Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Ramon City Council, April 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 12, 2022

WE PROVIDE EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICES THAT ARE

ESSENTIAL TO THOSE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN SAN RAMON
David E. Hudson, Mayor • Sridhar Verose, Vice Mayor
Mark Armstrong, Councilmember • Scott Perkins, Councilmember • Sabina Zafar, Councilmember Agenda Questions: Please call the City Clerk (925) 973-2539 Documents received after publication of this Agenda and considered by the City Council in its deliberation will be available for inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon during normal business hours and in the red binder at the Council meeting.

Council Chamber
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM

MEETING PROCEDURES
Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public. Tonight’s meeting will be conducted both in-person and remotely via Zoom. Please note that remote participation in the meeting is optional, and if there are technical or connection issues for Zoom, the City Council meeting will continue.

It is recommended that anyone wishing to view and/or participate in the meeting virtually download the Zoom application, www.zoom.us, before the start of the meeting. Zoom participants will have the opportunity to speak during one of the Public Comment periods (for topics not on the agenda), in addition to each of the agendized items.

If you would like to submit written public comment via email, please do so by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, to [email protected]. Please include “Public Comment 4/12/2022” in the subject line. In the body of the email please include your name and the item you wish to comment on. Written comments submitted will be provided to the Council prior to the start of the meeting. Written public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting. If you wish to make your comments heard, you must participate in the Zoom meeting or attend the meeting in person.

There will be zero tolerance for any person addressing the Council making profane, offensive and disruptive remarks, or engaging in loud, boisterous, or other disorderly conduct, that disrupts the orderly conduct of the public meeting.
2 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022
HOW TO VIEW OR PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING:

1. In-Person – San Ramon City Hall, Council Chamber, 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road

2. To view or participate in the meeting through Zoom
Livestream online at: https://cityofsanramon.zoom.us/j/96098126524 Webinar ID: 960 9812 6524
Use the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item. You will then be unmuted when it is your turn to make your comment for up to three minutes. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.

3. To view the meeting live online at: www.sanramon.ca.gov/YouTube

4. To listen or participate in the meeting by telephone, dial: +1 (669) 900-6833 Webinar ID: 960 9812 6524
Use *9 on your telephone to raise your hand and request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item. You will then be unmuted when it is your turn to make your comment for up to three minutes. After the allotted time, you will then be remuted. 3 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS

3.1 Changes and Additions to the Agenda

3.2 If you wish to speak under Public Comment or regarding an agenda item please fill out a speaker card located in the back of the room and submit it to the City Clerk. If you are participating remotely, click the “Raise Your Hand” button on your computer or *9 on your telephone to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item.

3.3 Board, Committee and Commission Meetings
A complete list of upcoming meetings may be found on the City's website at:
www.sanramon.ca.gov. Subscription service is available at the link for automatic meeting notification. Contact the City Clerk with questions, (925) 973-2539.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience are encouraged to address the City Council on any non-agenda item.

Members of the public who are participating via Zoom will have the opportunity to make comments to the City Council live through the Zoom application.

Comments from the public on non-agenda items may also be submitted by email to [email protected]. Comments received by email will not be read aloud; however, they will be forwarded to the Council for their consideration. If you wish to present your comments to the public, you may do so in-person, by Zoom, or by telephone during this Public Comment period or the second Public Comment period, later in the meeting. No Council action can be taken at this meeting on issues raised during Public Comment, whether submitted in person or remotely. Those wishing to have an item brought before the City Council for consideration must request so during a City Council meeting. Upon Council approval, the item will be place on the Council Policy Committee Agenda for further consideration.

For the first round of Public Comment on non-agenda items, the first 10 people to speak will have three minutes to address the Council on matters not on the agenda. Any additional Public Comment will be accommodated later in the meeting.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the City Council with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input may request (by email to the City Clerk or under Item 4 Public Comment) that the City Council remove the item from the Consent Calendar. Members of the public may request that items be removed from the Consent Calendar, however, the decision to remove the item is solely at the discretion of the City Council.

With respect to the approval of resolutions and ordinances, the reading of the title thereto shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete resolution or ordinance and unless there is a request by a Council member that the resolution or ordinance be read in full, further reading of the resolution or ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council. 4 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022

5.1 Minutes of the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting - March 22, 2022 Recommendation: Approve Minutes

5.2 Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting and Closed Session - March 22, 2022 Recommendation: Approve Minutes

5.3 Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting - March 29, 2022 Recommendation: Approve Minutes

5.4 Minute Order No. 2022-010 - Authorizing the Continued Use of Teleconferencing for the Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies for the Next 30 Days, Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361 and as Adopted by Minute Order No. 2021-005 Recommendation: Approve Minute Order No. 2022-010

5.5 Resolution No. 2022-044 - Request for Substitution of Listed Subcontractor by Rosendin Electric, Inc., for Construction of the Citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-044

5.6 Resolution No. 2022-045 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair and Tire, Inc. for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in the Amount of $225,000 for an Additional One-Year Term Ending June 30, 2023 for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $900,000, and an Optional One-Year Successive Term for a Total Contract Not to Exceed $1,125,000
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-045

5.7 Resolution No. 2022-046 - Adopting District Boundaries for the City’s November 2022 Council Election and Subsequent Elections Until a Further Realignment is Required Under CA Elections Code §21601 and Directing the City Clerk to File All Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Adoption of the District Boundaries with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-046

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.1 Proclamation declaring April 16, 2022 as Arbor Day. Introduction by Steven Cox, Recreation Supervisor. Presentation by Mayor Hudson to Public Works Certified Arborist Gary Savell.

7. DEFERRED CONSENT ITEMS

8. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
5 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

10. NEW BUSINESS

10.1 Resolution No. 2022-047 - Authorizing the City Council to Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-047
Introduction by Deborah Fehr, Senior Traffic Engineer. Presentation by Sean Daly, Senior Planner, Iteris, Inc.

10.2 General Plan Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee
Recommendation: Appoint Two Council Members to the General Plan Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee
Staff Report by Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director

10.3 Public Hearing: Introduction of Ordinance (Next in Line) for Westside Specific Plan (WSP) Amendment and Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SPA 19-400-001 & IS 19-250-002)
Recommendation: Staff Recommends that the City Council Receive the Staff Report; Introduce the Ordinance, Waive the Reading and Read by Title Only, Open the Public Hearing to Receive Public Testimony; Close the Public Testimony Portion of the Hearing and Provide Feedback to Staff on the Proposed Westside Specific Plan (WSP) Amendment; Continue the Public Hearing to April 26, 2022 for Additional Public Comment on the Proposed WSP Amendment; and Set April 26, 2022 as the Date for Ordinance Adoption.

Staff Report by Cindy Yee, Senior Planner

11. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

12. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, those in the audience who have not previously spoken under the previous Public Comment (Agenda Item 4) are encouraged to address the City Council on any item not already included in tonight’s agenda. No Council action can be taken at this meeting on issues raised during Public Comment. All comments will be limited to three minutes. Those wishing to have an item brought before the City Council for consideration must request so during a City Council meeting. Upon City Council approval, the item will be placed on the Council Policy Committee agenda for further consideration.

13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' AND MAYOR'S COMMENTS
6 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022

14. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify the attached City Council agenda was posted 72 hours before the noted meeting.

Dated: April 8, 2022
7 City Council Meeting – April 12, 2022
The agenda with links to minutes and staff reports is available on the City’s website:
www.sanramon.ca.gov

* * * * *
This Agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a).

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk 24 hours in advance of the meeting at 925-973-2539. * * * * *
Information for public participation at Council meetings, including the time limits for addressing the Council, is provided on the agenda.

If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk prior to the meeting. * * * * *
Regular City Council meetings are broadcast on Contra Costa Television (CCTV) (Channel 27) on Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. and Thursdays at 1:00 p.m. immediately following the meeting.

Regular City Council meetings are also broadcast on AT&T U-Verse (Channel 99).

Regular City Council meetings may also be viewed at
http://sanramonca.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON

CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION

JOINT MEETING
March 22, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.

Prior to roll call, the City Attorney made an announcement that the meeting was conducted pursuant to the provisions under Assembly Bill 361 relaxing the requirements pertaining to remote meetings under the Brown Act. AB 361 authorizes state and local legislative bodies including the City Council, to hold public meetings by teleconference.

AB 361 allow public meetings accessible to the public via electronic means, including telephone.

The City Council, Planning Commission, and City Clerk were instructed to take roll call votes for the meeting. The City Clerk conducted Roll Call.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dave Hudson Mayor Present 5:00 PM
Sridhar Verose Vice Mayor Present 5:00 PM
Mark Armstrong Council Member Present 5:00 PM
Scott Perkins Council Member Present 5:00 PM
Sabina Zafar Councilmember Present 5:00 PM
Jean Kuznik Chair Present 5:00 PM
Gary Alpert Vice Chair Present 5:00 PM
Corie Edwards Commissioner Present 5:00 PM
Rick Marks Commissioner Present 5:00 PM
Eric Wallis Commissioner Present 5:00 PM
Also in attendance City Manager Joe Gorton, City Attorney Martin Lysons, City Clerk Christina Franco, Community Development Director Debbie Chamberlain, Planning Services Division Manager Lauren Barr, and Senior Planner Cindy Yee.

2. NEW BUSINESS

2.1 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop: Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory
Recommendation: Staff Recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission Receive the Staff Report, Receive Public Comments and Give Direction to Staff and the Consultant Team Regarding the Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory.

Senior Planner Cindy Yee provided an overview of the staff report.

5.1 Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 City Council / Planning Commission Joint Meeting – March 22, 2022 Public comment was received from Call In User 1, Joyce Carr, Jim Blickenstaff, and Susan Ferris-Inderkum. Written public comment was received from Khodadadi Farrokh.

The City Council and Planning Commission provided comments and direction to staff.

3. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

5.1 Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

MINUTES OF THE

CITY OF SAN RAMON

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 22, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

AB 361 allow public meetings accessible to the public via electronic means, including telephone.

The City Council and City Clerk were instructed to take roll call votes for the meeting.

The City Clerk conducted Roll Call.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dave Hudson Mayor Present 7:00 PM
Sridhar Verose Vice Mayor Present 7:00 PM
Mark Armstrong Council Member Present 7:00 PM
Scott Perkins Council Member Present 7:00 PM
Sabina Zafar Councilmember Present 7:00 PM
Also in attendance City Manager Joe Gorton, City Attorney Martin Lysons, City Clerk Christina Franco, Administrative Services Director Kelly Sessions, Parks and Community Services Director Kathi Heimann, Community Development Director Debbie Chamberlain, Deputy City Manager Steven Spedowfski, Public Works Division Manager Brian Bornstein, Parks and Community Services Program Manager Brad Morris, Associate Planner Ryan Driscoll.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS

3.1 Changes and Additions to the Agenda

3.2 If you wish to speak under Public Comment or regarding an agenda item, please click the “Raise Your Hand” button on your computer or *9 on your telephone to request to speak when Public Comment is being taken on the Agenda item. You will then be unmuted when it is your turn to make your comment for up to 3 minutes. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted.

5.2 Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022

4. PUBLIC HEARING - REDISTRICTING

4.1 Public Hearing No. 4: The Redistricting Process 2021/2022 Recommendation: Receive the Staff Report, Open the Public Hearing, Take Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing, Review the Draft District Boundary Maps and Select One for Adoption, Continue the Item to April 12, 2022, and Direct Staff to Bring Back a Resolution for Council Approval on April 12, 2022 City Attorney Martin Lysons provided an overview of the staff report. Mr. Wagaman provided a quick overview of the process and introduced the second round of draft maps.

Vice Mayor Verose's motion to open the public hearing was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

There was no public or written comment received for this item.

Cm. Perkins' motion to close the public hearing was seconded by Vice Mayor Verose. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

Cm. Perkins' motion adopting map Pine, and continue this item to the April 12, 2022 Council meeting, and direct staff to bring back a Resolution for Council approval on April 12, 2022, formally identifying the district boundary map selected by the Council, with a map and descriptions of the new districts attached was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Charlotte Ling, Yvanna Lobos, Joyce Carr, Call in User 1, Lisa Fulton, and Annie Wright.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the City Council with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input may request (by email to the City Clerk or under Item 4 Public Comment) that the City Council remove the item from the Consent Calendar. Members of the public may request that items be removed from the Consent Calendar, however, the decision to remove the item is solely at the discretion of the City Council.

5.2 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022
The City Attorney requested for Item 6.8 to be pulled for further discussion.

Cm. Perkins' motion to approve items 6.1-6.7 and 6.9-6.12 was seconded by Vice Mayor Verose. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sridhar Verose, Vice Mayor
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

6.1 Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting - March 8, 2022 Recommendation: Accept Minutes

6.2 Register of Demands as Presented by the City Treasurer (Period Ending February 28, 2022)
Recommendation: Approve Register of Demands

6.3 Minute Order No. 2022-007 - Authorizing the Continued Use of Teleconferencing for the Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies for the Next 30 Days, Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361 and as Adopted by Minute Order No. 2021-005 Recommendation: Approve Minute Order No. 2022-007

6.4 Minute Order No. 2022-008 - Ratifying the Architectural Review Board Appointments
Recommendation: Approve Minute Order No. 2022-008

6.5 Resolution No. 2022-033 - Accepting the Work by VSS International, Inc., for Construction of the Pavement Management 2021 Project (CIP 000003) as Complete and Authorizing the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-033

6.6 Resolution No. 2022-034 - Establishing a Rate of $35 Per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2022/23 for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program and Requesting that the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-034

5.2 Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022

6.7 Resolution No. 2022-035 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 4 to the Existing Agreement with Brightview Landscape Services for Landscape Maintenance Services (C2015-023) in the Amount of $1,426,799 for an Additional One-Year Term Ending June 30, 2023 for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $8,193,960, Funded by Landscape and Lighting District 1984-1, Park Development Fund, Dougherty Valley CSA Fund, and General Fund Resolution No. 2022-036 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 4 to the Existing Agreement with New Image Landscape Company for Landscape Maintenance Services (C2015-022) in the Amount of $2,925,892 for an Additional One-Year Term Ending June 30, 2023 for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $19,063,606, Funded by Landscape and Lighting District 1984-1, Park Development Fund, Dougherty Valley CSA Fund, and General Fund Recommendation: Approve Resolution Nos. 2022-035 and 2022-036

6.8 Resolution No. 2022-037 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Mintier Harnish to Prepare of Updates to the Housing Element, Related General Plan Elements, Climate Action Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Other Necessary Document Revisions, Including an Environmental Impact Report, and Appropriate $126,642 from the Planning Cost Recovery Fund (Fund 201) to Increase the Authorized Total CIP 969003 Project Budget by $126,642, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,226,321, Including Reimbursables.

Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-037

6.9 Resolution No. 2022-038 - Describing New Improvements and Ordering the District Engineer to Prepare and File the Landscaping & Lighting District No. 1984-1 Engineer's Report for FY 2022/23
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-038

6.10 Resolution No. 2022-039 - Describing New Improvements and Ordering the District Engineer to Prepare and File the Preserve Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Engineer's Report for FY 2022/23
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-039

6.11 Resolution No. 2022-040 - Authorizing the Mayor to Appropriate $165,000 from General Fund Reserves to Citywide Parks Amenities Replacement and Improvements Project (CIP 955584), and Increasing the Project Budget an Additional $165,000 for the Central Park Sports Field Lighting Repair Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-040

5.2 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022

6.12 Resolution No. 2022-041 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (C2020-019) with Edgeworth Integration, LLC for an Additional Amount Not to Exceed $92,276 and a Total Contract Amount Not to Exceed $742,276 for the Comprehensive Street Camera Installation Project (CIP 400002)
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-041

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Recognition of National Library Week April 3rd - 9th, 2022. Introduction by Parks & Community Services Program Manager Brad Morris. Presentation by Dena Hollowood, Senior Community Library Manager.

Program Manager Brad Morris introduced Senior Community Library Manager Dena Hollowood, who provided a brief a presentation on the county's library services.

8. DEFERRED CONSENT ITEMS

8.1 Resolution No. 2022-037 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Mintier Harnish to Prepare of Updates to the Housing Element, Related General Plan Elements, Climate Action Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Other Necessary Document Revisions, Including an Environmental Impact Report, and Appropriate $126,642 from the Planning Cost Recovery Fund (Fund 201) to Increase the Authorized Total CIP 969003 Project Budget by $126,642, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,226,321, Including Reimbursables.

Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-037
Division Manager Lauren Barr provided the staff report.

Cm. Perkins' motion to approve Resolution No. 2022-037 as corrected was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sabina Zafar, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

9. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

9.1 Arts Advisory Committee Appointments
Staff report by Parks & Community Services Director Kathi Heimann.

Cm. Zafar's motion to accept the Parks and Community Services Commission recommendation and appoint Tiffany Ashley Turner, Mohammad Ranjbarsadeghi, and Satyakala Jarugumilli to serve as regular members on the Arts Advisory Committee with terms expiring March 2024, and Venkata C. Chintapalli to serve as Alternate #1 on the Arts Advisory Committee with a term to expiring March 2024 was seconded by Cm.

5.2 Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022
Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sabina Zafar, Councilmember
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

9.2 Library Advisory Committee Appointments
Staff report by Parks & Community Services Director Kathi Heimann.

Cm. Perkins' motion to accept the Parks and Community Services Commission recommendation and appoint Cindy Alpert and Richard Dewath to serve as regular members on the Library Advisory Committee with terms expiring March 2024 was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sabina Zafar, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

9.3 Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Appointments
Staff report by Parks & Community Services Director Kathi Heimann.

Cm. Perkins' motion to accept the Parks and Community Services Commission recommendation and appoint Joan Ernst, Wayne Mortensen, and Richard Adler to serve as regular members on the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee with terms expiring March 2024, and Velda Lee Chick to serve as Alternate #1 on the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee with a term to expire March 2024 was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sabina Zafar, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

10.1 Resolution No. 2022-042 - Public Hearing: Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Renewing the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District Deputy City Manager Steven Spedowski provided an overview of the staff report.

Vice Mayor Verose's motion to open the public hearing was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

There was no public or written comment received for this item.

5.2 Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022
The City Clerk also announced that the City did not receive any protests for this item.

Cm. Perkins' motion to close the public hearing was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

Cm. Zafar's motion to approve Resolution No. 2022-042 - Declaring Results of Majority Protest Proceedings and Renewing the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District was seconded by Cm. Zafar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0- 0-0.

11. NEW BUSINESS

11.1 Library Advisory Committee Annual Report
Recommendation: Accept Report
Introduction by Brad Morris, Parks and Community Services Program Manager.

Presentation by Kyle Levy, Chair, Library Advisory Committee.

11.2 Minute Order No. 2022-009 - 2021 General Plan Annual Report Recommendation: Adopt Minute Order No. 2022-009
Associate Planner Ryan Driscoll presented the staff report.

Public comment was received from Call In User 1.

Cm. Zafar's motion to adopt Minute Order No. 2022-009, accepting the 2021 General Plan Annual Report and directing staff to forward the final report to the State to demonstrate the City of San Ramon General Plan implementation efforts in accordance with the California Government Code was seconded by Cm. Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sabina Zafar, Councilmember
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

11.3 Resolution No. 2022-043 - Authorizing the Exception to the 180-Day Wait Period Under Government Code Sections 7522.56 & 21221(H) and Title 2, California Code of Regulations Section 579.25, for the Hiring of CalPERS Annuitant and the Temporary Appointment of Craig Stevens as a CalPERS Annuitant to the Position of Police Chief of the San Ramon Police Department
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2022-043
Administrative Services Director Kelly Sessions provided the staff report.

Public comment was received from Call in User 1 and Joyce Carr.

5.2 Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022
Vice Mayor Verose's motion to approve Resolution No. 2022-043, authorizing the Exception to the 180-Day Wait Period Under Government Code Sections 7522.56 & 21221(H) and Title 2, California Code of Regulations Section 579.25, for the Hiring of CalPERS Annuitant and the Temporary Appointment of Craig Stevens as a CalPERS Annuitant to the Position of Police Chief of the San Ramon Police Department was seconded by Cm. Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-

0. The City Council took a break at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:09 p.m.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sridhar Verose, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

11.4 Resolution No. 2022-(Next in Line) - Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 and Repealing Resolution No. 2021-058
Recommendation: Introduce the Resolution No. (Next in Line) and Set April 26, 2022 for a Public Hearing
Staff report by City Clerk Christina Franco.

Written public comment was received from Jim Blickenstaff.

Mayor Hudson's motion to Introduce Resolution No. 2022-(Next in Line), Establishing Fees and Charges for Various Municipal Services for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 and Repealing Resolution No. 2021-058, and to set April 26, 2022 for a Public Hearing was seconded by Cm. Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dave Hudson, Mayor
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Verose, Armstrong, Perkins, Zafar

12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Public comment received from Call In User 1.

13. PUBLIC COMMENT

14. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' AND MAYOR'S COMMENTS

15. CLOSED SESSION

5.2 Packet Pg. 15
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 City Council Meeting – March 22, 2022

15.1 Convene to Closed Session pursuant to Govt. Code §54957.6 for City Council to meet with City Negotiators: Joe Gorton, Martin Lysons, and Kelly Sessions, concerning Labor Negotiations with the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), Local 1021
Public comment received from Call In User 1.

The City Council convened to closed session at 9:56 p.m. and returned to the regular meeting at 10:32 p.m.

15.2 Report on Closed Session
The City Council has given direction to the City’s negotiators and has nothing to report at this time.

16. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

5.2 Packet Pg. 16
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 22, 2022 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

MINUTES OF THE

CITY OF SAN RAMON

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
March 29, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.

Prior to roll call, the City Clerk made an announcement that the meeting was conducted pursuant to the provisions under Assembly Bill 361 relaxing the requirements pertaining to remote meetings under the Brown Act. AB 361 authorizes state and local legislative bodies including the City Council, to hold public meetings by teleconference. AB 361 allow public meetings accessible to the public via electronic means, including telephone.

The City Clerk conducted Roll Call.

The City Council and City Clerk were instructed to take roll call votes for the meeting.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dave Hudson Mayor Present 5:00 PM
Sridhar Verose Vice Mayor Present 5:00 PM
Mark Armstrong Council Member Present 5:00 PM
Scott Perkins Council Member Present 5:00 PM
Sabina Zafar Councilmember Present 5:00 PM
Also in attendance City Clerk Christina Franco and Deputy City Clerk Joan Snashall.

2. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Public comment was received from Call in User 1.

2.1 Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee Interviews and Appointments Mayor Hudson's motion to appoint George Lin and Justin Troutman as Technology Industry Representatives, and Guy Gardner and Srinivasa Kottakota as Residents AtLarge with terms to expire February 2024 was seconded by Cm. Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

Cm. Perkins' motion to appoint Joseph Snyder as Resident At-Large alternate with a term to expire February 2024 was seconded by Vice Mayor Verose. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 4-1-0-0. Cm. Armstrong voted against the motion.

2.2 Open Space Advisory Committee Alternate Member Interview and Appointment Cm. Perkins' motion to appoint Diana Korpi as an alternate member to the Open Space Advisory Committee for a term through July 2024 was seconded by Vice Mayor Verose.

A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

5.3 Packet Pg. 17
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 29, 2022 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 City Council Meeting – March 29, 2022

2.3 Economic Development Advisory Committee Appointments Cm. Perkins' motion to appoint Garry Chaban with a term to expire January 2023 and John Rhodes with a term to expire January 2024 to fill two alternate vacancies on the Economic Development Advisory Committee was seconded by Cm. Armstrong. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0-0-0.

2.4 Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging Appointment Cm. Zafar's motion to appoint Swamini Bajpai to serve as the City representative on the Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging for a term ending September 30, 2024 was seconded by Cm Perkins. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5- 0-0-0.

3. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

5.3 Packet Pg. 18
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 29, 2022 5:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Christina Franco, City Clerk
By: Christina Franco, City Clerk
SUBJECT: MINUTE ORDER NO. 2022-010 - Authorizing the Continued Use of Teleconferencing for the Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies for the Next 30 Days, Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361 and as Adopted by Minute Order No. 2021-005
This item is by title only.

5.4 Packet Pg. 19

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Deborah Fehr, Senior Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-044 - Request for Substitution of Listed Subcontractor by Rosendin Electric, Inc., for Construction of the Citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Upgrade Project (CIP 975594)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council authorized a contract with Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) on August 24, 2021 (Contract C2021-075). Bore One Inc. of Gilroy, California, was the listed subcontractor in the bid documents for the boring work. The City received a letter from Bore One Inc. stating that Bore One Inc. has withdrawn from the Project. Rosendin Electric, Inc., has requested substitution of Bore One Inc. in accordance with Public Contract Code 4107 (a)(3). Bore One Inc. was notified of the substitution request via email, first class mail, and registered/certified mail on March 22, 2022. Rosendin Electric, Inc., requests to substitute Bore One Inc. with Starz Telecom, Inc., of Milpitas, California to perform the same scope of work.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this Resolution, authorizing the Request for Substitution of Listed Subcontractor by Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594).

BACKGROUND
The Citywide Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Upgrade Project was developed based on the ITS Master Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on October 23, 2018. On August 24, 2021, City Council approved Resolution 2021-107 authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement (Contract C2021-075) with Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) in an amount not to exceed $1,173,754 ($1,020,655 plus 15 percent contingency) funded by the 2019 Certificate of Participation (COP) Debt Service Financing. The Project will install conduit on Bollinger Canyon Road between Alcosta Boulevard and Canyon Lakes Drive and on Dougherty Road from south of Red Willow Road to Crow Canyon Road, and fiber optic cable on Bollinger Canyon Road from Talavera Drive to Dougherty Road (N) and on Dougherty Road from Crow Canyon Road to Bollinger Canyon

5.5 Packet Pg. 20
Road (N). The conduit installation is a stop gap measure to provide a hard-wired connection from the Dougherty Valley area to City Hall and to provide a second physical connection to the traffic signal infrastructure in the Dougherty Valley.

DISCUSSION
The City Council authorized a contract with Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) on August 24, 2021, Contract C2021-075. Bore One Inc. of Gilroy, California, was the listed subcontractor in the bid documents for the boring work, with a listed value of 6.6 percent of the total contract work ($1,020,655). The City received a letter from Bore One Inc. dated March 16, 2022, stating that Bore One Inc. has withdrawn from the Project. In a letter dated March 17, 2022, Rosendin Electric, Inc., has requested substitution of Bore One Inc. in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 4107(a)(3):

A prime contractor whose bid is accepted may not:
(a) Substitute a person as subcontractor in place of the subcontractor listed in the original bid, except that the awarding authority, or its duly authorized officer, may, except as otherwise provided in Section 4107.5, consent to the substitution of another person as a subcontractor in any of the following situations:
(3) When the listed subcontractor fails or refuses to perform his or her subcontract.”
Bore One Inc. was notified of the substitution request via email, first class mail, and registered/certified mail on March 22, 2022. The Public Contract Code requires that the substitution of subcontractors for work exceeding one-half of one percent of the contract value be approved by the awarding agency or its duly authorized officer; the City Council is the awarding authority for this contract.

Rosendin Electric, Inc., requests to substitute Bore One Inc. with Starz Telecom, Inc., of Milpitas, California to perform the same scope of work. Bore One Inc. has until March 29, 2022, to object to the proposed substitution. Getting the boring work done on this Project is a critical component and has to be completed before the fiber optic cable can be installed. Rosendin Electric, Inc., has indicated they are prepared to proceed if the substitution is granted and that the boring work will be completed as scheduled. If the substitution is contested, the Project will be delayed.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact from the proposed subcontractor substitution. The contractor remains bound to the terms of the awarded contract executed on September 28, 2021.

5.5 Packet Pg. 21

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The construction will proceed as scheduled.

5.5 Packet Pg. 22
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-044

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON

REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF LISTED SUBCONTRACTOR BY ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITYWIDE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) UPGRADE PROJECT (CIP 975594) WHEREAS, the Citywide Intelligent Transportation (ITS) Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) was developed based on the ITS Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the ITS Master Plan was adopted October 23, 2018; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2021, City Council approved Resolution No. 2021-107 authorizing the Mayor to execute Agreement C2021-075 with Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) in an amount not to exceed $1,173,754 funded by the 2019 Certificate of Participation (COP) Debt Service Financing; and WHEREAS, the Project will install conduit on Bollinger Canyon Road between Alcosta Boulevard and Canyon Lakes Drive, and on Dougherty Road from south of Red Willow Road to Crow Canyon Road, and fiber optic cable on Bollinger Canyon Road from Talavera Drive to Dougherty Road (N) and on Dougherty Road from Crow Canyon Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (N); and
WHEREAS, the conduit installation is a stop gap measure to provide a hard-wired connection from the Dougherty Valley area to City Hall and to provide a second physical connection to the traffic signal infrastructure in the Dougherty Valley; and WHEREAS, Bore One Inc. was the listed subcontractor in the bid documents for boring work, with a listed value of 6.6 percent of the total contract work ($1,020,655); and WHEREAS, the City received a letter from Bore One Inc. dated March 16, 2022, that Bore One Inc. has withdrawn from the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2022, Rosendin Electric, Inc., requested substitution of Bore One Inc. in accordance with Public Contract Code 4107(a)(3), which allows the prime contractor to “substitute a person as subcontractor in place of the subcontractor listed in the original bid… when the listed subcontractor fails or refuses to perform his or her subcontract”, which best describes Bore One Inc.’s withdrawal from this Project; and WHEREAS, the Public Contract Code Section 4107(a)(3) requires that the substitution of subcontractors for work exceeding one-half of one percent of contract value be approved by the awarding agency; and
WHEREAS, Bore One Inc. was notified of the substitution request through email, first class mail, and registered/certified mail on March 22, 2022; and

5.5 Packet Pg. 23
WHEREAS, Rosendin Electric, Inc., requests to substitute Bore One Inc. with Starz Telecom, Inc., of Milpitas, California to perform the same scope of work; and WHEREAS, Bore One Inc. had until March 29, 2022, to object to the proposed substitution and did not do so; and
WHEREAS, Rosendin Electric, Inc., has indicated they are prepared to proceed if the substitution is granted and that the boring work will be completed as scheduled.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ramon does hereby authorize the request for substitution of listed subcontractor by Rosendin Electric, Inc., for construction of the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of April 12, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Christina Franco, City Clerk

5.5 Packet Pg. 24

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Darin Fitzpatrick, Program Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-045 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair and Tire, Inc. for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in the Amount of $225,000 for an Additional One-Year Term Ending June 30, 2023 for a Total Cumulative Amount Not to Exceed $900,000, and an Optional One-Year Successive Term for a Total Contract Not to Exceed $1,125,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ace Auto continues to provide quality and timely repair and maintenance of all City vehicles throughout the term of the current Agreement. Ace Auto has also agreed to continue to provide the City with a 15% discount from their current posted rates on labor and parts. Staff is recommending to exercise the option to renew the Agreement for an additional one-year term in the amount of $225,000 through June 30, 2023 and retain the original option of renewing for one more year, if desired.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the existing Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair and Tire, Inc. for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in the amount of $225,000 for an additional one-year term ending June 30, 2023 for a total cumulative amount not to exceed $900,000 and an optional oneyear successive term for a total contract not to exceed $1,125,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City currently contracts with Ace Auto for City vehicle maintenance and repair services of its approximately 160 Citywide vehicles, including Police Department. While a select few minor repairs are performed in-house by City staff (i.e. battery, bulb replacement), Ace Auto performs routine preventative maintenance, tire replacements, smog inspections, and the majority of minor and major repairs of City vehicles. On June 11, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-063, authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair & Tire, Inc. (Ace Auto) for vehicle maintenance and repair services of City vehicles, in an amount not to exceed $675,000 for the initial three-year term through June 30, 2022, with the option to

5.6 Packet Pg. 25
renew for two (2) successive one (1) year terms for a total of $225,000 per year, upon the same terms and conditions as provided in the Agreement.

