Police 01/03/22 7,924 8,340 8,778 9,239 9,724 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 01/03/22 10,221 10,757 11,322 11,916 12,542 SENIOR PLANNER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,094 9,571 10,074 10,602 11,159 SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,228 8,660 9,115 9,593 10,097 WAREHOUSE CLERK Miscellaneous 01/03/22 4,797 5,049 5,314 5,593 5,887 WATER FIELD SERVICE SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,513 8,960 9,431 9,926 10,447 WATER QUALITY & PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,513 8,960 9,431 9,926 10,447 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,517 5,807 6,112 6,433 6,771 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,347 6,680 7,031 7,400 7,788 WATER SYSTEM & CONSERVATION MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 8,958 9,428 9,923 10,444 10,992 WATER SYSTEMS MANAGER Mid-Management 01/03/22 9,790 10,304 10,845 11,415 12,014 WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR I Miscellaneous 01/03/22 5,629 5,924 6,235 6,562 6,907 WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR II Miscellaneous 01/03/22 6,437 6,775 7,131 7,505 7,899

97 of 244

California Public Employees’ Retirement System
P.O. Box 942715 | Sacramento, CA 94229-2715
888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) | TTY: (877) 249-7442
www.calpers.ca.gov
Payroll
Circular Letter
January 8, 2020
Circular Letter: 200-003-20
Distribution: IV, VI, X, XII, XVI
To: All CalPERS Contracted Agencies (Public Agency, Schools, and State) Subject: Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Publicly Available Pay Schedules Purpose
The purpose of this Circular Letter is to inform all CalPERS Contracted Agencies of the requirements for providing CalPERS with a Publicly Available Pay Schedule in compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

Purpose of Publicly Available Pay Schedules
Under the PERL and PEPRA, compensation earnable and pensionable compensation are determined in accordance with amounts identified on publicly available pay schedules.

Compensation Earnable
Under Government (Gov.) Code sections 20636 and 20636.1, compensation earnable means the pay rate and special compensation of the member, as further defined by those statutes.

Pay rate for contracting agency and school members is deemed the normal monthly rate of pay or base pay of the member paid in cash to similarly situated members of the same group or class of employment for services rendered on a full-time basis during normal working hours, pursuant to publicly available pay schedules. Pay rate for contracting agency and school members who are not in a group or class is deemed the monthly rate of pay or base pay of the member, paid in cash and pursuant to publicly available pay schedules, for services rendered on a full-time basis during normal working hours, subject to specified limitations.

98 of 244

Circular Letter: 200-003-20
January 8, 2020

Page 2 of 4 ends

Pay rate for state members is deemed the average monthly remuneration paid in cash out of funds paid by the employer to similarly situated members of the same group or class of employment, in payment for the member’s services or for time during which the member is excused from work, as further specified by subdivision (g) of Gov. Code 20636, pursuant to publicly available pay schedules.

Pensionable Compensation
Pursuant to Gov. Code section 7522.34, pensionable compensation of a new member of any public retirement system means the normal monthly rate of pay or base pay of the member paid in cash to similarly situated members of the same group or class of employment for services rendered on a full-time basis during normal working hours, pursuant to publicly available pay schedules, subject to specified limitations.

Requirements of Publicly Available Pay Schedules
Subdivision (a) of CCR section 570.5 defines the requirements for a publicly available pay schedule used to determine pay rates.

Pay rates shall be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule that must meet all the following eight (8) requirements:

1. Be duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws

2. Identify the position title for every employee position

3. Show the pay rate as a single amount or multiple amounts within a range for each identified position

4. Indicate the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourly, daily, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually

5. Be posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer's website

6. Indicate an effective date and date of any revisions

7. Is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years

8. Does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the pay rate Here is an example of a compliant pay schedule, to the extent it has been duly approved and adopted by the employer’s governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meeting laws, it is posted on the employer’s website, and it is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years:

99 of 244

Circular Letter: 200-003-20
January 8, 2020

Page 3 of 4 ends

Classification Rate Type Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 City Manager Monthly $10,500 $11,000 $11,500 $12,000 $12,500 City Counsel Monthly $10,000 $10,500 $11,000 $11,500 $12,000 City Clerk Monthly $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000 $7,500
Call Center Representative Monthly $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000 Analyst Monthly $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000
Assistant Monthly $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500
Revised as of 09/01/2017 and adopted by the Board as of 09/15/2017 City of CalPERS
Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 17-18
Effective as of 07/01/2017
Special Compensation
Pursuant to CCR section 571 for classic members, and CCR section 571.1 for new members under PEPRA, special compensation items are defined under an exclusive list. Each special compensation item shall be reported separately from pay rate, in accordance with the criteria described in those regulations. Therefore, a publicly available pay schedule in which the special compensation items are reflected in the pay rates does not comply with CCR section 570.5.

Absence of Publicly Available Pay Schedule
If an employer fails to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) of CCR section 570.5, under subdivision (b), the board may determine in its sole discretion an amount that will be considered as pay rate, taking into consideration all information it deems relevant including, but not limited to, the following:
• Documents approved by the employer’s governing body in accordance with requirements of public meeting laws and maintained by the employer
• Last pay rate listed on a pay schedule that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (a) with the same employer for the position at issue
• Last pay rate for the member that is listed on a pay schedule that conforms with the requirements of subdivision (a) with the same employer for a different position • Last pay rate for the member in a position that was held by the member and that is listed on a pay schedule that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (a) of a former CalPERS employer.

Importance of Publicly Available Pay Schedule
Publicly available pay schedules are required by CalPERS and are a critical component to verify all members’ pay rates when calculating members’ retirement benefits. Maintaining a compliant publicly available pay schedule will support transparency and expedite CalPERS’ review process.

100 of 244

Circular Letter: 200-003-20
January 8, 2020

Page 4 of 4 ends

Failure to provide CalPERS with a compliant publicly available pay schedule may result in a retirement benefit being delayed.

Questions
It is the employer’s responsibility to comply with all terms and conditions set forth in the employer’s contract with CalPERS and to ensure all reportable information is compliant with the PERL, PEPRA, and the CCR.