Police and Public Services fleet management staff are satisfied with the quality and timeliness of Ace Auto’s services. Ace Auto has been the provider for these services, and no other vehicle maintenance and repair vendors within a practical distance of the City can accommodate the volume of work and meet the turn-around times required by the City, particularly in regards to public safety vehicles.The proposed Amendment No. 1 will include the terms and conditions and scope of work of the current Agreement, and will extend the Agreement for a one-year term through June 30, 2023.

Key terms and conditions of the proposed Amendment will include:
 City to pay 15% less than Ace Auto’s posted shop rate for labor  City to pay 15% less than the retail price for parts and motor oil  CPI increases each July 1, if requested by Ace Auto and subject to City approval

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Ace Auto’s posted labor rate for FY 2022/23 is $146.30 per hour. After the 15% City discount, the City labor rate would be $124.36 per hour. The current Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $675,000 for the initial three-year term, includes an option to renew for two (2) successive one (1) year terms for a total of $225,000 per year.

The proposed FY 2022/23 Public Works and Police Department Operating Budgets contain sufficient funding for continued vehicle repair and maintenance services as requested.

Ace Auto Repair and Tire, Inc.

Contract/Amendments Amount Description
Contract $ 675,000 Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services Amendment No. 1 $ 225,000 One year contract extension, per Agreement Total $ 900,000 New Total Cumulative Not-to-Exceed Amount

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The City Attorney’s Office will forward the Amendment No. 1 to Ace Auto for execution. Upon receipt of the executed contract documents and the required certificates of insurance from the contractors, the City Attorney’s Office will send a copy of the executed contract documents and all attachments to the Public Works - Public Services Division. The Public Works - Public Services Division and Police Department will monitor the performance of the contractor throughout the one-year term of the Agreement, as amended.

5.6 Packet Pg. 26
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-045

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT (C2019-048) WITH ACE AUTO REPAIR AND TIRE, INC.

FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,000 FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2023 FOR A TOTAL CUMULATIVE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $900,000, AND AN OPTIONAL

ONE-YEAR SUCCESSIVE TERM FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $1,125,000
WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon has a need for continued vehicle maintenance and repair services of City vehicles; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2019, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2019-063, authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair & Tire, Inc. (Ace Auto) for vehicle maintenance and repair services in an amount not to exceed $675,000 for the initial three-year term; and
WHEREAS, the initial three-year term expires on June 30, 2022, with the option to renew for not more than two (2) successive one (1) year terms for a total of $225,000 per year; and WHEREAS, Ace Auto continues to provide quality and timely repair and maintenance of City vehicles throughout the term of the current Agreement; and WHEREAS, Ace Auto agreed to continue to provide the City with a 15% discount from their current posted rates on labor and parts; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 will include the terms and conditions and scope of work of the current Agreement, and will extend the Agreement for a one-year term through June 30, 2023 in the amount of $225,000; and
WHEREAS, the adopted FY 2022/23 Public Works and Police Department Operating Budgets contain sufficient funding for continued vehicle repair and maintenance services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the existing Agreement (C2019-048) with Ace Auto Repair and Tire, Inc. for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services in the amount of $225,000 for an additional one-year term ending June 30, 2023 for a total cumulative amount not to exceed $900,000, and an optional one-year successive term for a total contract not to exceed $1,125,000.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of April 12, 2022 by the following votes:

5.6 Packet Pg. 27
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Christina Franco, City Clerk

5.6 Packet Pg. 28

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Martin Lysons, City Attorney
By: Martin Lysons, City Attorney
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-046 - Adopting District Boundaries for the City’s November 2022 Council Election and Subsequent Elections Until a Further Realignment is Required Under Ca Elections Code §21601 and Directing the City Clerk to File All Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Adoption of the District Boundaries with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-AssessorRegistrar of Voters

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the selected district boundary map.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Following receipt of updated population data from the 2020 Census, cities in California with electoral districts are required to update (“redistrict”) their district boundaries. This process occurs every 10 years, and for the City of San Ramon, it must be completed by April 17, 2022.

Procedural Requirements for Redistricting: Overview
State law establishes procedural requirements for redistricting. After San Ramon created electoral districts in 2019, the Governor signed into law the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (“FAIR MAPS”) Act (the “Act”), amending the procedures and redistricting criteria that the City had previously followed. As the City of San Ramon is a Charter City, the council may adopt by ordinance procedures that differ somewhat from those set forth in the Act; however, because the City’s discretion to establish alternate procedures is limited under the Act, the Council elected not to pursue such an ordinance.

The procedural steps required under the Act include a series of public hearings with substantial public input, community outreach to encourage participation, and a specific place on the City’s webpage for posting of redistricting information.

State law also provides cities the option of forming a redistricting commission to assist with the process; however, the Council elected to take the lead on the redistricting process at its meeting

5.7 Packet Pg. 29
on May 11, 2021. The decision on the final map will be made by the City Council. This is consistent with the way the City initially established the electoral district boundaries in 2019.

Staff and the City’s consultants have facilitated public outreach and all four of the required public hearings. The Council held the fourth and final required public hearing on March 22, 2022. After closing the public hearing, the Council selected a district plan map (Plan Pine) to be utilized in the Council elections for the next decade, beginning with the November, 2022 elections. The Council then continued the item to this evening’s meeting in order to allow staff and the city attorney to draft a resolution, with a map and description of the new district boundaries attached, for adoption.

Under State Law, new district boundaries must be adopted by April 17, 2022.

Procedural Requirements for Redistricting: Public Participation

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Before adopting a final map of district boundaries, the City must hold at least four hearings for the public to provide input about the composition of Council districts. These hearing requirements include the following:

At least one hearing before any maps are drawn. (Held on November 9, 2021.) At least two hearings after maps are drawn. (Held on January 25, 2022, February 17, 2022, and March 22, 2022.)
At least one hearing or workshop to be held on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6 p.m. on a weekday. (All four of the required meetings fit this criterion.) The Council held the last of the four required hearings on March 22, 2022. The City’s independent demographer (Michael Wagaman) led the first meeting on November 9, 2021, explaining the required steps for redistricting under State law. The City Council also received comments from residents and interested community groups during the hearing and gave the demographer some general criteria for the first draft maps, which were presented and discussed at the second and third meetings.

At the February 17 meeting, Mr. Wagaman presented five proposed maps: Plan Green, Plan Red, Plan Blue, Plan Purple, and Plan Orange. In addition, the Council considered three plans that were submitted by members of the public. The Council gave direction to Mr. Wagaman to create additional maps for consideration at the March 22, 2022 meeting; these were presented as Plan Emerald, Plan Lime, Plan Olive, and Plan Pine. The three public plan submittals were also considered (Plan Public 1, Plan Public 2, and Plan Public 3).

The City has also done considerable outreach since the initial meeting, including a website with an interactive mapping tool so that members of the public can draw and submit their own boundary maps. All three proposed maps received from the general public have been made a part of the public record and reviewed by the Council.

5.7 Packet Pg. 30
The City Council is the final decision-making body on adopting district boundaries. Under State Law, adoption of the resolution adopting the new district boundaries must occur no later than April 17, 2022. This is therefore the last scheduled Council meeting before the April 17 deadline.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
In compliance with the Act, the City has taken steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented and non-English speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process. Specifically, the City has published the date, time, and location of each public hearing in accordance with the Act. In addition, the City must, upon request made at least 72 hours before the meeting, conduct the public hearings with live translation in a requested “Applicable Language.” (“Applicable Language” means any language that is spoken by a group of City residents with limited English proficiency that constitute 3% or more of the City’s population, as determined by the Secretary of State.)
Finally, the City continues to make a good faith effort to do the following:

Provide information to media organizations that offer City news coverage, including those serving language-minority communities.

Provide information through local community groups and organizations (including those active in language-minority communities, those based on good government, civil rights, or civic engagement, and those requesting to be notified about City redistricting).

CITY WEBSITE REQUIREMENTS
The City is required to establish and maintain a page on its website dedicated to redistricting that includes:

1. A general explanation of the redistricting process;

2. Procedures for how a member of the public can participate;

3. A calendar of all public hearings;

4. The notice and agendas for those hearings;

5. Recordings or written summaries of the hearings; and

6. All draft and final maps.

The general description of redistricting and procedures on how to participate must be in English and any Applicable Language. This information is to be maintained for at least ten years after the redistricting process is completed.

Requirements for Redistricting: Drawing Boundaries
Updated since San Ramon first adopted district boundaries, the substantive requirements for drawing district boundaries are set forth in California Elections Code § 21621, and are summarized as follows:

5.7 Packet Pg. 31
Substantially equal population of residents in each district, based on census data.

Compliance with the United States and California Constitutions, and with the Federal Voting Rights Act. These laws require that districts have substantially equal populations, are not drawn using race as a predominant consideration, and do not discriminate against any racial or language minority, including by diluting the voting power of any of those groups.

Once those standards are met, the boundaries must be drawn using the following criteria, as set forth in the following order of priority:

1. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous.

Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners, or areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service, are not counted as contiguous.

2. To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

3. Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.

4. To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts must be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

Baseline maps illustrating criteria used to determine district boundaries can be found on the city’s website, www.sanramon.ca.gov/redistrict_2022. Additionally, the census has changed the boundaries of the census blocks within the City. As district boundaries follow census blocks, some change to the map will be necessary.

Plan Pine, as attached to the Resolution, meets all of the above criteria.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
For the 2021-2022 redistricting process, total costs to the General Fund are estimated to be $100,000, broken down as follows:

Special legal counsel: $50,000
Demographer: $35,000
Public outreach: $15,000
The above estimates are conservative, and actual costs may be lower. Costs will, however, increase if the City Council decides to hold more than the required four hearing, or if public

5.7 Packet Pg. 32
outreach turns out to be greater than expected.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If the Council adopts the attached Resolution adopting a new district boundary map, the Resolution will take effect immediately. Thereafter, staff will work with its outside counsel and the County Elections Department to establish the new districts in time for the November 2022 election.

ATTACHMENT
Exhibit 1: District Boundary Map (Preferred Map)
Exhibit 2: Metes and Bounds Description

5.7 Packet Pg. 33
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-046

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON ADOPTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR THE CITY’S NOVEMBER 2022

COUNCIL ELECTION AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS UNTIL A FURTHER REALIGNMENT IS REQUIRED UNDER CA ELECTIONS CODE §21601 AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO

EFFECTUATE THE ADOPTION OF THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WITH THE

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER-ASSESSOR-REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the City Council of the City of San Ramon adopted Ordinance No. 490, approving the change of the City’s electoral system from an at-large to a bydistrict electoral system, with a separately elected mayor elected at-large; and WHEREAS, the districts adopted thereby were used for the 2020 elections; and WHEREAS, in a by-district election system, a candidate for City Council must live in the district which he or she wishes to represent, and only the voters of that district are entitled to vote to decide who their representative will be; and
WHEREAS, after San Ramon created electoral districts in 2019, the Governor signed into law the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (“FAIR MAPS”) Act, amending the procedures and criteria for redistricting; and WHEREAS, California Elections Code section 21601(a) requires each city that uses bydistrict elections to readjust those district boundaries, by ordinance or resolution, in the year following the release of a new census, to ensure compliance with constitutional equal protection population requirements; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 513, which took effect on April 7, 2022, allowing the City to readjust its district boundaries by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the government of the United States of America performs a general census every ten (10) years and released its latest census data in 2021; and WHEREAS, the City has retained an experienced demographic consulting firm, Wagaman Strategies, to advise it in the process of preparing a revised district plan; and WHEREAS, under the FAIR MAPS Act, before adopting a final map of district boundaries, the City must hold at least four hearings for the public to provide input about the composition of Council districts, including at least one hearing before any proposed district boundary maps are drawn and at least two hearings after proposed district boundary maps are drawn; and

5.7 Packet Pg. 34
WHEREAS, the City held public hearings on November 9, 2021 and January 25, 2022, both facilitated by Mr. Wagaman, before any maps were drawn or presented; and WHEREAS, the City held public hearings on February 17, 2022 and March 22, 2022, during which boundary maps were presented and considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, at the February 17 meeting, Mr. Wagaman presented five proposed maps:

Plan Green, Plan Red, Plan Blue, Plan Purple, and Plan Orange; and WHEREAS, in addition, at the February 17 meeting, the Council considered three plans that were submitted by members of the public; and
WHEREAS, under the direction given to Mr. Wagaman at the February 17 meeting, Mr.