If you have any questions or concerns, contact the CalPERS Customer Contact Center at 888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377), or email [email protected].

R
enee Ostrander, Chief
Employer Account Management Division

101 of 244

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE:September 13, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Darcy Smith, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Hold Public Hearing and Introduce, Read by Title Only, and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance of the City of San Bruno Approving the First Amendment to a Development Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Williams Portfolio 16 for the Construction of the Mills Park Center Residential and Commercial Development at 601-799 El Camino Real and the Adjacent Site at 601-611 El Camino Real. CEQA Determination: It Has Been Determined That the Proposed Amendments Are Within the Scope of the Prior Project CEQA Documentation and Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to Sections 15168 (Program EIR), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15183 (Projects Consistent With a Community Plan or Zoning) and Section 15061(B)(3) Because It Can Be Seen With Certainty That the Extension of the Term of the Agreement and Other Deadlines in the Agreement Have No Possibility of Having a Significant Effect on the Environment BACKGROUND: The Mills Park Center project (“Project”) consists of the demolition of all structures on the site, and the development two (2) one to five-story, 70-foot tall, mixed-use buildings with a total of 427 residential condominiums units and approximately 7,947 square feet of ground floor commercial space with associated improvements and infrastructure. The project would result in the vacation of Camino Plaza, a portion of San Bruno Ave and Kains Avenue, and the southern portion of White Way, and the realignment of Kains Avenue, along with vacation of certain utility and access easements affected by the project. A total of 676 parking spaces are proposed with the development. The project provides one parking space for each bedroom, plus dedicated guest parking at a ratio of one space for every 10 units.

The development site measures 5.38 acres in total area (inclusive of White Way and Camino Plaza) and is bounded by San Bruno Avenue West to the north, Angus Avenue to the south, El Camino Real to the east, and White Way and Linden Avenue to the west. The project site is currently zoned P-D (Planned Development) to allow mixed-use buildings within close proximity to bus and rail transit as specified within the Transit Oriented District (TOD) General Plan land use designation. The General Plan land use designation was established for this property in 2009. The project site is within the Transit Corridors Specific Plan area, which was approved by the City Council in 2013.

On June 25, 2020, the City Council approved the Project (with subsequent adoption actions on July 14, 2020), which included the following actions:

102 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

 Determined that the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15168 (Program EIR), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) as described below.  An Ordinance Amending Section 12.96.020 of Title 12 (Land Use) of the San Bruno Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Map from the Commercial (C) to the Planned Development (P-D) District with a Development Plan;
 Planned Development Permit;
 Architectural Review Permit;
 Phased Vesting Tentative Tract Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes that would result in lot mergers and the vacation of Camino Plaza, a portion of San Bruno Ave and Kains Avenue, and the southern portion of White Way and the realignment of Kains Avenue and vacation of certain utility and access easements; and
 An Ordinance approving a Development Agreement and Affordable Housing Plan for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development at Mills Park Center.

Approval of the Development Agreement included community benefits agreed to by the applicant. The most notable provision is a $10 million community benefit payment to the City’s General Fund in conjunction with condominiums, which now requires the developer to apply for Condominium Use Permits, a doubling from the former $5 million base community benefit payment that included an option for another $5 million if the developer elected to convert to condominiums.

DISCUSSION: California Government Code Section 65864, et seq., and City Resolution 1986- 77 authorize the City to enter into development agreements establishing certain development rights. Development agreements can provide certainty for the city and developer, and typically address necessary public improvements required by development. In San Bruno, development agreements are common for larger projects to be built in at least two phases that require multiple years to construct.

In conjunction with processing and consideration of the application for development of the Project, the city negotiated the terms of a Development Agreement, the terms of which are summarized in the table below:

Project Summary
Project Components:
 Two mixed-use buildings ranging in height from one to five stories and divided into smaller components with articulated building setbacks and stepbacks.  427 condominium dwelling units.
 65 affordable dwelling units
 Approximately 7,947 square feet of ground floor commercial space.  676 total parking stalls and 477 bicycle parking stalls on-site.  5.38-acre project site.

Negotiated Community Benefits in Development Agreement:
$10 million community benefit payment to the City’s General Fund (subject to annual CPI increases) in conjunction with Condominium Use Permit approval, to be paid in stages based on construction timing on the two parcels comprising the Project. ($5 million if the City denies condominium permits despite multiple applications)

103 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

$100,000 direct payment to the City’s General Fund to finance bicycle and/or pedestrian improvements to city streets in the general vicinity of the Project. $100,000 direct payment to the City’s General Fund to finance parking enforcement and/or implementation of a Residential Parking Permit Program. Additional commitments related to affordable housing which are set forth in the Affordable Housing Plan and which exceed the requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Program Ordinance. These include:
Provides 55-year term for affordability restrictions on condominiums, which is ten years longer than the Affordable Housing Program Ordinance requirement. o Applies the same income levels if the 65 affordable units in the Project are sold as condominiums instead of rented (which means lower sale prices), even though the City’s Ordinance allows higher income levels: 6% (26 units) very low income, 4.5% (19 units) low income and 4.5% (20 units) moderate income, which will assist the City’s compliance with the State RHNA Affordable Housing Goals.
o Makes 4.5% of the affordable units low income and 4.5% moderate income, even though the City’s Ordinance only specifies that 9% be “low and moderate income”, which could allow fewer low income units.
o Provides additional affordable unit tenant protections if the occupied affordable units are initially rented but later are sold.
Creation of 17 new public parking spaces in conjunction with the improvement and widening of Linden Avenue, 9 of which the City can reserve for municipal center or other public purposes (replacing diagonal spaces on the Owner’s property currently available for library parking).
Realignment, improvement, and reconstruction of Kains Avenue and installation of a new traffic signal at Kains Avenue and El Camino Real.
Possible extension of the right turn lane from east-bound San Bruno Avenue onto south-bound El Camino Real (pending CalTrans final approval). Sales Tax Point of Sale Designation for construction goods purchases, which may result in additional sales tax revenue to the City during construction. Agreement to work in good faith with San Bruno CityNet Services for internet, television and telephone service for the Project.
Prohibit short term residential rentals unless allowed by City regulations. City use of the room identified as Amenity Space – Group Meeting Room in Building B to be made available for City meetings and City events.