Wagaman presented an additional four maps at the March 22 meeting: Plan Emerald, Plan Lime, Plan Olive, and Plan Pine; and
WHEREAS, the City has also done considerable outreach since the initial meeting, including a website with an interactive mapping tool so that members of the public can draw and submit their own boundary maps, which yielded three public submittals that were also considered by the Council and made part of the public record; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act, the City has taken steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented and non-English speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act, the City continues to make a good faith effort to provide information to media organizations that offer City news coverage, including those serving language-minority communities, and to provide information through local community groups and organizations (including those active in language-minority communities, those based on good government, civil rights, or civic engagement, and those requesting to be notified about City redistricting); and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the FAIR MAPS Act, the City has established and continues to maintain a page on its website dedicated to redistricting that includes the following:

1. A general explanation of the redistricting process;

2. Procedures for how a member of the public can participate;

3. A calendar of all public hearings;

4. The notice and agendas for those hearings;

5. Recordings or written summaries of the hearings; and

6. All draft and final maps; and
WHEREAS, the council believes, based on input from city staff, the city’s consultant, outside counsel representing the city, and public input, that the districts contained in the

5.7 Packet Pg. 35
proposed Plan Pine Map (the “Preferred Map”), incorporated herein, would best serve the interests of the city and the public at large; and
WHEREAS, populations in the proposed district of the Preferred Map are substantially equal in compliance with legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CA Elections Code §21601(c)(1), council districts depicted in the Preferred Map are geographically contiguous; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CA Elections Code §21601(c)(2), the Preferred Map seeks to minimize the division of communities of interest and neighborhoods to the extent possible; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CA Elections Code §21601(c)(3), the Preferred Map uses easily identifiable and understandable boundaries like streets, natural and artificial barriers, and the boundaries of the city, to the extent possible; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CA Elections Code §21601(c)(4), the Preferred Map is drawn to encourage geographical compactness to the extent practicable.

WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CA Elections Code §21601(d), the Preferred Map was not drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that

1. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the district boundary map are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

2. Pursuant to CA Elections Code §21601, the City Council prefers the district boundaries depicted in the Preferred Map and described in the Metes and Bounds description (the “Description”), attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference; believes that adoption of the Preferred Map would best serve the public interest of the city’s residents and voters; and by this Resolution adopts the district boundaries in that Preferred Map for use at the City’s November 2022 election and subsequent elections until a further realignment is required under CA Elections Code §21601, following the release of the 2030 census.

3. The City’s demographer, Wagaman Strategies, is hereby authorized to make nonsubstantive technical adjustments to finalize the Preferred Map and as necessary to prepare a GIS shapefile that identifies the Council district boundaries consistent with the Preferred Map and the Description. The final Preferred Map, the Description, the census blocks and tracts and the GIS shapefile shall be in a form approved by the City Clerk and

5.7 Packet Pg. 36
City Attorney.

4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this resolution, the final Preferred Map, the census blocks and tracts, and the GIS shapefile, and any other documents necessary to effectuate the adoption of the final Preferred Map with the Contra Costa County ClerkRecorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of April 12, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Christina Franco, City Clerk
Exhibit 1: District Boundary Map (Preferred Map)
Exhibit 2: Metes and Bounds Description

5.7 Packet Pg. 37
Exhibit 1: District Boundary Map

5.7.a
Packet Pg. 38
Exhibit 1: District Boundary Map (Preferred Map)
EXHIBIT 2

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS
The council districts are as follows:

District 1: All the portion of the City of San Ramon lying northwesterly of the following line:

Beginning at the intersection of the westerly boundary of the City of San Ramon and the southerly corner of Assessor Parcel 211-060-024-0, and proceeding in a straight line to the southeasterly corner of Assessor Parcel 211-053-022-3, and proceeding northwesterly along San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Montevideo Drive, and proceeding northeasterly along Montevideo Drive to Coyote Creek, and proceeding northwesterly along Coyote Creek to Alcosta Boulevard, and proceeding southerly along Alcosta Boulevard to Coyote Creek, and proceeding northeasterly along Coyote Creek to Canyon Green Drive, and proceeding westerly along Canyon Green Drive to Canyon Hills Road, and proceeding northerly along Canyon Hills Road to Canyon Side Avenue, and proceeding northerly along Canyon Side Avenue to terminus of Canyon Side Avenue, and proceeding northwesterly along the southwesterly boundary of Assessor Parcel 213-430-107-2 to the southerly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-430-064-5, and proceeding northeasterly to the northeasterly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-430-064-5, and proceeding in a straight line to the southeasterly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-760-087-6 and proceeding northerly along the easterly boundary of Assessor Parcel 213-760-087-6 to Cortona Drive, and proceeding westerly along Cortona Drive to Majorca Drive, and proceeding northeasterly along Majorca Drive to Echo Ridge Way, and proceeding northerly along Echo Ridge Way to Canyon View Circle, and proceeding westerly along Canyon View Circle to South Overlook Drive, and proceeding southwesterly along South Overlook Drive to Canyon View Circle, and proceeding northerly along Canyon View Circle to Bollinger Canyon Road, and proceeding southwesterly along Bollinger Canyon Road to Alcosta Boulevard, and proceeding northwesterly along Alcosta Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, and proceeding northeasterly along Crow Canyon Road to El Capitan Drive, and proceeding northerly along El Capitan Drive to the northerly boundary of the City of San Ramon.

District 2: All the portion of the City of San Ramon lying southerly of the following line:

5.7.b
Packet Pg. 39
Exhibit 2: Metes and Bounds Description
District 3: All the portion of the City of San Ramon lying southerly of the following line:

District 4: All the portion of the City of San Ramon lying northerly of the following line:

Beginning at the intersection of the easterly boundary of the City of San Ramon and Windemere Parkway, and proceeding northwesterly along Windemere Parkway to East Branch Parkway, and proceeding westerly along East Branch Parkway to Sherwood Way, and proceeding northeasterly along Sherwood Way to Windemere Parkway, and proceeding northeasterly along Windemere Parkway to Bollinger Canyon Road, and proceeding northwesterly along Bollinger Canyon Road to Alamo Creek, and proceeding northeasterly along Alamo Creek to Japonica Way, and proceeding westerly along Japonica Way to North Monarch Road, and proceeding northwesterly along North Monarch Road to North Gale Ridge Road, and proceeding westerly along North Gale Ridge Road to Bollinger Canyon Road, and proceeding westerly along Bollinger Canyon Road to Coyote Creek and proceeding southwesterly along Coyote Creek to Canyon Green Drive, and proceeding westerly along Canyon Green Drive to Canyon Hills Road, and proceeding northerly along Canyon Hills Road to Canyon Side Avenue, and proceeding northerly along Canyon Side Avenue to terminus of Canyon Side Avenue, and proceeding northwesterly along the southwesterly boundary of Assessor Parcel 213-430-107-2 to the southerly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-430-064-5, and proceeding northeasterly to the northeasterly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-430-064-5, and proceeding in a straight line to the southeasterly corner of Assessor Parcel 213-760-087-6 and proceeding northerly along the easterly boundary of Assessor Parcel 213-760-087-6 to Cortona Drive, and proceeding westerly along Cortona Drive to Majorca Drive, and proceeding northeasterly along Majorca Drive to Echo Ridge Way, and proceeding northerly along Echo Ridge Way to Canyon View Circle, and proceeding westerly along Canyon View Circle to South Overlook Drive, and proceeding southwesterly along South Overlook Drive to Canyon View Circle, and proceeding northerly along Canyon View Circle to Bollinger Canyon Road, and proceeding southwesterly along Bollinger Canyon Road to Alcosta Boulevard, and proceeding northwesterly along Alcosta Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, and proceeding northeasterly along Crow Canyon Road to El Capitan Drive, and proceeding northerly along El Capitan Drive to the northerly boundary of the City of San Ramon.

5.7.b
Packet Pg. 40
Exhibit 2: Metes and Bounds Description

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Deborah Fehr, Senior Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-047 - Authorizing the City Council to Adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a data-driven traffic safety plan that creates a framework to systematically identify high-risk locations and collision patterns through historical data and recommend countermeasure improvements Citywide. In future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Calls-for-Projects, an LRSP will be required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal HSIP grant funds.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this Resolution adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) as the final approval requirement to fulfill the Program Master Agreement No. 00128S with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and for staff to implement the Plan.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of the LRSP is to provide a safety analysis for all users of local roadways in the City. The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Take a proactive approach to advance road safety by reducing serious injuries. • Identify high risk locations and collision patterns through historical data. • Develop a list of cost-effective and long-term countermeasures that can be applied systemically.
• Help secure funding to address key safety issues.

The LRSP is consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads. Its mission is to ensure a safer transportation system for all users on all public roads in California.

10.1 Packet Pg. 41
In January 2020, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded a grant to the City of San Ramon in the amount of $72,000 with a required local match of $8,000 to develop an LRSP.

On February 23, 2021, the Mayor executed the Program Supplemental Agreement No. V95 (Resolution No. 2021-033) to complete the authorization for the reimbursement to the City of San Ramon in an amount not to exceed $72,000 from state funds to prepare the Plan.

The City’s on-call consultant, Iteris, Inc. (Iteris), was selected to prepare the LRSP document.

Public Works Engineering Division staff collaborated with the Police Department and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the development of the LRSP.

Once adopted, the City will be eligible to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds as one source to implement the improvements identified in the document.

DISCUSSION
The LRSP is a means for the City to address unique highway safety needs in San Ramon while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems, recommend safety improvements, and facilitate the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration. The LRSP prioritizes improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

The LRSP involves the analysis of roadway and collision data, the selection of potential countermeasures to address collision patterns, and the evaluation of potential project effectiveness for implementation.

Priority locations for safety countermeasures were identified by review of the collision data and field conditions. Recommended countermeasures were analyzed using Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) from Caltrans and applied to the collisions at the location in the past five years that would be reduced by the countermeasure. Overall, 38 locations were analyzed for countermeasure effectiveness. Ten priority locations were selected based on the following criteria:
• Location was in the top three ranked locations for Total Collisions, Weighted Collision Severity, and Collision Rate, and more than five percent of the collision severity in the past five years would be effectively addressed by the countermeasure(s); or • Location would have more than twenty percent of the collision severity in the past five years effectively addressed by the countermeasure(s).

The safety analysis shows that the total number of collisions is trending downward; however, the number of injuries is trending upward. The number of injuries per collision averaged 0.43 from

10.1 Packet Pg. 42
2009 to 2011 but grew to 0.69 from 2017 to 2019-a 62 percent increase. Despite the increase in injuries, the amount of fatalities is relatively consistent at about one per year with a maximum of two and minimum of zero in any given year.

The most common (25 percent of total) primary cause of collisions was “Unsafe Speed”. The City has a robust Traffic Calming Program on residential streets; however, arterial speed limits are set based on the 85th percentile.

The next most common primary causes are auto right-of-way violation, improper turning, and (failure to yield) traffic signals and signs, which collectively make up 36 percent of collision incidents. These types of causes are linked to improper driving at intersections, where conflicts with opposing vehicles are highest. Locations with primary causes linked to these factors indicate the potential for intersection countermeasures. The primary causes by number of collisions and percentage are shown in the table below.

Primary Cause of Collisions
Primary Cause Total Percent
Unsafe Speed 1,010 25.2%
Auto R/W Violation 531 13.2%
Improper Turning 487 12.1%
Traffic Signals and Signs 426 10.6%
Driving Under Influence 274 6.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 247 6.2%
Other Improper Driving 205 5.1%
Following Too Closely 130 3.2%
Unknown 119 3.0%

10.1 Packet Pg. 43
Wrong Side of Road 118 2.9%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 111 2.8%
Not Stated 78 1.9%
Pedestrian R/W Violation 62 1.5%
Other Hazardous Movement 56 1.4%
Other Than Driver 36 0.9%
Improper Passing 28 0.7%
Pedestrian Violation 26 0.6%
Other 67 1.7%
The data was also analyzed by looking at the action before the collision, time of day, and bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

The project list was developed based on the collision data and countermeasure effectiveness.

Top collision locations were analyzed to show specific conditions, which may indicate how countermeasures may improve safety and reduce the number and severity of collisions. Of the 584 individual locations for collisions in the City, the top 40 locations in terms of total collisions are detailed in the table and exhibit below. In cases where intersections outside of the top 40 in total collisions are within the top 40 of the individual characteristic or metric, those 86 locations are also included in the detailed review of this section. This is especially important, as outlier frequencies of specific types of collision patterns are indicative of specific types of effective systemic countermeasures.

Top 40 Collision Locations by Total Number of Collisions # Intersection Name Total Fatal Injury Non-Injury Severity Score
1 Camino Ramon / Crow Canyon Rd 116 1 58 57 133
2 Crow Canyon Rd/San Ramon Valley Blvd 116 0 44 72 130
3 Crow Canyon Rd / Crow Canyon Pl 112 0 46 66 122
4 Alcosta Blvd / Bollinger Canyon Rd 107 0 43 64 122
5 Bollinger Canyon Rd /Sunset Dr 105 0 46 59 108
6 San Ramon Valley Blvd/ Bollinger Canyon Rd 78 0 24 54 90 7 San Ramon Valley Blvd / Norris Canyon Rd 69 0 30 39 77 8 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Canyon View Cir 63 2 22 39 93
9 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Dougherty Rd (S) 62 0 28 34 68
10 Crow Canyon Rd / I680 SB Off-ramp 61 0 32 29 59
11 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Camino Ramon 55 0 29 26 61
12 San Ramon Valley Blvd / Alcosta Blvd 54 0 20 34 76
13 San Ramon Valley Blvd / Fostoria way 52 0 18 34 54
14 Crow Canyon Rd / Dougherty Rd 51 0 19 32 58
15 Crow Canyon Rd / Alcosta Blvd 51 0 19 32 57
16 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Dougherty Rd (N) 50 0 20 30 59 17 Bollinger Canyon Rd / I680 NB Off-ramp 47 0 23 24 44

10.1 Packet Pg. 44
18 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Chanterella Dr 46 0 24 22 51
19 Bollinger Canyon Rd / I680 SB Off-ramp 46 0 16 30 45 20 Bollinger Canyon Rd / E Branch Pkwy 43 0 23 20 55
21 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Wedgewood Rd 42 0 16 26 43
22 Alcosta Blvd / Norris Canyon Rd (N) 41 0 14 27 42
23 Crow Canyon Rd / Bollinger Canyon Rd 41 0 17 24 52
24 Crow Canyon Rd / Canyon Crest Dr (N) 40 0 22 18 48
25 Camino Ramon / Norris Canyon Rd 39 0 21 18 37
26 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Albion Rd 39 0 16 23 42
27 Fostoria way / Camino Ramon (W) 39 0 13 26 40
28 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Market Pl 35 0 18 17 39
29 Crow Canyon Rd / Crow Canyon Off-ramp (W) 35 0 4 31 36 30 Alcosta Blvd / Broadmoor Dr 34 0 20 14 40
31 Monarch Rd / Bollinger Canyon Rd 33 0 16 17 35
32 Dougherty Rd / Old Ranch Rd 33 0 12 21 41
33 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Gale Ridge Rd 31 0 17 14 39
34 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Windemere Pkwy 30 0 15 15 32
35 Crow Canyon Rd / El Capitan Dr 29 0 18 11 39
36 Crow Canyon Rd / Twin Creeks Dr 29 0 8 21 29
37 San Ramon Valley Blvd / Pine Valley Rd 29 0 14 15 33 38 Bollinger Canyon Rd / Main Branch Rd 28 0 17 11 41
39 Dougherty Rd / Gale Ridge Rd 28 0 13 15 32
40 Alcosta Blvd / I680 NB Off-ramp 28 0 14 14 33

10.1 Packet Pg. 45
Geographic Representation of the Top 40 Highest Collision Locations The locations were evaluated to show specific conditions that indicate how countermeasures may improve safety and reduce the number and severity of collisions.

The countermeasure evaluation is for nine (9) corridors, which include the locations of 80 percent of the collisions in the City over the past 10 years, divided into 17 analysis corridor segments:
• Crow Canyon Road
• Bollinger Canyon Road
• San Ramon Valley Boulevard
• Camino Ramon
• Montevideo Drive
• Alcosta Boulevard
• Broadmoor Drive
• Norris Canyon Road
• Pine Valley Road

10.1 Packet Pg. 46
These corridors were selected based on concentrations of collisions, and encompass each of the top 50 most occurring individual collision incident locations in the City. Overall, 3,200 collisions occurred in the corridors over the past 10 years, which is slightly less than one collision per day.

Countermeasures include improvements at signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as corridor improvements through signal hardware modifications, advanced dilemma zone detection, pedestrian crossings, pavement markings, additional signage, horizontal alignment, and changes to lane channelization. Countermeasures for each corridor and/or individual location are outlined in the LRSP.

Overall, there are 38 countermeasure locations Citywide listed with an estimated cost of $2.2M for the proposed traffic safety improvements (page 76 LRSP document, also as an attachment Table 20 - Collision Countermeasure Analysis of Benefit).

From the analysis, 11 priority projects have been identified and recommended in the report as listed in the table below:

Priority
Rank
Location Countermeasure Cost
1 Bollinger Canyon Rd at
Dougherty Rd (S)
Review signal coordination and yellow time
durations and phasing with improved
dilemma zone detection and timing
$40,000
2 Bollinger Canyon Rd at
Crow Canyon Rd
Repaint the double yellow centerline and
install rumble strips/stripes
$270,000
3 Bollinger Canyon Rd at
Canyon Lakes Dr
Improved signal coordination and phasing
with improved dilemma zone detection and
timing
$40,000
4 Bollinger Canyon Rd at
Chanterella Dr
Improved signal coordination and phasing
with improved dilemma zone detection and
timing
$40,000
5 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Gale
Ridge Road
Improved signal coordination and phasing
with improved dilemma zone detection and
timing
$40,000
6 Alcosta Blvd at San Ramon
Valley Blvd
Review signal timing to allow for additional
clearance time to reduce SB left-turn
conflicts with NB movements
$10,000
7 Camino Ramon at Bollinger
Canyon Rd
Install advanced dilemma zone detection for
the east and west approaches would provide
additional yellow time to account for the
high-speed approaches of the intersection
$30,000
8 San Ramon Valley Blvd at
Pine Valley Rd
Delineate NB and SB shared through-right
lane with signage or pavement markings
$5,000
9 Crow Canyon Rd at SB I680 *Caltrans RampReconfigure signals and striping to move the WB signals close to existing stop line and
move the stop line to the east 20 feet would
cause vehicles to stop at a location in
advance of the intersection
$35,000

10.1 Packet Pg. 47
10 Bollinger Canyon Rd at
Monarch Rd
Examine signal coordination and detection to
lengthen dilemma zone and align yellow
change and red clearance signal timing
intervals
$40,000
11 46 locations (priority) 54
locations
Install retroreflective borders on signal head
backplates
$230,000
$270,000
The 11th priority project is in compliance with recently issued Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-05. The Bulletin summarizes the benefits of the retroreflective borders during low light and dark hours and has been proven to significantly reduce collisions at signalized intersections. The treatment is also noted to be very impactful during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events where traffic signals at intersections in areas of power outages may become inactive and dark, posing additional risks to motorists and other users. The installation of retroreflective borders on signal head backplates will start with the 46 highest nighttime-collision locations at signalized intersections. The City aims to implement retroreflective backplate borders at all 100 signalized intersections.

The LRSP was presented to the Transportation Advisory Committee on March 17, 2022. After further discussion, the Committee inquired about some locations that have had recent operational improvements and how that was factored into the analysis/report, overall funding for the LRSP, and the scope and details of installing retroreflective borders on signal head backplates. The Committee recommended that the item move forward to the City Council.

At this time, staff requests the adoption of the LRSP by the City Council as the final approval requirement to fulfill the Program Supplement to Master Agreement and for staff to start implementing the Plan.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Five-Year 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program authorized a Project budget of $80,000 for the Local Roadway Safety Plan (CIP 000004) Project to develop the Plan, of which $72,000 is funded by State funds with a local match of $8,000 funded by Traffic Improvement Fund (TIF). Caltrans administers the Federal funds allocated by California Transportation Commission (CTC) in California. With the adoption of the LRSP, the City is eligible to apply for future HSIP grant funding.

Presently, the LRSP does not have a funding mechanism or authorized funds for future recommended projects at this time. Once the Plan is approved, staff will prioritize which project within this Plan should move forward and be incorporated into the Five-Year CIP, possibly as soon as FY 2022/23, depending on funding availability. Staff will apply for HSIP Cycle 11 funding and research additional grant opportunities, as well.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. City staff will forward a copy of the adopted Resolution and the final copy of the Local Roadway Safety Plan document to Caltrans.

2. Staff will apply for HSIP Cycle 11 funding in April 2022.

10.1 Packet Pg. 48

3. Explore additional grant opportunities.

4. Prioritize and submit the LRSP Proposed Projects into the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 - 2026-2027 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and FY 2022-2023 Capital Budget.

5. Staff will review signal timing and coordination projects internally, as needed.

ATTACHMENT
A: Local Roadway Safety Plan

10.1 Packet Pg. 49
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-047

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON

AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT

THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, Federal regulations require each State to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and
WHEREAS, a SHSP is a statewide, data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of organizations to reduce traffic related fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and
WHEREAS, the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) can be a means for providing local agencies with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP provides a framework for the City of San Ramon in collaboration with safety stakeholders, to analyze, identify, and prioritize roadway safety improvements with the goal of reducing the severity of injuries in collisions and traffic-related fatalities on local roads; and
WHEREAS, Public Works staff collaborated with the Police Department and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the development of the LRSP; and WHEREAS, the LRSP allows for a proactive approach to advance roadway safety, identify high risk locations and collision patterns through historical data, and develop a list of cost-effective and longer-term countermeasures that can be applied systematically to improve overall traffic operations; and
WHEREAS, an LRSP is a requirement for the City to apply for future Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds; and
WHEREAS, an allocation from the FY 2020/21 Capital Budget of $8,000 from Traffic Impact Fee funding was appropriated as the local match to the $72,000 state funds allocated by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to develop the Plan document; and WHEREAS, the Mayor executed the Program Supplemental Agreement No. V95 (Resolution No. 2021-033) on February 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City selected on-call consultant, Iteris, Inc., to prepare the LRSP document; and

10.1 Packet Pg. 50
WHEREAS, the LRSP resulted in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need, and offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2022, Iteris, Inc., presented the LRSP for review to the Transportation Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the completion of state and federally-funded projects as described under the Master Agreements, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the LRSP.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of April 12, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Christina Franco, City Clerk

10.1 Packet Pg. 51
Innovating Through Informatics™
City of San Ramon
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Version 4.0
November 16, 2021
Submitted to:
11044 | Prepared by Iteris, Inc.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) City of San Ramon
Local Roadway Safety Plan Iteris, Inc. | ii

DOCUMENT VERSION CONTROL

DOCUMENT NAME SUBMITTAL DATE VERSION
Local Road Safety Plan - Draft May 14, 2021 1.0
Local Road Safety Plan - Final September 14, 2021 2.0
Local Road Safety Plan - Final October 21, 2021 3.0
Local Road Safety Plan - Final November 16, 2021 4.0

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) City of San Ramon
Local Roadway Safety Plan Iteris, Inc. | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Safety Planning....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 General Plan Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 General Plan Traffic and Circulation....................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Traffic Volume........................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Posted Speed Limits.............................................................................................................................13

2.6 Citywide Safety Analysis.......................................................................................................................15

2.7 Systemic Collision Evaluation...............................................................................................................16

2.8 Collision Evaluation of Top Collision Locations....................................................................................25 3 Potential Countermeasures ..........................................................................................................................39

3.1 Countermeasure Selection...................................................................................................................39

3.2 Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-05...................................................................................................40 4 Countermeasure Evaluation..........................................................................................................................44 5 Priority Projects...............................................................................................................................................75 6 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................81

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) City of San Ramon
Local Roadway Safety Plan Iteris, Inc. | iv
Tables
Table 1 – San Ramon Segment ADT...............................................................................................................................9 Table 2 – Type of Collision...........................................................................................................................................16 Table 3 –Collision Severity...........................................................................................................................................17 Table 4 –Collision Severity Weighting .........................................................................................................................18 Table 5 –Vehicle Involved With ...................................................................................................................................22 Table 6 – Primary Cause of Collisions..........................................................................................................................23 Table 7 –Action Preceding Collision ............................................................................................................................24 Table 8 – Most Common Collision Movement Pairs ...................................................................................................24 Table 9 –Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision.......................................................................................................25 Table 10 – Highest Collision Locations by Total Number of Collisions........................................................................26 Table 11 – Top 40 Collision Locations by Total Number of Collisions and Rate of Collisions......................................31 Table 12 – Top 40 Collision Locations With Percent of Injury, Bike/Ped Collisions, Common Factor, and Type ........32 Table 13 – Outlier Criteria for Locations Not in Top 40 Most Frequent Collisions......................................................34 Table 14 – Outlier Criteria for Locations in Top 40 Most Frequent Collisions.............................................................38 Table 15 – Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections..........................................................................................41 Table 16 – Countermeasures for Non-signalized Intersections...................................................................................42 Table 17– Countermeasures for Roadways.................................................................................................................43 Table 18 – Analysis Corridor Segments.......................................................................................................................44 Table 19 – Top 40 Collision Locations by Intersection................................................................................................. 45 Table 20 – Collision Countermeasure Analysis of Benefit...........................................................................................76 Table 21– Priority Locations for Retroreflective Border Installation on Signal Heads ................................................79 Figures
Figure 1 – General Plan Land Use..................................................................................................................................8 Figure 2 – San Ramon ADT ..........................................................................................................................................12 Figure 3 – San Ramon Posted Speed ...........................................................................................................................14 Figure 4 – City of San Ramon Collision Trends 2009-2020 ..........................................................................................15 Figure 5 – Number of Non-Injury Collisions ................................................................................................................19 Figure 6 – Number of Injury Collisions ........................................................................................................................20 Figure 7 – Number of Fatal Collisions..........................................................................................................................21 Figure 8 – Number of Total Collisions .........................................................................................................................27 Figure 9– Weighted Collision Severity.........................................................................................................................28 Figure 10 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions..............................................................................................................29 Figure 11 – Countermeasure and Project Prioritization Process.................................................................................39

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 5
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is to provide a safety analysis for all users of local roadways in the City of San Ramon (City). The LRSP was funded through a LRSP grant provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Take a proactive approach to advance road safety by reducing serious injuries. • Identify high risk locations and collision patterns through historical data. • Develop a list of low-cost and longer-term countermeasures that can be applied systemically. • Help secure funding to address key safety issues.

This plan is consistent with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads. Its mission is to ensure a safer transportation system for all users on all public roads in California. The SHSP goal is for California to move towards zero deaths.

The LRSP is a means for the City to address unique highway safety needs in San Ramon while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems, recommend safety improvements and facilitate the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration. The LRSP prioritizes improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

The San Ramon LRSP involves analysis of roadway and collision data, selection of potential countermeasures to address collision patterns, and the evaluation of potential project effectiveness for implementation:
• Section 2 describes the land use and roadway conditions in the City with segment daily traffic volume and posted speed limits.
• Section 3 presents the summary of the collision database and identifies locations with a history of collisions
• Section 4 reviews potential countermeasures applicable for consideration based on local conditions • Section 5 evaluates the effectiveness and implementation potential of countermeasures at top collision locations and how the improvements can be implemented at other locations with similar road characteristics, geometry and traffic pattern to proactively make the conditions safer.

Priority locations for safety countermeasures were identified by review of the collision data and field conditions. Recommended countermeasures were analyzed using crash reduction factors (CRFs) from Caltrans and applied to the collisions at the location in the past five years that would be reduced by the countermeasure. Overall, 38 locations were analyzed for countermeasure effectiveness. Ten priority locations were selected based on the following criteria:
• Location was in the top three ranked locations for Total Collisions, weighted Collision Severity, and Collision Rate and more than five percent of the collision severity in the past five years would be effectively addressed by the countermeasure(s); or
• Location would have more than twenty percent of the collision severity in the past five years effectively addressed by the countermeasure(s).

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 6
2 CONDITIONS

2.1 Vision Zero & Safety Planning
Safety of the City’s transportation system has been an important part of its design, operation and maintenance. The LRSP is part of City efforts to continually improve safety in all aspects of transportation.

The Public Works Department works with the San Ramon Police Traffic Division, the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Contra Costa County, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFD), and other groups to coordinate safety efforts.
• The Residential Traffic Calming Program provides policies, procedures and resources to coordinate the collaboration of City staff and citizens, in an effort to produce effective traffic calming throughout San Ramon’s neighborhoods.
• The San Ramon Safe Routes to School Program raises school traffic safety awareness in Elementary Schools.
• The Street Smarts Program engages the community through in-school activities and discussions, contests, traffic safety advertising campaigns, and community events. Street Smarts helps the San Ramon Valley address all three “E’s” of traffic safety. Street Smarts focuses on the education component, while at the same time complementing the work of other agencies that focus on engineering and enforcement.

Contra Costa County is in the process of developing a Vision Zero Plan to address severe and fatal collisions on County-owned roadways. The Plan will identify key collision trends in the County, priority corridors in which severe and fatal collisions occur, and an implementation strategy to address the collision trends. The implementation strategy will include engineering, education, and/or enforcement measures.

The County also completed the Iron Horse Corridor Active Transportation Study in June 2020. The Study analyzed the safety and cross section profile of the Iron Horse Corridor from the City of Concord to San Ramon and recommended a program of trail, crossing and access improvements.

The systemic approach to roadway safety is guided by the City’s General Plan. The Traffic and Circulation Element is intended to provide guidance and specific actions to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of San Ramon’s circulation system. The circulation network provides the linkage between different land uses and facilitates access to home, shopping, jobs, schools and recreation. With an efficient transportation system, people in San Ramon can enjoy the advantages of living in a smaller community and have access to neighboring metropolitan areas.

2.2 General Plan Land Use
Per the General Plan Land Use Element, the land use pattern in San Ramon is reflective of the City’s history as a local- and region-serving suburban office center with surrounding residential neighborhoods and supporting businesses and services. The City’s commercial focus has traditionally been the suburban-scaled, campus-style office developments of Bishop Ranch, anchored to the north and south by the commercial services and retail activities at the I-680 interchanges with Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road.

San Ramon is largely comprised of auto-oriented land use development and its transportation system.