Applicant’s Estimated Project Benefits:

The developer has estimated the following additional items which include ongoing fiscal benefits to the City:
New property taxes to be collected annually by the City of San Bruno (based on cost of new improvements over the existing tax basis).
Signed Project Labor Agreement (PLA) committing to the use of union labor throughout construction of the project. This is not a city requirement. Construction jobs created during the construction phase.

The approved ten-year development agreement provided the Developer with assurance that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval. The development agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement includes

104 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

conditions, terms, restrictions, time deadlines for the construction, and requirements that must be met during the course of the development.

The development agreement for the Project became effective on November 3, 2020 after all challenge periods for the project had ended. The agreement required that the Developer apply for building permits to construct the project within two years of the effective date (November 3, 2022). As described in the Developer’s letter (Attachment 1), the Developer has requested a two-year extension. If a two-year extension is granted, other time limits and deadlines in the development agreement would need to be modified. The parties also propose an amendment to Section 3.2, which would synch the life of project approval with the life of the development agreement. Based on the Developer’s request, the following amendments to the development agreement have been identified by staff:
 Amend Section 2.2 (Term of the Agreement) from 10 years to 12 years.  Amend Section 2.2.1.1 (Parcel A Horizontal Permit Application Deadline) to require submittal of the complete application with 4 years instead of 2 years. This would have the effect of pushing the deadlines under Sections 2.2.1.2(Parcel A Commence Construction Deadline),

2.2.2.1 (Parcel B Horizontal Permit Application Deadline), and 2.2.2.2 (Parcel A Commence Construction Deadline), which are all keyed to the deadline for the Parcel A Horizontal Application Deadline. This change would also move the payment of the $1,500,000 Public Benefits payment advance back by two years.
 Amend Section 2.3.1.2 to extend the time for payment of public benefits by two years (i.e., the fifth anniversary goes to seventh, and sixth goes to eighth).  Amend Section 3.12.1.1 to extend the Condo Application Deadline from 2 years after the Final Approval Date to 4 years. Given that DA Section 3.2 (1) provides for extension of approvals to the end of the Term of the DA (10 years), the extension of the Condo Application Deadline for 4 years should not run afoul of the Vesting Tentative Map, which otherwise would be only for 2 years under the City’s default rules.
 Amend Section 3.2 (Life of Approvals) which currently provides as follows:
“3.2 Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this Agreement, the life of the Project Approvals shall automatically be extended to and until the later of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement, as it may be earlier terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein; or (2) the end of the term or life of any such Project Approval.” To Read: “3.2. Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this Agreement, (a) the life of all non-legislative Project Approvals other than the Vesting Tentative Map and any subsequent amendment thereof shall automatically be extended to and until the later of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement, as it may be earlier terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein; or (2) the end of the term or life of any such Project Approval, and (b) the life of the Vesting Tentative Map and any subsequent amendment thereof, regardless of any other statute, rule, or authority that purports to set a different term, shall automatically be extended to and until but in no event beyond the end of the Term of this Agreement, as it may be earlier terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein.” At their meeting of August 16, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the requested development agreement extension. The Planning Commission asked questions about the approved project, parking and community use of an amenity area in the building.

Public notice was provided to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. There were

105 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

no members of the public that requested to speak on this agenda item. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the development agreement extension and adopted a resolution with their recommendation (Attachment 3, Planning Commission Resolution 2022-11).

FISCAL IMPACT: Subject to City Council approval of the amendments and extension, the Developer will execute the first amendment to the development agreement that will continue to require a cash payment of up to $10,000,000 to the City’s General Fund as unrestricted revenue to be allocated at the future discretion of the City Council when the project develops. The City will also obtain other associated permit fees, property taxes, business license taxes, water and sewer capacity fees, cable account revenues, other utility connection fees and utility billing revenue associated with the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The Mills Park project is located within the Transit Corridors Plan (TCP) area. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the TCP, and both adopted by the City Council on February 12, 2013. The proposed project was analyzed in the TCP EIR at a programmatic level, with potential impacts identified and mitigations applied in the program EIR to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts.

Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15168 (Program EIR), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning), subsequent individual projects can utilize a previously certified program EIR if all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed individual project: (1) have been previously identified (i.e., are not new) and are not substantially more severe than those identified in the previous EIR, (2) have been avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible as a result of the previous EIR, and (3) have been examined in sufficient detail in the previous EIR to enable those impacts to be avoided or mitigated by the mitigations in the EIR, site-specific project revisions, or the imposition of uniformly applicable development policies. If these conditions are met, then the City can approve the individual project as within the scope of the previous EIR, and no additional environmental document is required. An Initial Study/Environmental Checklist was prepared for the Project prior to the project approval which confirmed that the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those analyzed in the TCP EIR document. Further, the previously certified Transit Corridors Plan EIR adequately describes the proposed project for the purposes of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(e), this contemplated development agreement amendment is within the scope of the Program approved earlier in the Transit Corridors Specific Plan and the previously certified program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, the amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the extension of the term of the Agreement and other deadlines in the Agreement have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment.

RECOMMENDATION: Hold a Public Hearing and Take the Following Action:

Introduce, Read by Title Only, and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance of the City of San Bruno Approving the First Amendment to a Development Agreement Between the City of San

106 of 244

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 13, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

Bruno and Williams Portfolio 16 for the construction of the Mills Park Center residential and commercial development at 601-799 El Camino Real and the adjacent site at 601-611 El Camino Real.

ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could choose to not introduce the ordinance which would have the effect of not granting an extension to the Mills Park Center Development Agreement.