Residential development in San Ramon is generally suburban with a loop-style network of curving streets and cul-de-sacs. However, higher density residential neighborhoods are generally located close to commercial uses along arterial streets. Consistent with the previous General Plan 2020 policies, many of the existing

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 7
commercial centers have been designated mixed use, thus creating the potential for live work opportunities and higher residential densities.

Employment centers such as Bishop Ranch Business Park and other commercial district in the City account for about 10% of the City’s land area, while Parks and open space (41%) and residential classifications (47%) account for the vast majority of the remainder. This dense commercial office core coupled with the residential and open space densities has been the determining factors in the development of the historic land use pattern and defining San Ramon’s urban form to date.

Figure 1 shows the 2035 San Ramon General Plan Land Use.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Figure 1 – General Plan Land Use

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 9

2.3 General Plan Traffic and Circulation
Careful integration of the City’s traffic and circulation policies with its land use policies will ensure there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate existing traffic and traffic anticipated by future development.

The City is committed to designing a system of regional routes, local roads, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will enhance the community and minimize impacts to the environment.

San Ramon’s Transportation Systems Management Program incorporates five core strategies:

1. Transportation programs are based on traffic circulation system needs and land use planning.

2. The City’s traffic circulation planning efforts are integrated with those of adjoining cities and counties in a cooperative, regional planning effort.

3. State of the art traffic engineering techniques and principles are used to bring planned improvements to reality.

4. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are employed to reduce dependence on single-occupant vehicles for commute travel.

5. All transportation modes are considered in all phases of design and construction within the City to create a circulation network that is safe, efficient, and convenient for all user groups.

The General Plan guiding policies related to local roadway safety are:
• 5.3-G-1 Encourage transportation facilities that consider the users’ safety and allow for all modes of travel based on local conditions and needs of the community. • 5.4-G-1 Design arterial roadways to efficiently move inter-city traffic, thereby minimizing throughtraffic in residential areas of the City.

2.4 Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) numbers are useful in understanding the typical traffic conditions for travel. ADT counts (24-hour counts) were provided by the City at primary roads. The dates of the traffic counts range from the year 2006 to 2018. For the purpose of the study, the most recent year was used to calculate the ADT. Intersection counts were used to calculate the ADT at roadway segments that do not have ADT counts.

Utilizing the two sets of data (peak hour intersection counts and 24-hour segment counts provided by the City), missing ADT volumes throughout the city were calculated by applying an average p.m. peak hour-todaily volume ratio. This conversion ratio was determined through review of the 24-hour segment counts and is generally close to the conventional conversion factor of 10. The ADT counts for street segments in San Ramon are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the ADT throughout the City.

Table 1 – San Ramon Segment ADT
No. Roadway Location ADT
1 San Ramon Valley Blvd North of Fostoria Way-Deerwood Rd 14,769 2 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Fostoria Way-Deerwood Rd & Crow Cyn Rd 24,890 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Crow Cyn Rd & Norris Cyn Rd 25,508 4 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Norris Cyn Rd & Bollinger Cyn Rd 14,340 5 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Morgan Dr 18,445 6 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Morgan Dr & Montevideo Dr 21,020 7 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Montevideo Dr & Pine Valley Rd 15,140 8 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between Pine Valley Rd & I-680 SB Ramps 16,080 9 San Ramon Valley Blvd Between I-680 SB Ramps & Alcosta Blvd 29,200 10 Camino Ramon Between Fostoria Way & Crow Cyn Rd 12,488

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 10
No. Roadway Location ADT
11 Camino Ramon Between Crow Cyn Rd & Norris Cyn Rd 15,540 12 Camino Ramon Between Norris Cyn Rd & Executive Pkwy 12,750 13 Camino Ramon Between Executive Pkwy & Bollinger Cyn Rd 13,741 14 Village Pkwy South of Alcosta Blvd 6,136
15 Alcosta Blvd Between Crow Cyn Rd & Norris Cyn Rd 14,593 16 Alcosta Blvd Between Norris Cyn Rd & Bollinger Cyn Rd 13,733 17 Alcosta Blvd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Montevideo Dr 21,080 18 Alcosta Blvd Between Montevideo Dr & Pine Valley Rd 9,582 19 Alcosta Blvd Between Pine Valley Rd & Old Ranch Rd 9,540 20 Alcosta Blvd Between Old Ranch Rd & Village Pkwy 11,702 21 Alcosta Blvd Between Village Pkwy & I-680 NB Ramps 12,295 22 Alcosta Blvd Between I-680 SB On-Ramp & San Ramon Valley Blvd 28,324 23 Dougherty Rd Between Crow Cyn Rd & Monarch Rd 17,998 24 Dougherty Rd Between Monarch Rd & Bollinger Cyn Rd (N) 21,009 25 Dougherty Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd (N) & Bollinger Cyn Rd (S) 27,995 26 Dougherty Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd (S) & Old Ranch Rd 10,925 27 Dougherty Rd South of Old Ranch Rd 25,110
28 Deerwood Rd Between Crow Cyn Rd & San Ramon Valley Blvd 6,705 29 Fostoria Way Between San Ramon Valley Blvd & Camino Ramon 13,155 30 Crow Cyn Rd West of Bollinger Cyn Rd 16,332
31 Crow Cyn Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Deerwood Rd 29,490 32 Crow Cyn Rd Between Deerwood Rd & San Ramon Valley Rd 23,227 33 Crow Cyn Rd Between San Ramon Valley Rd & I-680 SB Ramps 43,265 34 Crow Cyn Rd Between I-680 NB Ramps & Camino Ramon 38,462 35 Crow Cyn Rd Between Camino Ramon & Alcosta Blvd 36,434 36 Crow Cyn Rd Between Alcosta Blvd & El Capitan Dr 36,179 37 Crow Cyn Rd Between El Capitan Dr & Dougherty Rd 24,459 38 Crow Cyn Rd East of Dougherty Rd 28,912
39 Norris Cyn Rd West of Bollinger Cyn Rd 5,632
40 Norris Cyn Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & San Ramon Valley Blvd 32,688 41 Norris Cyn Rd Between San Ramon Valley Blvd & Camino Ramon 24,291 42 Norris Cyn Rd Between Camino Ramon & Alcosta Blvd 12,280 43 Bollinger Cyn Rd North of Crow Cyn Rd 8,770
44 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Crow Cyn Rd & Norris Cyn Rd 7,088 45 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Norris Cyn Rd & San Ramon Valley Blvd 13,120 46 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between San Ramon Valley Blvd & I-680 SB Ramps 32,216 47 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between I-680 NB Ramps & Camino Ramon 53,863 48 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Camino Ramon & Alcosta Blvd 37,920 49 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Alcosta Blvd & Dougherty Rd 32,861 50 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Dougherty Rd & Monarch Rd 29,956

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 11
No. Roadway Location ADT
51 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Monarch Rd & Albion Rd 20,063 52 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Albion Rd & Windemere Pkwy 17,271 53 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between Windemere Pkwy & East Branch Pkwy 19,041 54 Bollinger Cyn Rd Between East Branch Pkwy & Dougherty Rd (S) 17,516 55 Albion Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Windemere Pkwy 17,420 56 Windemere Pkwy Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Albion Rd 3,185 57 Windemere Pkwy Between Albion Rd & East Branch Pkwy 10,400 58 Windemere Pkwy Between East Branch Pkwy & East City limits 4,874 59 Montevideo Dr Between San Ramon Valley Bl & Alcosta Blvd 11,784 60 Pine Valley Rd Between San Ramon Valley Bl & Alcosta Blvd 9,507 61 East Branch Rd Between Bollinger Cyn Rd & Windemere Pkwy 10,202 62 Old Ranch Rd Between Alcosta Blvd & Dougherty Rd 7,388 63 Kimball Ave Between Alcosta Blvd & Village Pkwy 1,779

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 12
Figure 2 – San Ramon ADT

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 13

2.5 Posted Speed Limits
The speed limits on the roadways are important in indicating the relationship between the design of the roadway and its use in terms of acceptable speeds. Reviewing the posted speed limits on the roadways is essential to:
• Ensuring consistency of speeds based on prevailing speeds, roadway classification, design and roadway conditions along similar roadways throughout the City; • Increasing safety along roadways within the City by determining if differences in motorist’s speeds play a role in the causes of collisions and their severity.

The posted speed limit data was provided by the City as a dataset within the street network Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile. As seen on Figure 3, the speed map of the City, the local streets have speed limits between 25 to 30 miles per hour (mph), while primary roads are between 30 to 50 mph.

The City has installed radar speed display signs as a traffic calming measure at fifteen locations. While radar speed display signs are not listed in the Caltrans countermeasures (Tables 14, 15, and 16), they are a systemic countermeasure option to encourage the lowering of speeds. Radar speed display signs are installed at the following locations:

1. Bollinger Canyon Road (eastbound) near South Gale Ridge Road

2. Crow Canyon Road (eastbound) near Creekside Drive

3. Montevideo Drive (westbound) near Toluca Drive

4. Morgan Drive (northbound) near Arapaho Court

5. Norris Canyon Road (eastbound) near Celaya Circle

6. North Monarch Road (eastbound) near Feathermint Drive

7. Pine Valley Road (eastbound) near Boxford Place

8. Rosincress Drive (northbound) near Rosincress Court

9. San Ramon Valley Boulevard (southbound) near Hooper Drive

10. South Monarch Road (westbound) near Bayleaf Drive

11. Twin Creeks Drive (northbound) near Canyon Creek Drive

12. Windemere Parkway (northbound) near Holborn Way

13. Bollinger Canyon Road (northbound) near Dos Rios Drive

14. Bollinger Canyon Road (eastbound) near Talavera Drive

15. Davona Drive (northbound) near Laramie Avenue

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 14
Figure 3 – San Ramon Posted Speed

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 15

2.6 Citywide Safety Analysis
This section presents a discussion of overall safety conditions within the City of San Ramon using traffic collision data provided by the City through its Crossroads Collision Database System. Data is analyzed at the citywide, street segment, and intersection levels. The period of collisions is the 10 ½ years from January 1, 2009 to May 27, 2020. During the period, a total of 4,011 collisions were recorded.

This data is used to support the development of potential countermeasures in Section 4 and the evaluation of crash countermeasures presented in Section 5.

As shown in the figure, the total number of collisions in the City is trending downwards, however the number of injuries is trending upward. The number of injuries per collision averaged 0.43 from 2009 to 2011 but grew to 0.69 from 2017 to 2019—a 62% increase. Despite the increase in injuries, the amount of fatalities is relatively consistent at about one per year with a maximum of two and minimum of zero in any given year.

Figure 4 – City of San Ramon Collision Trends 2009-2020 0 2
4 6
8 10
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
City of San Ramon Collision Trends
Fatalities Total Injuries
Number of Fatalities
Number of Collisions and Injuries

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 16

2.7 Systemic Collision Evaluation
This section presents a discussion of overall safety conditions within the City of San Ramon using traffic collision data provided by the City through its Crossroads Collision Database System. The period of collisions is the 10 ½ years from January 1, 2009 to May 27, 2020. During the period, a total of 4,011 collisions were recorded.

The systemic collision analysis looks at all collision incidents by their characteristics to describe common characteristics. The collision data was reviewed, cleaned for duplicates, and sorted and analyzed at the systemic and individual location levels to describe overall conditions and indicators of locations with higher total and higher than average numbers and types of incidents. Each of the following figures and tables are derived from the entire time period of the database. Totals may not add up to 100% of records due to “Not Stated” and blank entries for some information. In the countermeasure development phase of the Study, more recent time periods may be reviewed if improvements or changes were made during the dataset time period.

2.7.1 Types of Collisions
As shown in Table 2, the most common types of collisions were “Rear End” and “Broadside” collisions, followed by “Hit Object” and “Sideswipe”. The majority of rear end collisions occur at intersection approaches as vehicles fail to slow or do not have time to react to vehicles stopping quickly in front of them.

Broadside collisions generally occur between straight-moving vehicles and turning vehicles at intersections.

Table 2 – Type of Collision
Type of Collision Total Percent
Rear End 1,159 28.9%
Broadside 1,083 27.0%
Hit Object 709 17.7%
Sideswipe 557 13.9%
Head-On 166 4.1%
Bicycle-Involved 146 3.6%
Vehicle - Pedestrian 136 3.4%
Not Stated 90 2.2%
Other 66 1.6%
Overturned 45 1.1%

2.7.2 Collision Severity
The severity of the collision to human health is shown in Table 3. The severity of the collision is shown as the worst outcome of the collision, therefore a fatal collision that resulted in other injuries is shown as a fatal collision severity. Overall, there were 2,224 total injuries and ten fatalities due to collisions in the City during the analysis period. As shown in the table, nearly 60 percent of collisions were property damage only (no personal injuries), while nearly two percent resulted in severe injury or fatality.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 17
Table 3 –Collision Severity
Severity Number Percent
Property Damage Only 2,365 59.0%
Complaint of Pain 965 24.1%
Visible Injury 455 11.3%
Severe Injury 62 1.5%
Fatal 10 0.2%
NA 154 3.8%
Figures 5, 6, and 7 map the location of these collisions consolidated by closest intersection for the number of non-injury collisions, injury collisions and fatal collisions, respectively.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 18
Weighting
A quantitative crash data analysis was used to determine the crash frequency at each intersection and each roadway segment. However, since the state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding grant criteria places a greater emphasis on more severe crashes, weighted values were applied to different crash severities. The HSIP application uses a Benefit Calculator Tool to apply a monetary value to act as the project benefit using the crash severity. The Benefit Calculator Tool used is the HSIP Cycle 9 rendition and could have differing benefits for every iteration released. An example of the Benefit Calculator Tool is shown in Appendix D. The HSIP Benefit Calculator Tool applies a dollar value to each crash severity type in the project limits.

Each crash severity has a weighted value that determines each crash’s dollar value for the benefit. Table 4 shows the weighted value used in both the Benefit Calculator Tool and this analysis. By applying these weighted severity values, quantitative analysis techniques were used to determine the most applicable HSIP project locations.

Table 4 –Collision Severity Weighting
Severity Weighted Value
Property Damage Only 1
Injury – Complaint of Pain 6
Injury – Other Visible 11
Injury - Severe 120
Fatal 120

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 19
Figure 5 – Number of Non-Injury Collisions

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 20
Figure 6 – Number of Injury Collisions

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 21
Figure 7– Number of Fatal Collisions

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 22

2.7.3 Vehicle Involved With
As shown in Table 5, the majority of collisions occurred when a vehicle struck another vehicle (62 percent).

However, significant involvement occurs with fixed objects (18 percent), parked vehicles (seven percent) and bicycles/pedestrians (almost seven percent).

Table 5 –Vehicle Involved With
Involved With Number Percent
Other Motor Vehicle 2,480 61.8%
Fixed Object 728 18.2%
Parked Motor Vehicle 275 6.9%
Bicycle 146 3.6%
Pedestrian 130 3.2%
Other Object 97 2.4%
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway 71 1.8%
Not Stated 76 1.9%
Animal 8 0.2%

2.7.4 Primary Cause
The primary cause of collisions is noted for most incidents. While nearly all collision incidents are a confluence of multiple factors, the primary cause is an indicator of field conditions which could indicate the most effective countermeasures to reduce collision rates at specific locations.