However, this alternative is not recommended since the benefits of the project and terms of the development agreement are beneficial to the city.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Exhibit A to Draft Ordinance

3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-11 recommending approval of amendments and extension of the Development Agreement with the following exhibits:
- Exhibit A to Resolution 2022-11 Draft First Amendment to the Development Agreement - Exhibit B to Resolution 2022-11 Draft City Council Ordinance Approving the First Amendment

4. Executed Development Agreement

5. Development Agreement amendment and extension

107 of 244

-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND WILLIAMS
PORTFOLIO 16 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 601-799 EL CAMINO
REAL AND THE ADJACENT SITE AT 601-611 EL CAMINO

REAL, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City of San Bruno (“City”) and Williams Portfolio 16, a California corporation. (“Developer”), entered into that certain development agreement (the “Development Agreement” herein), recorded as instrument No. 2020-088980 on September 1, 2020, in connection with the construction of mixed use retail/residential project at the Mills Park Center, located primarily at 601 – 799 El Camino Real, and the adjacent commercial site at 601 – 611 El Camino Real (the “Project”). The property subject to the Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement, and in Exhibit A of the attached First Amendment to the Development Agreement.

Section 2. Developer has requested an amendment (the “First Amendment”) to the Development Agreement to give Developer a two-year extension to the term of the Development Agreement, from 10 years to 12 years and extension of certain deadlines established in the Development Agreement.

Section 3. The First Amendment has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), the City Council considered the information in the Project CEQA Documentation, as defined in Recital F of the Development Agreement, previously prepared for the Project and finds the First Amendment to be within the scope of the Project CEQA Documentation and exempt from CEQA pursuant to sections 15168 (Program EIR), 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning), and in the alternative that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the extension of the term of the Agreement and other deadlines in the Agreement have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. No changes to the CEQA findings adopted in conjunction with the Project and the Development Agreement are made necessary by the First Amendment and the City Council finds the First Amendment to be within the scope of the prior Project CEQA Documentation and prior CEQA determinations made for the Project.

Section 4. On August 16, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the First Amendment. At the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-10, recommending that the City Council approve the First Amendment.

108 of 244

-2-
Section 5. On September 13, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the First Amendment, and agreed to a two-year extension of the term of the Development Agreement, from 10 years to 12 years, and the related deadline extensions and life or approval amendments as set forth in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement.

Section 6. The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment, as set forth in Exhibit A, and authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment on behalf of the City substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to minor conforming and technical revisions approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney.

Section 7. No later than ten (10) days after the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the County Recorder a copy of the First Amendment.

Section 8. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance and this certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

Adopted:

Effective:

___________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Vicky Hasha, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
City Attorney

109 of 244

-3-

---o0o---
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
________ was introduced on ____________, 2022,
and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Bruno
City Council on ____________, 2022, by the
following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:________________________________ Vicky Hasha, Deptury City Clerk

110 of 244

2702838.3
-1-

REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED
MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of San Bruno
Attn: City Attorney’s Office
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
______________________________________________________________________ Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use
Recording Fee: Exempt pursuant to
California Govt. Code
Section 27383

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
AND
WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16 RELATING TO THE MILLS PARK

PROJECT
Amendment of Portions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Development Agreement

111 of 244

2702838.3
-2-

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Development Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the ________ day of ________________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF SAN BRUNO, a municipal corporation (the “City”), and WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16, a California corporation, (the “Developer”), and is an amendment to the Development Agreement between the City and Developer, dated for reference purposes as July 14, 2020, and effective as of August 13, 2020.

R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5, the City and the Developer entered into a Development Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated for reference purposes as July 14, 2020, and effective as of August 13, 2020, to provide greater certainty and predictability in relations between the City and the Developer with respect to a development project (the “Project” as defined in the Agreement) on the property located primarily at 601 – 799 El Camino Real, and the adjacent commercial site at 601 – 611 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California, as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. The Agreement was recorded as Instrument No. 2020-088980 on September 1, 2020 in the Office of the San Mateo County Recorder.

B. The parties now desire to amend the term of the Agreement from ten (10) years to twelve (12) years, extend certain deadlines established in the Agreement, and make certain other modifications as more particularly set forth in this Amendment.

C. On August 16, 2022, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-10, recommending that the City Council approve this First Amendment.

D. At a duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 2022, the City Council considered the information in the Project CEQA Documentation, as defined in Recital F of the Agreement, previously prepared for the Project and found the First Amendment to be within the scope of the Project CEQA Documentation, and in the alternative that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the extension of the term of the Agreement and other deadlines in the Agreement have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment, and approved this First Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

112 of 244

2702838.3
-3-

1. This First Amendment shall be effective when City Ordinance No. 2022- _________ that approves this First Amendment becomes effective.

2. Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
"2.2 Term of Agreement. Subject to the following qualifications, the "Term" of this Agreement shall be twelve (12) years, commencing on the Final Approval Date and expiring on the twelfth (12th) anniversary of the Final Approval Date, unless earlier terminated or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly following City and Developer's mutual determination of the Final Approval Date, the Parties shall enter into a written letter agreement setting forth the Final Approval Date and the expiration date of this Agreement. The Parties agree that while the Term will not commence until the Final Approval Date, this Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and all of the rights granted to Developer under this Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the following interim scheduling requirements reflect City's desire for timely development of the Project and timely receipt of the Public Benefit Payment. Nothing in the following interim requirements and payment options shall serve to extend the Term, including but not limited to extensions of payment or performance deadlines that may occur pursuant to this Section 2.2 or Section 2.3.”

3. Section 2.2.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2.2.1.1 Parcel A Horizontal Permit Application Deadline. Developer shall submit a Complete Application for a Horizontal Permit for Parcel A within four (4) years of the Final Approval Date (and the date of submission of the Complete Application shall be deemed the date the qualifying application is submitted to City and not the date that City determines or otherwise acknowledges that the application is a Complete Application), or this Agreement may be terminated by City in its sole discretion by notice to Developer; provided, Developer may extend the deadline for such Horizontal Permit application once by one (1) year by paying City One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) as an advance on the Public Benefit Payment.”