As shown in Table 6, the most common (25 percent of total) primary cause of collisions was “Unsafe Speed.” Unsafe speed is generally defined as speeds greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for road conditions which endangers the safety of persons or property. The faster a vehicle is moving, the less time a driver has to react to conditions thereby increasing the chance of an incident.

Many communities, including San Ramon, have strong traffic calming programs on residential streets, however arterial speed limits are codified in the Speed Limit Ordinance using speed surveys. Areas where vehicles travel at high speeds due to roadway design have an 85th percentile speed representative of those road conditions and result in speed limits representative of current activity.

The next most common “Primary Causes” are auto right-of-way violation, improper turning, and (failure to heed) traffic signals and signs, which collectively make up 36 percent of collision incidents. These types of causes are linked to improper driving at intersections, where conflicts with opposing vehicles are highest.

Locations with primary causes linked to these factors indicate the potential for intersection countermeasures.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 23
Table 6 – Primary Cause of Collisions
Primary Cause Total Percent
Unsafe Speed 1,010 25.2%
Auto R/W Violation 531 13.2%
Improper Turning 487 12.1%
Traffic Signals and Signs 426 10.6%
Driving Under Influence 274 6.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 247 6.2%
Other Improper Driving 205 5.1%
Following Too Closely 130 3.2%
Unknown 119 3.0%
Wrong Side of Road 118 2.9%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 111 2.8%
Not Stated 78 1.9%
Pedestrian R/W Violation 62 1.5%
Other Hazardous Movement 56 1.4%
Other Than Driver 36 0.9%
Improper Passing 28 0.7%
Pedestrian Violation 26 0.6%
Other 67 1.7%
It should be noted that “distracted driving” is not a cause category in the dataset, however it can be a significant contributor to nearly all collisions—especially since the advent of mobile phones. The dataset is incomplete in terms of describing the role of inattentive drivers, visually obscured or cell phone-using drivers (listed as about a five percent associated factor) since most incidents are listed as “Not Stated” for these factors.

2.7.5 Action Before Collision
The driver actions before the resulting collision for the designated at-fault party and the 2nd party are shown in Table 7.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 24
Table 7 –Action Preceding Collision
Action Total Percent
Proceeding Straight 1,970 49.1%
Making Left Turn 575 14.3%
Making Right Turn 344 8.6%
Ran Off Road 222 5.5%
Changing Lanes 167 4.2%
Slowing/Stopping 110 2.7%
Entering Traffic 106 2.6%
Backing 95 2.4%
Not Stated 74 1.8%
Other Unsafe Turning 61 1.5%
Stopped In Road 57 1.4%
Making U Turn 47 1.2%
Passing Other Vehicle 38 0.9%
Parking Maneuver 24 0.6%
Traveling Wrong Way 20 0.5%
Crossed Into Opposing Lane - Unplanned 20 0.5%
Other 81 2.0%
As shown, half of collisions were made by vehicles proceeding straight on a roadway, while vehicles turning at intersection (left and right turns) account for about 23 percent. These actions were paired with the 2nd party actions to show the highest number of collision action pairs and most common associated type of collision is shown in Table 8.

Table 8 – Most Common Collision Movement Pairs
Collision Movement Pairs Total Percent Most Common Type Proceeding Straight / Stopped In Road 789 19% Rear End
Making Left Turn / Proceeding Straight 650 16% Broadside or Sideswipe Proceeding Straight / Proceeding Straight 416 10% Rear End or Sideswipe Proceeding Straight 360 9% Rear End, Sideswipe or Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight / Parked 229 5% Sideswipe or Hit Object Ran Off Road 192 5% Hit Object
Making Left Turn 116 3% Broadside or Sideswipe
Making Right Turn 116 3% Broadside or Sideswipe
Changing Lanes / Proceeding Straight 111 3% Sideswipe
Making Right Turn / Proceeding Straight 111 3% Broadside or Sideswipe Other 921 23%
As shown the highest movement pairs involve straight-moving vehicles in rear end collisions (approximately 1/3 of total movement pairs)—most likely due to a failure to slow down by an approaching vehicle. This highly correlates to the common intersection factor of “Unsafe Speed” and the high number of rear end collisions in the City.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 25

2.7.6 Time of Day
Overall, 2,874 (71%) of the collisions occurred during daylight and the remainder happened at dawn, dusk or during nighttime (dark) hours. Approximately 13 percent of collisions (507) occurred in the morning peak period of 7AM to 9AM and 17 percent occurred during the afternoon peak of 4PM to 6PM.

2.7.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
During the period of analysis there were 146 bicycle-involved collisions and 130 pedestrian-involved collisions. As shown in Table 9, the most common location of the pedestrian at the time of the collision was in a crosswalk at nearly 60 percent, with 25 percent crossing outside of intersections and seven percent in the roadway. Figure 10 depicts the locations of the pedestrian involved collisions.

Table 9 –Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision
Pedestrian Location Total Percent
Crossing In Crosswalk at Intersection 86 58%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 24 16%
Not In Road 14 9%
Crossing In Crosswalk Not at Intersection 13 9%
In Road 11 7%
Not Stated 53 -

2.8 Collision Evaluation of Top Collision Locations
Top collision locations in the City were analyzed to show specific conditions which may indicate how countermeasures may improve safety and reduce the number and severity of collisions. Of the 584 individual locations for collisions in the City, the top 40 locations in terms of total collisions are detailed in this section.

In cases where intersections outside of the top 40 in total collisions are within the top 40 of the individual characteristic or metric, those 86 locations are also included in the detailed review of this section. This is especially important as outlier frequencies of specific types of collision patterns are indicative of specific types of effective systemic countermeasures.

The index number of the intersection is consistently shown as its citywide rank in terms of total collisions, however intersections with the same number of collisions are given different numbers to distinguish between the locations. Overall, the locations with the most collisions in the City during the analysis period were the intersections on either side of the Crow Canyon Road/I-680 interchange (Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road/San Ramon Valley Boulevard), each with 116 (or approximately 11 per year). The top 40 total collision cut-off was 28 during the analysis period—which is approximately 2.66 collisions per year.

Table 10 shows the locations with the highest total number of collisions (also shown in Figure 8) as well as the locations with the highest cumulative severity score as calculated by weighting injury severity where collisions are assigned a value of 1 for complaint of pain, 2 for visible injury, 5 for severe injury and 10 for fatality (also shown in Figure 9).

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 26
Table 10 – Highest Collision Locations by Total Number of Collisions # Intersection Name Total Fatal Injury NonInjurySeverity Score
1 CAMINO RAMON / CROW CANYON RD 116 1 58 57 133
2 CROW CANYON RD / SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 116 0 44 72 130 3 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON PL 112 0 46 66 122
4 ALCOSTA BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 107 0 43 64 122
5 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / SUNSET DR 105 0 46 59 108
6 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 78 0 24 54 90 7 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD 69 0 30 39 77 8 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CANYON VIEW CIR 63 2 22 39 93
9 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (S) 62 0 28 34 68
10 CROW CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 61 0 32 29 59
11 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CAMINO RAMON 55 0 29 26 61
12 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / ALCOSTA BLVD 54 0 20 34 76
13 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / FOSTORIA WAY 52 0 18 34 54
14 CROW CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD 51 0 19 32 58
15 CROW CANYON RD / ALCOSTA BLVD 51 0 19 32 57
16 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (N) 50 0 20 30 59 17 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 47 0 23 24 44
18 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CHANTERELLA DR 46 0 24 22 51
19 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 SB OFFRAMP 46 0 16 30 45
20 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / E BRANCH PKWY 43 0 23 20 55
21 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WEDGEWOOD RD 42 0 16 26 43
22 ALCOSTA BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD (N) 41 0 14 27 42
23 CROW CANYON RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 41 0 17 24 52
24 CROW CANYON RD / CANYON CREST DR (N) 40 0 22 18 48
25 CAMINO RAMON / NORRIS CANYON RD 39 0 21 18 37
26 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / ALBION RD 39 0 16 23 42
27 FOSTORIA WAY / CAMINO RAMON (W) 39 0 13 26 40
28 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MARKET PL 35 0 18 17 39
29 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON OFR (W) 35 0 4 31 36
30 ALCOSTA BLVD / BROADMOOR DR 34 0 20 14 40
31 MONARCH RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 33 0 16 17 35
32 DOUGHERTY RD / OLD RANCH RD 33 0 12 21 41
33 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / GALE RIDGE RD 31 0 17 14 39
34 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WINDEMERE PKWY 30 0 15 15 32
35 CROW CANYON RD / EL CAPITAN DR 29 0 18 11 39
36 CROW CANYON RD / TWIN CREEKS DR 29 0 8 21 29
37 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / PINE VALLEY RD 29 0 14 15 33 38 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MAIN BRANCH RD 28 0 17 11 41
39 DOUGHERTY RD / GALE RIDGE RD 28 0 13 15 32
40 ALCOSTA BLVD / I680 28 0 14 14 33

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 27
Figure 8– Number of Total Collisions

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 28
Figure 9– Weighted Collision Severity

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 29
Figure 10– Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 30
In terms of the clustering of the individual locations, eight of the top 40 locations are in the Gale Ranch area, six occur along Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road from Dougherty Road to Alcosta Boulevard where the topography transitions the hill area to the valley, six occur in the vicinity of the I-680 / Crow Canyon interchange, six occur in the vicinity of the I-680 / Bollinger interchange, three are in the Windemere area, and two occur in each of adjacent to the Medical Center on Alcosta, in the Fostoria Way corridor, and at the I-680 / Alcosta interchange.

Using the average daily traffic data along with the assumption that streets with unavailable daily traffic volumes carry 7,500 vehicles per day, a collision rate per one million vehicle entries (MVE) was calculated. As shown in Table 11, the ranking of the top 40 total collision locations is altered when looking at the rate using number of vehicles passing through the intersection. Table 12 shows the top 40 locations along with percent injury and bike/pedestrian involvement, along with the common factor and type of collision.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 31
Table 11 – Top 40 Collision Locations by Total Number of Collisions and Rate of Collisions # Intersection Name Total Daily
Volume
Per
MVE
Rank
1 CAMINO RAMON / CROW CANYON RD 116 54,000 0.56 3
2 CROW CANYON RD / SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 116 48,700 0.62 2 3 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON PL 112 47,000 0.62 1
4 ALCOSTA BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 107 59,000 0.47 4
5 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / SUNSET DR 105 62,400 0.44 6
6 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 78 50,700 0.40 9 7 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD 69 58,200 0.31 16 8 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CANYON VIEW CIR 63 41,400 0.40 12 9 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (S) 62 60,900 0.27 27 10 CROW CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 61 57,900 0.27 25
11 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CAMINO RAMON 55 53,500 0.27 26 12 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / ALCOSTA BLVD 54 57,500 0.25 31 13 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / FOSTORIA WAY 52 38,000 0.36 13 14 CROW CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD 51 46,900 0.28 22
15 CROW CANYON RD / ALCOSTA BLVD 51 50,800 0.26 29
16 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (N) 50 45,500 0.29 21 17 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 47 70,400 0.17 37 18 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CHANTERELLA DR 46 41,400 0.29 20 19 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 SB OFFRAMP 46 65,500 0.18 36 20 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / E BRANCH PKWY 43 25,800 0.43 7 21 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WEDGEWOOD RD 42 25,800 0.42 8
22 ALCOSTA BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD (N) 41 26,900 0.40 10 23 CROW CANYON RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 41 36,600 0.29 19 24 CROW CANYON RD / CANYON CREST DR (N) 40 37,400 0.28 24 25 CAMINO RAMON / NORRIS CANYON RD 39 39,800 0.26 30
26 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / ALBION RD 39 34,700 0.29 18
27 FOSTORIA WAY / CAMINO RAMON (W) 39 25,600 0.40 11
28 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MARKET PL 35 41,400 0.22 32
29 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON OFR (W) 35 62,000 0.15 39 30 ALCOSTA BLVD / BROADMOOR DR 34 20,200 0.44 5
31 MONARCH RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 33 27,500 0.31 15
32 DOUGHERTY RD / OLD RANCH RD 33 32,500 0.26 28
33 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / GALE RIDGE RD 31 38,500 0.21 33 34 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WINDEMERE PKWY 30 22,200 0.35 14 35 CROW CANYON RD / EL CAPITAN DR 29 44,700 0.17 38
36 CROW CANYON RD / TWIN CREEKS DR 29 51,800 0.15 40
37 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / PINE VALLEY RD 29 25,600 0.30 17 38 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MAIN BRANCH RD 28 25,800 0.28 23 39 DOUGHERTY RD / GALE RIDGE RD 28 36,500 0.20 35
40 ALCOSTA BLVD / I680 28 35,400 0.21 34

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 32
Table 12 – Top 40 Collision Locations With Percent of Injury, Bike/Ped Collisions, Common Factor, and Type # Intersection Name Injury Bike/ Ped Most Common Factor Most Common Type 1 CAMINO RAMON / CROW

CANYON RD
51% 9% Auto R/W
Violation
31% Rear-End 36%
2 CROW CANYON RD / SAN

RAMON VALLEY BLVD
38% 5% Unsafe Speed 32% Rear-End 37%
3 CROW CANYON RD /

CROW CANYON PL
41% 0% Unsafe Speed 27% Rear-End 34%
4 ALCOSTA BLVD /

BOLLINGER CANYON RD
40% 3% Unsafe Speed 24% Rear-End 73%
5 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

SUNSET DR
44% 0% Unsafe Speed 51% Rear-End 41%
6 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
/ BOLLINGER CANYON RD
31% 8% Unsafe Speed 39% Broadside 38%
7 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
/ NORRIS CANYON RD
43% 13% Auto R/W
Violation
32% Rear-End 42%
8 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

CANYON VIEW CIR
38% 10% Unsafe Speed 22% Rear-End 39%
9 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

DOUGHERTY RD (S)
45% 5% Unsafe Speed 31% Broadside 55%
10 CROW CANYON RD / I680

NB OFFRAMP
52% 2% Traffic Signals
and Signs
50% Rear-End 57%
11 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

CAMINO RAMON
53% 2% Unsafe Speed 51% Broadside 40%
12 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
/ ALCOSTA BLVD
37% 7% Auto R/W
Violation
26% Broadside 35%
13 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
/ FOSTORIA WAY
35% 6% Auto R/W
Violation
33% Rear-End 33%
14 CROW CANYON RD /

DOUGHERTY RD
37% 8% Unsafe Speed 31% Rear-End 31%
15 CROW CANYON RD /

ALCOSTA BLVD
37% 4% Unsafe Speed 27% Rear-End 31%
16 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

DOUGHERTY RD (N)
40% 10% Unsafe Speed 45% Rear-End 50%
17 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /
I680 NB OFFRAMP
49% 6% Unsafe Speed 39% Rear-End 57%
18 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

CHANTERELLA DR
52% 2% Unsafe Speed 45% Broadside 60%
19 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /
I680 SB OFFRAMP
35% 4% Traffic Signals
and Signs
49% Hit Object 44%
20 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / E