4. Section 2.3.1.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2.3.1.2 Notwithstanding the scheduling provisions in Section 2.2, the Public Benefit Payment plus any CPI adjustment shall be paid in full on or before after the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Effective Date to maintain this Agreement in effect for the remainder of the Term; provided, Developer may extend the deadline for payment in full of the Public Benefit Payment plus any CPI adjustment until on or before the eighth (8th) anniversary of the Effective Date so long as Developer previously paid at least Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) of the Public Benefit Payment on or before the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Effective Date.”

113 of 244

2702838.3
-4-

5. Section 3.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.2. Life of Approvals. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a) and this Agreement, (a) the life of all non-legislative Project Approvals other than the Vesting Tentative Map and any subsequent amendment thereof shall automatically be extended to and until the later of the following: (1) the end of the Term of this Agreement, as it may be earlier terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein; or (2) the end of the term or life of any such Project Approval, and (b) the life of the Vesting Tentative Map and any subsequent amendment thereof, regardless of any other statute, rule, or authority that purports to set a different term, shall automatically be extended to and until but in no event beyond the end of the Term of this Agreement, as it may be earlier terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein.”

6. Section 3.12.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.12.1.1 As authorized by the approved Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes, within four (4) years after the Final Approval Date as determined pursuant to Section

2.1.2 (the "Condo Application Deadline"), Developer shall submit to City (a) a complete application for a Condominium Permit for the residential and commercial units in Building A of the Project and (b) a complete application for a Condominium Permit for the residential and commercial units in Building B of the Project, both such applications in conformance with applicable City regulations regarding such applications, and thereafter shall diligently pursue City's processing and consideration of the Condominium Permits to a final decision. Promptly after the Effective Date, City staff shall work with Developer to confirm Developer is informed of what is required for a Condominium Permit application to be considered complete and in conformance with applicable City regulations under this Section 3.12.1.1 for purposes of meeting the Condo Application Deadline.”

7. No Other Changes. Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as written.

8. Recordation of Amendment. No later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date of this First Amendment, the City Clerk shall record an executed original of this First Amendment in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have executed this First Amendment as of the date first hereinabove written.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]

114 of 244

2702838.3
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have executed this First Amendment as of the date first hereinabove written.

DEVELOPER:

WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16,
a California corporation
By:

Scott W. Williams, President
CITY:

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
___________________________
By: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
Attest:
______________________________ (SEAL)

VICKY HASHA
Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_______________________________
Trisha Ortiz
Interim City Attorney

115 of 244

2702838.3
-6-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
State of California )
) ss
County of ___________ )
On , before me,___________________________________________, (Name of Notary)
notary public, personally appeared _________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Notary Signature)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this
certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.

116 of 244

2702838.3
-7-

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

117 of 244

-8-
Exhibit A

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
[Chicago Title Company File No: 15606449-156-TJK-JM]

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

TRACT ONE:

PARCEL ONE:

LOTS 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35, BLOCK 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK NO. 2, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE

OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 75.

PARCEL TWO:

LOT 3 IN BLOCK 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM SO MUCH AS DEDICATED FOR AN EASEMENT FOR

PUBLIC USE AS A PUBLIC STREET, HIGHWAY AND THOROUGHFARE OVER LAND SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MAP OF MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, FILED IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH 17° 00' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 11.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 26° 57' 30" WEST 58.22 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID 3, NORTH 63° 02' 30" SOUTH 7.81 FEET AND SOUTH 26° 57' 30" EAST 50.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

118 of 244

-9-
APN: 020-072-030 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-040 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-050 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020- 072-060 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-070 AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL TWO) AND 020-072-320 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) AND JPN(S):
020 007 072 03 A, 020 007 072 04 A, 020 007 072 05 A, 020 007 072 06 A, 020 007 072 07 A AND 020 007 072 32 A
TRACT TWO:

PARCEL ONE:

A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED "B", AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP NO. 2, MILLS PARK SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH

MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 75, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF CAMINO PLAZA, AS SHOWN ON

SAID MAP, AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED "B" ON SAID MAP; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 26° 57' 30" WEST ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF CAMINO PLAZA, 152.31 FEET (SAID LAST MENTIONED DISTANCE BEING SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY MAP, FILED DECEMBER 04, 1941 IN BOOK 1 OF LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS MAPS, PAGE 72, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY AND WHICH DISTANCE WAS INCORRECTLY SHOWN AS 151.26 FEET ON THE MAP OF MILLS PARK NO. 2 ABOVE MENTIONED) TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAN BRUNO AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FIRST SHOWN REFERRED TO; THENCE NORTH 64° 14' 50" EAST ALONG, THE LAST MENTIONED LINE 55.34 FEET

TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL ONE OF THE LIS PENDENS RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1961 IN BOOK 4100 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 108 (98524-T) IN ACTION NO.96349, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ENTITLED "THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PLAINTIFF VS. G. W. WILLIAMS CO., A CORPORATION, ET AL, DEFENDANTS", SAID LAST MENTIONED LINE BEING PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 60 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE "A" LINE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SURVEY FOR STATE HIGHWAY IN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, ROAD IV-SM-22-DBR, THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 27° 00' 20" EAST 151.15 FEET, (CALLED NORTH 26° 59' 40" WEST 150.91 FEET IN SAID PARCEL ONE OF THE LIS PENDENS ABOVE

119 of 244

-10-
MENTIONED) TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESIGNATED "B", THENCE SOUTH 63° 02' 30" WEST ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE 55.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM:

THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN FEE BY CITY OF SAN BRUNO, A

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997, INSTRUMENT NO. 97-008527, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL TWO:

PARCELS A AND B AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A AND PARKING AREA AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP ENTITLED, "MAP NO. 2 MILLS PARK" FILED FOR RECORD

IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1941 IN VOLUME 23, PAGE 75" RECORDED ON AUGUST 05, 1975 IN BOOK 28 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 44, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL THREE:

THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED "PARKING AREA", AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", FILED IN THE

OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 26° 57' 30" WEST 60 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 26 IN BLOCK 2, AS SAID EL CAMINO REAL, LOT AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ABOVE MENTIONED; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINE OF A 60 FOOT STREET, SOUTH 63° 02' 30" WEST 81.59 FEET AND NORTH 73° 00' WEST 28.62 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF A 60 FOOT STREET; THENCE NORTH 26° 57' 30" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 63.06 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SUBDIVISION HEREINABOVE MENTIONED; THENCE NORTH 63° 02' 30" EAST 102.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL; THENCE

120 of 244

-11-
SOUTH 26° 57' 30" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 82.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 4 IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, FILED NOVEMBER 27, 1962 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CASE NO. 96349, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1962 IN BOOK 4340, PAGE 509, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 020-075-080 (AFFECT PARCEL THREE), 020-075-090 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL TWO), 020-075-100 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL TWO) AND 020-075-110 (AFFECT PARCEL ONE) AND JPN(S): 020 007 075 08 A, 020 007 075 07 A, 020 007 075 06 A AND 020 007 075 05 A

121 of 244

-12-
TRACT THREE:

PARCEL ONE:

LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 13, BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA" WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN

THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE NORTHEASTERLY 14 FEET OF LOT 3 THRU 13 INCLUSIVE.

PARCEL TWO
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA.", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE NORTHEASTERLY 15 FEET.

APN: 020-076-090 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 09 A, 020-076-100 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 10 A, 020-076-110 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 11 A, 020-076-120 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 12 A, 020-076-130 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 13 A, 020-076-160 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL TWO) 020 007 076 16 A, 020-076-200 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 20 A, 02-096-050 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 009 096 05 A, 02-096-060 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 009 096 06 A, 02-096-070 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 009 096 09 A AND 02-096-080 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) 020 009 096 08 A
TRACT FOUR:

PARCEL ONE:

122 of 244

-13-
LOTS 20, 21 AND 22 IN BLOCK 2, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN LIBER 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THOSE PORTIONS, AS GRANTED BY DEEDS, ONE FROM GEORGE W. WILLIAMS AND HORTENSE WILLIAMS, HIS WIFE, TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, RECORDED APRIL 17, 1951, IN BOOK 2055, PAGE 338, OFFICIAL RECORDS; AND ONE FROM FRANK F. BURROWS AND ALICE S. BURROWS, HIS WIFE, TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, RECORDED APRIL 17, 1951 IN BOOK 2055, PAGE 344, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND ALSO THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (CASE NO. 95818) RECORDED MARCH 29, 1963 IN BOOK 4423, PAGE 478, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.

PARCEL TWO:

LOTS 23 AND 24 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 25 AND 26, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA" WHICH

MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN LIBER 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35, WHICH PORTION OF LOTS 25 AND 26 IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:

BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE LINE DIVIDING LOT 24 FROM LOTS 25 AND 26 IN BLOCK 2, WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EL

CAMINO REAL, AS SAID LOTS, BLOCK AND ROAD ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ABOVE MENTIONED; THENCE SOUTH 61° 55' 10" WEST ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, A DISTANCE OF 156.59 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE LINE DIVIDING LOT 3 FROM LOTS 24 AND 25; THENCE NORTH 28° 04' 50" WEST ALONG THE LINE DIVIDING LOTS 3 AND 25, A DISTANCE OF 7 FEET 8-1/8 INCHES; THENCE NORTH 61° 55' 10" EAST PARALLEL WITH THE DIVIDING LINE OF LOTS 24, 25 AND 26, A DISTANCE OF 156.75 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE SOUTH 26° 57' 30" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 7 FEET 8-1/8 INCHES, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED APRIL 17, 1951, IN BOOK 2055, PAGE 338, OFFICIAL RECORDS; AND BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 15, 1952 IN BOOK 2340,

123 of 244

-14-
PAGE 430, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND ALSO THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (CASE NO. 95818) RECORDED MARCH 29, 1963 IN BOOK 4423, PAGE 478, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.

PARCEL THREE:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO G.W. WILLIAMS CO., RECORDED OCTOBER 01, 1946, IN BOOK 1288, PAGE 187 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, UNDER NO. 96349, SHOWN

AS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (PLAINTIFF), VS G.W. WILLIAMS CO., A CORPORATION ET AL, (DEFENDANTS), AND FILED FOR RECORD MARCH 29, 1963 IN BOOK 4423, PAGE 485, BOTH IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 27° 00' 16" WEST 106.95 FEET ALONG LAST SAID LINE AND ITS

PROLONGATION TO THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 4190 "AN ORDER VACATING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF KAINS AVENUE, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO ON APRIL 19, 1950 IN BOOK 1839, PAGE 642, SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF LAST SAID LAND SOUTH 63° 02' 30" WEST 49.99 FEET AND NORTH 73° 00' 00" WEST 2.79 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID LINE SOUTH 27° 00' 16" EAST 64.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62° 59' 44" EAST 2.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27° 00' 16" EAST 45.86 FEET TO SAID FIRST MENTIONED NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 61° 55' 10" EAST 49.31 FEET ALONG LAST SAID LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

AS DESCRIBED ON APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1989 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 89020801.

PARCEL FOUR:

BEGINNING IN THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 4190 "AN ORDER VACATING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF KAINS AVENUE, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO ON APRIL 19, 1950 IN BOOK 1839, PAGE 642, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTANT SOUTH 63° 02' 30" WEST 49.99 FEET AND NORTH 73° 00' 00" WEST 2.79 FEET ALONG SAID LINE FROM ITS

INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, UNDER NO. 96349, SHOWN AS THE

124 of 244

-15-

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (PLAINTIFF), VS G.W. WILLIAMS CO., A CORPORATION ET AL, (DEFENDANTS), AND FILED FOR RECORD MARCH 29, 1963 IN BOOK 4423, PAGE 485, SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, THENCE SOUTH 27° 00' 16" EAST 64.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62° 59' 44" EAST 2.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27° 00' 16" EAST 45.86 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO G.W. WILLIAMS CO., A CORPORATION, RECORDED OCTOBER 01, 1946, IN BOOK 1288, PAGE 187, SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 61° 55' 10" WEST 43.10 FEET TO THE GENERAL

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED, DECEMBER 15, 1952 IN BOOK 2340, PAGE 430, SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTHERLY

AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST
SAID LINE AND ITS PROLONGATION NORTH 28° 04' 50" WEST 12.98 FEET AND NORTH 73° 00' 00" WEST 82.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN 1839 OR 642 MENTIONED ABOVE; THENCE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: NORTH 17° 00' 00" EAST 79.16 FEET; NORTH 62° 00' 00" EAST 27.35 FEET AND SOUTH 73° 00'00" EAST 24.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

AS DESCRIBED AN APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1989 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 89020801.

APN: 020-076-220 (AFFECTS PARCEL TWO) 020 007 076 22 A, 020-076-230 (AFFECTS PARCEL ONE) 020 007 076 23 A, 020-076-250 (AFFECTS PARCEL THREE) 020 007 076 21 A AND 020-076-260 (AFFECTS PARCEL FOUR) 020 007 076 01 A For APN/Parcel ID(s): 020-072-030, 020-072-040, 020-072-050, 020-072-060, 020-072-070, 020-072-320, 020-076-220, 020-076-230, 020-076-250, 020-075-080, 020-075-090, 020-075- 100, 020-075-110, 020-076-090, 020-076-100, 020-076-110, 020-076-120, 030-076-130, 020- 076-160, 020-076-200, 020-096-050. 020-096-060, 020-096-070, 020-096-080 & 020-076-260 For JPN(s): 020-007-072-03A, 020-007-075-04A, 020-007-072-05A, 020-007-072-06A, 020- 007-072-07A, 020-007-073-32A, 020-007-076-22A, 020-007-076-23A, 020-007-075-08A, 020- 007-075-07A, 020-007-075-06A, 020-007-075-05A, 020-007-076-21A, 020-007-076-09A, 020- 007-076-10A, 020-007-076-11A, 020-007-076-12A, 020-007-076-13A, 020-007-076-16A, 020- 007-076-20A, 020-009-096-05A, 020-090-096-06A, 020-009-096-09A, 020-009-096-A & 020- 007-076-01A

125 of 244

-16-
[Chicago Title Company File No: 15606119-156-TJK-JM]

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOTS 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, AND 19, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF

THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS AT PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1946 IN BOOK 1302 AT PAGE 332, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, RECORDED APRIL 17, 1951 IN BOOK 2055 AT PAGE 340, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED DECEMBER 28, 1962 IN BOOK 4362 AT PAGE 226, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

For APN/Parcel ID(s): 020-096-090 & 020-076-240
For JPN(s): 020-009-096-09A & 020-007-076-24A

126 of 244

-17-
[Chicago Title Company File No: 15606450-156-TJK-JM]

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

Tract A:

Public street commonly known as Camino Plaza, as shown on that certain Map entitled, “Map No. 2, Mills Park, San Bruno, California”, filed for record on the office of the County Recorder on September 23, 1941, in Book 23 of Maps, at page 75, San Mateo County Records.

Tract C:

Portion of Public streets known as Camino Plaza and Kains Avenue (formerly known as Cypress Avenue), as shown upon that certain Map entitled, “Mills Park, San Bruno, California”, filed for record in the office of the County Recorder on January 22, 1941, in Book 23 of Maps, at page 35, San Mateo County Records, said portion of Kains Avenue lying Northeasterly of a line drawn between the most Southerly corner of Lot 3 of Block 1 of said Mills Park and the point of intersection of the of the Southeasterly line of Kains Avenue (formerly known as Cypress Avenue) with the Southerly line of those lands described in the Deed to the City of San Bruno recorded December 15, 1952 in Book 2340 of Official Records, at page 429.

Also, any portion of that parcel of land described in the Deed to the City of San Bruno, recorded March 1, 1950, in Book 1807 of Official Records, at page 681, San Mateo County Records.

Also, any portion of that parcel of land described in the Deed to the City of San Bruno, a Municipal Corporation recorded March 9, 1950, in Book 1815 of Official Records, at page 69, San Mateo County Records. Also, any portion of the land described in that certain Final Order of Condemnation, recorded on March 29, 1963 in Book 4423 of Official Records, at page 485, San Mateo County Records.

127 of 244

-18-
Tract D:

A twenty foot wide alley and a twenty four foot wide alley situated in Block 2, as designated on that certain map entitled, “Mills Park, San Bruno, California”, which map was filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County on January 22, 1941 in Volume 23 of Official Maps at page 35, the dividing line of which said alley is described and designated as to widths from said dividing line as follows:

A twenty foot wide alley ten foot northerly and ten foot southerly of a dividing line beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2 (said line being identical with the Southeasterly line of Kains Avenue) of the aforementioned Block 2, distant 5 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 2; thence Southeasterly parallel to and distant five (5) feet from the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2 and continuing to an
intersection with the longitudinal dividing line of said Block 2; thence Southeasterly an alley being twenty four foot wide, said alley being 10 foot northeasterly and 14 foot southwesterly of the said longitudinal dividing line of said Block 2, to the Northwesterly line of Angus Avenue.

Excepting therefrom all that portion thereof lying Southeasterly of the Northeasterly prolongation of the
Southeasterly line of Lot 7 of said Block 2.

128 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SAN BRUNO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY

COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN
BRUNO AND WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16 FOR THE MILLS PARK
PROJECT (DA19-001) LOCATED AT 601-799 EL CAMINO REAL
AND THE ADJACENT SITE AT 601-611 EL CAMINO REAL, SAN

BRUNO, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, California Government Code, Title 7, Chapter 4, Article 2.5 (“Development Agreement Statute”) authorizes the City of San Bruno (“City”) to enter into Development Agreements which will provide certainty, definition and commitment to developers as well as to necessary public improvements required by development;
WHEREAS, in order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the “Development Agreement Statute”) which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement establishing certain development rights in the property; WHEREAS, as authorized by Governmental Code Section 65865(c), the City has adopted City Council Resolution 1986-77 authorizing the execution of Development Agreements and establishing the procedures and requirements for said Development Agreements within the City; WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno (“City”) and Williams Portfolio 16 (“Developer”), entered into that certain development agreement (the “Development Agreement” herein), recorded as instrument No. 2020-088980 on September 1, 2020, in connection with the construction of mixed use retail/residential project at the Mills Park Center, located primarily at 601 – 799 El Camino Real, and the adjacent commercial site at 601 – 611 El Camino Real (the “Project”). The property subject to the Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement, and in Exhibit A of the attached First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Property”); WHEREAS, Developer has requested an amendment (the “First Amendment”) to the Development Agreement to give Developer a two-year extension to the term of the Development Agreement, from 10 years to 12 years and extension of certain deadlines established in the Development Agreement;
WHEREAS, the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the San Bruno General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance (as amended by the Project Approvals);

129 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-2-
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site on August 5, 2022, and duly posted in the San Mateo Times on Saturday, August 6, 2022, for consideration of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the First Amendment to the Development Agreement on August 16, 2022, and on said date, the Public Hearing was opened, held and closed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno, based on facts in the staff reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented:

1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code, Title 7, and Chapter 4, Article 2.5 and San Bruno City Council Resolution 1986-77.

2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of San Bruno approve the First Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of San Bruno and Williams Portfolio 16 , substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to minor conforming or technical revisions approved by the City Manager and City Attorney.

3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of San Bruno approve Ordinance No. 2022-XX, attached hereto as Exhibit B, thereby adopting the First Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of San Bruno and Williams Portfolio 16.

Date Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM
Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney

130 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-3-
-o0o-
I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno this 16th day of August 2022 by the following vote:

AYES Commissioners: Harman, Madden, Johnson, Lethin, Biasotti NOES Commissioners: None
ABSENT Commissioners: Durazo
RECUSED Commissioners Morgan

131 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-4-

EXHIBIT A TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION

AND WHEN RECORDED
MAIL TO:

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO
AND
WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16 RELATING TO THE MILLS PARK

PROJECT
Amendment of Portions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Development Agreement

132 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-5-

C. On August 16, 2022, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.____________, recommending that the City Council approve this First Amendment.

D. At a duly noticed public hearing on _____________2022, the City Council considered the information in the Project CEQA Documentation, as defined in Recital F of the Agreement, previously prepared for the Project and found the First Amendment to be within the scope of the Project CEQA Documentation, and in the alternative that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the extension of the term of the Agreement and other deadlines in the Agreement have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment, and approved this First Amendment.

133 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-6-

1. This First Amendment shall be effective when City Ordinance No. 2022- _________ that approves this First Amendment becomes effective.

134 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-7-

7. No Other Changes. Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as written.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have executed this First Amendment as of the date first hereinabove written.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]

135 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-8-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have executed this First Amendment as of the date first hereinabove written.

DEVELOPER:

WILLIAMS PORTFOLIO 16,
a California corporation
By:

Scott W. Williams, President
CITY:

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
___________________________
By: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
Attest:
______________________________ (SEAL)

VICKY HASHA
Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_______________________________
Trisha Ortiz
Interim City Attorney

136 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-9-

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

137 of 244

075508\15749029v3
-10-

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

138 of 244

-11-
Exhibit A

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
[Chicago Title Company File No: 15606449-156-TJK-JM]

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

TRACT ONE:

PARCEL ONE:

LOTS 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35, BLOCK 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK NO. 2, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE

OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 75.

PARCEL TWO:

EXCEPTING THEREFROM SO MUCH AS DEDICATED FOR AN EASEMENT FOR

PUBLIC USE AS A PUBLIC STREET, HIGHWAY AND THOROUGHFARE OVER LAND SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

139 of 244

-12-
APN: 020-072-030 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-040 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-050 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020- 072-060 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE), 020-072-070 AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL TWO) AND 020-072-320 (AFFECTS PORTION OF PARCEL ONE) AND JPN(S):
020 007 072 03 A, 020 007 072 04 A, 020 007 072 05 A, 020 007 072 06 A, 020 007 072 07 A AND 020 007 072 32 A
TRACT TWO:

PARCEL ONE:

A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED "B", AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP NO. 2, MILLS PARK SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH

MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 75, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF CAMINO PLAZA, AS SHOWN ON

140 of 244

-13-
MENTIONED) TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESIGNATED "B", THENCE SOUTH 63° 02' 30" WEST ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE 55.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM:

THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN FEE BY CITY OF SAN BRUNO, A

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997, INSTRUMENT NO. 97-008527, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL TWO:

PARCELS A AND B AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A AND PARKING AREA AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP ENTITLED, "MAP NO. 2 MILLS PARK" FILED FOR RECORD

PARCEL THREE:

THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED "PARKING AREA", AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", FILED IN THE

OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

141 of 244

-14-
SOUTH 26° 57' 30" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 82.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

142 of 244

-15-
TRACT THREE:

PARCEL ONE:

LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 AND 13, BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA" WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN

THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN BOOK 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE NORTHEASTERLY 14 FEET OF LOT 3 THRU 13 INCLUSIVE.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE NORTHEASTERLY 15 FEET.

PARCEL ONE:

143 of 244

-16-
LOTS 20, 21 AND 22 IN BLOCK 2, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JANUARY 22, 1941 IN LIBER 23 OF MAPS, PAGE 35.

PARCEL TWO:

LOTS 23 AND 24 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 25 AND 26, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "MILLS PARK, SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA" WHICH

BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE LINE DIVIDING LOT 24 FROM LOTS 25 AND 26 IN BLOCK 2, WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF EL

144 of 244

-17-
PAGE 430, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND ALSO THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (CASE NO. 95818) RECORDED MARCH 29, 1963 IN BOOK 4423, PAGE 478, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY.

PARCEL THREE:

AS DESCRIBED ON APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1989 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 89020801.

PARCEL FOUR:

INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION, UNDER NO. 96349, SHOWN AS THE

145 of 244

-18-

AS DESCRIBED AN APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 16, 1989 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 89020801.

146 of 244

-19-
[Chicago Title Company File No: 15606119-156-TJK-JM]