BRANCH PKWY
53% 9% Unsafe Speed 35% Rear-End 38%
21 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

WEDGEWOOD RD
38% 10% Unsafe Speed 30% Rear-End 49%
22 ALCOSTA BLVD / NORRIS

CANYON RD (N)
34% 7% Unsafe Speed 30% Rear-End 28%
23 CROW CANYON RD /

BOLLINGER CANYON RD
41% 0% Unsafe Speed 30% Rear-End 46%
24 CROW CANYON RD /

CANYON CREST DR (N)
55% 3% Unsafe Speed 58% Broadside 50%
25 CAMINO RAMON / NORRIS

CANYON RD
54% 8% Unsafe Speed 21% Broadside 35%
26 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

ALBION RD
41% 8% Unsafe Speed 32% Broadside 35%
27 FOSTORIA WAY / CAMINO

RAMON (W)
33% 5% Auto R/W
Violation
26% Rear-End 39%
28 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / 51% 14% Unsafe Speed 36% Rear-End 40%

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 33
# Intersection Name Injury Bike/ Ped Most Common Factor Most Common Type

MARKET PL
29 CROW CANYON RD /

CROW CANYON OFR (W)
11% 0% Traffic Signals
and Signs
34% Broadside 74%
30 ALCOSTA BLVD /

BROADMOOR DR
59% 6% Auto R/W
Violation
85% Rear-End 64%
31 MONARCH RD /

BOLLINGER CANYON RD
48% 0% Unsafe Speed 48% Hit Object 37%
32 DOUGHERTY RD / OLD

RANCH RD
36% 0% Unsafe Speed 35% Rear-End 40%
33 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

GALE RIDGE RD
55% 3% Unsafe Speed 33% Broadside 52%
34 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

WINDEMERE PKWY
50% 7% Traffic Signals
and Signs
37% Rear-End 65%
35 CROW CANYON RD / EL

CAPITAN DR
62% 3% Unsafe Speed 48% Rear-End 41%
36 CROW CANYON RD / TWIN

CREEKS DR
28% 3% Unsafe Speed 30% Rear-End 38%
37 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD
/ PINE VALLEY RD
48% 10% Unsafe Speed 34% Rear-End 32%
38 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

MAIN BRANCH RD
61% 18% Unsafe Speed 31% Hit Object 38%
39 DOUGHERTY RD / GALE

RIDGE RD
46% 0% Unsafe Speed 46% Broadside 41%
40 ALCOSTA BLVD / I680 50% 14% Auto R/W
Violation
25% Broadside 46%

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 34

2.8.2 Identification of Outlier Locations
To review any other locations which may have outlier conditions meriting consideration for potential countermeasures, a cut-off of more than five collisions during the analysis period (at least one collision per two years) was used. This resulted in the review of the top 149 locations for specific outlier conditions.

The criteria used in selecting and ranking the locations were:
• Injury collisions > 50 percent
• Bicycle/pedestrian involved collisions > 10 percent
• Individual cause factor > 50 percent
• Most common collisions were with Fixed Object
• Most common movement preceding collision was not “Proceeding Straight” • Collisions during darkness > 33 percent
• Collisions during either the AM or PM peak period > 30 percent This yielded 86 additional locations not in the top 40 overall collision locations that met at least one of the outlier criteria conditions. The locations and the criteria met are shown in Table 13, sorted by most criteria met. The table is ordered by most criteria, however the location’s overall rank number in terms of total collisions is shown as the “Overall Rank”.

Table 13 – Outlier Criteria for Locations Not in Top 40 Most Frequent Collisions # Overall
Rank
Intersection Name Inj B/P Factor Fixed
Object
Movement Dark Peak
Hour
1 87 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

ELLINGSON WAY
Yes Yes - - Making
Left Turn
- Yes
2 106 CASTLETON CT / SAN RAMON

VALLEY BLVD
Yes - Auto R/W
Violation
- Making
Left Turn
- Yes
3 147 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

WESTSIDE DR (N)
- Yes Auto R/W
Violation
- Making
Left Turn
Yes -
4 52 CAMINO RAMON / EXECUTIVE
PKWY
- Yes - Yes - - Yes
5 53 DOUGHERTY RD / AUSTIN CREEK
AVE
Yes - - Yes - Yes -
6 57 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

PURDUE RD
Yes Yes - - - - Yes
7 59 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

HOOPER DR
Yes Yes - - Making
Left Turn
- -
8 74 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / IRON

HORSE TRL
Yes Yes - Yes - - -
9 109 TALAVERA DR / SAN RAMON

VALLEY BLVD
- Yes - - Making
Right Turn
Yes -
10 112 CROW CANYON RD / BARBADOS
DR
- Yes Unsafe Speed Yes - - -
11 130 DEERWOOD RD / DEERWOOD DR Yes - Unsafe Speed - - Yes - 12 134 OLYMPIA FIELDS DR / ALCOSTA
BLVD
Yes - Unsafe Speed - - Yes -
13 135 WINDEMERE PKWY / AMES WAY Yes - Traffic Signals
and Signs
Yes - - -
14 141 PROMONTORY WAY /

DEERWOOD RD
Yes - Auto R/W
Violation
- - - Yes
15 145 RED WILLOW RD / CORIANDER CT Yes Yes Improper
Turning
- - - -
16 146 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / LONE

TREE CT
Yes - Auto R/W
Violation
- Making
Left Turn
- -

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 35
# Overall
Rank
Intersection Name Inj B/P Factor Fixed
Object
Movement Dark Peak
Hour
17 149 WINDEMERE PKWY / BETHANY
RD (S)
- Yes - - - Yes Yes
18 41 BISHOP DR / NORRIS CANYON RD - Yes - Yes - - -
19 44 ALBION RD / IVY HILL WAY Yes - - - Making
Left Turn
- -
20 50 CROW CANYON RD / ST GEORGE
RD
Yes - Unsafe Speed - - - -
21 51 DOUGHERTY RD / RED WILLOW
RD
- Yes - - - Yes -
22 62 STAGECOACH RD / ALCOSTA BLVD - Yes - - Making
Left Turn
- -
23 63 ALCOSTA BLVD / MARKET PL Yes Yes - - - - -
24 66 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

BARNWOOD DR
Yes - - - - - Yes
25 68 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

BOLLINGER CROSSING
- - - Yes - Yes -
26 75 SHERWOOD WAY / E BRANCH
PKWY
Yes Yes - - - - -
27 80 MONTEVIDEO DR / IRON HORSE
TRL
Yes Yes - - - - -
28 81 MONTEVIDEO DR / VERACRUZ DR Yes Yes - - - - -
29 82 ALCOSTA BLVD / VERACRUZ DR - - - Yes - Yes -
30 83 MONTGOMERY ST / MARKET PL - Yes - - - Yes -
31 85 ALCOSTA BLVD / BROCKTON AVE Yes - - - - Yes -
32 88 CROW CANYON RD / OLD CROW

CANYON RD
Yes - Unsafe Speed - - - -
33 92 ALCOSTA BLVD / WOODLAND DR - Yes - - - - Yes
34 97 MONARCH RD / JAPONICA WAY - - - Yes Making
Left Turn
- -
35 99 ALBION RD / ARROWFIELD WAY - Yes - - - - Yes
36 103 CROW CANYON RD / PARK PL (W) - - - - - Yes Yes
37 104 WINDEMERE PKWY / HOLBORN
WAY
Yes - - - - Yes -
38 107 VILLAGE PKWY / KIMBALL AVE - - - - - Yes Yes
39 113 OLD RANCH RD / BENT CREEK DR - - - Yes Making
Left Turn
- -
40 115 CANYON WOODS DR / ALCOSTA
BLVD
- - - - Making
Left Turn
Yes -
41 116 ALCOSTA BLVD / IRON HORSE TRL Yes Yes - - - - -
42 121 PROMONTORY LN / DEERWOOD
RD
- - - - - Yes Yes
43 126 ALBION RD / BELLINGHAM WAY - Yes - - - - Yes
44 129 CROW CANYON RD / REEDLAND

CIR (W)
Yes - - Yes - - -
45 132 NORRIS CANYON RD / TWIN

CREEKS DR
- Yes - - - Yes -
46 133 WINDEMERE PKWY / WINSIDE LN Yes - - - Making
Left Turn
- -
47 136 ALBION RD / SILVA WAY - Yes - - - - Yes
48 137 ALCOSTA BLVD / EL SUYO DR Yes - - - - Yes -

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 36
# Overall
Rank
Intersection Name Inj B/P Factor Fixed
Object
Movement Dark Peak
Hour
49 139 CROW CANYON RD / CROW

CANYON ONR W (E)
Yes - - - - - Yes
50 144 OLD CROW CANYON RD / RYAN

INDUSTRIAL CT
- - - Yes Making
Left Turn
- -
51 148 WATERSTONE PL / WATERMILL
RD (2)
- - - Yes - Yes -
52 45 DAVONA DR / ALCOSTA BLVD - Yes - - - - -
53 48 ALCOSTA BLVD / KIMBALL AVE - - - - - Yes -
54 54 DOUGHERTY RD / OAK VALLEY DR - - - - - Yes -
55 55 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD /

MORGAN DR
- Yes - - - - -
56 56 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / I680

SB OFFRAMP
- - - - - Yes -
57 60 ALCOSTA BLVD / FIRCREST LN - - - - - - Yes
58 64 STONELEAF RD / WEDGEWOOD
RD
- Yes - - - - -
59 69 WINDEMERE PKWY / TASSAJARA

STAGING
- - - - - Yes -
60 73 ALCOSTA BLVD / PINE VALLEY CT - - - - - Yes -
61 76 CROW CANYON RD / OLD MILL RD - - - - - - Yes
62 77 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 - - - - - Yes -
63 78 CROW CANYON RD / IRON HORSE
TRL
- Yes - - - - -
64 79 DEERWOOD RD / OLD CROW

CANYON RD
- - - - - Yes -
65 89 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

MORGAN DR
- - - - Making
Left Turn
- -
66 91 ALCOSTA BLVD / BISHOP RANCH
15 - Yes - - - - -
67 95 CROW CANYON RD / INDIAN RICE
RD
- - - - - Yes -
68 96 BISHOP DR / SUNSET DR - Yes - - - - -
69 98 WINDEMERE PKWY / LONGLEAF

CIR (N)
- - - - Ran Off
Road
- -
70 100 ALCOSTA BLVD / CANYON HILLS
RD
Yes - - - - - -
71 101 WINDEMERE PKWY / SHERWOOD
WAY
- - Unsafe Speed - - - -
72 102 WINDEMERE PKWY /

BELLINGHAM WAY
- Yes - - - - -
73 108 DOUGHERTY RD / RANCHO PARK

LOOP (N)
- - - Yes - - -
74 110 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOS

RIOS DR (W)
- - - - - Yes -
75 111 CREEKSIDE DR / CROW CANYON
RD
- - - - Making
Left Turn
- -
76 117 BOLLINGER CANYON LN /

CANYON LAKES DR
- - - - - - Yes
77 119 MARKET PL / SPRINGFIELD DR - Yes - - - - -
78 120 MONTEVIDEO DR / TOBY RD - - - Yes - - -
79 122 ALCOSTA BLVD / MONTEVIDEO
DR
- - - - - - Yes

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 37
# Overall
Rank
Intersection Name Inj B/P Factor Fixed
Object
Movement Dark Peak
Hour
80 123 ALCOSTA BLVD / THUNDERBIRD
DR
- - - - - - Yes
81 124 DAVONA DR / SPRINGDALE LN - - Auto R/W
Violation
- - - -
82 125 DEL MAR DR / PINE VALLEY RD - - - - - Yes -
83 128 OLD RANCH RD / BRIDLE CT - Yes - - - - -
84 131 MAIN BRANCH RD / MONARCH
RD
Yes - - - - - -
85 138 CAMINO RAMON / FOSTORIA

WAY (E)
- - - - Making
Left Turn
- -
86 140 PINE VALLEY RD / DAVONA DR - Yes - - - - -
Applying the outlier criteria to the top 40 locations resulted in 22 of the 40 meeting at least one of the criteria, as shown in Table 14.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 38
Table 14 – Outlier Criteria for Locations in Top 40 Most Frequent Collisions Rank
#
Intersection Name Inj B/P Factor Fixed
Object
Movement Dark Peak
Hour
24 CROW CANYON RD / CANYON

CREST DR (N)
Yes - Unsafe Speed - - Yes -
28 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MARKET
PL
Yes Yes - - - Yes -
38 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MAIN

BRANCH RD
Yes Yes - - - - Yes
40 ALCOSTA BLVD / I680 Yes Yes - - - Yes -
5 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / SUNSET
DR
- - Unsafe Speed - - - Yes
11 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CAMINO
RAMON
Yes - Unsafe Speed - - - -
30 ALCOSTA BLVD / BROADMOOR DR Yes - Auto R/W
Violation
- - - -
33 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / GALE

RIDGE RD
Yes - - - - Yes -
34 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

WINDEMERE PKWY
Yes - - - - Yes -
1 CAMINO RAMON / CROW CANYON
RD
Yes - - - - - -
4 ALCOSTA BLVD / BOLLINGER

CANYON RD
- - - - - Yes -
7 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / NORRIS

CANYON RD
- Yes - - - - -
8 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CANYON

VIEW CIR
- - - - - Yes -
9 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

DOUGHERTY RD (S)
- - - - - Yes -
10 CROW CANYON RD / I680 NB

OFFRAMP
Yes - - - - - -
15 CROW CANYON RD / ALCOSTA BLVD - - - - Making Left
Turn
- -
16 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

DOUGHERTY RD (N)
- Yes - - - - -
18 BOLLINGER CANYON RD /

CHANTERELLA DR
Yes - - - - - -
20 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / E

BRANCH PKWY
Yes - - - - - -
25 CAMINO RAMON / NORRIS CANYON
RD
Yes - - - - - -
35 CROW CANYON RD / EL CAPITAN DR Yes - - - - - -
37 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / PINE

VALLEY RD
- Yes - - - - -

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 39
3 POTENTIAL COUNTERMEASURES
The following section summarizes the measures found in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (CALRSM). The CA-LRSM is a tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information and guidance in a single document. This data uses information from the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse and three other FHWA published safety manuals — Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Roadways Safety Information Analysis. CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes and compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures.

The CMFs are used to prioritize a project through a process where collision types and risk factors are identified, candidate locations and matching CMFs are screened, selected and then prioritized based on costeffectiveness as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 – Countermeasure and Project Prioritization Process It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and refreshing faded pavement markings). As these issues are identified in the previous sections, it is expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document.

3.1 Countermeasure Selection
The following tables list countermeasures and crash type, crash reduction factors (CRF), federal funding eligibility for HSIP projects, and the systemic opportunity. The countermeasure list has been divided into three groups: signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (N), and roadway segments (R). The information included in the following tables are:
• Crash Types - “All”, “P & B” (Pedestrian and Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”. • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Federal Funding Eligibility – the maximum federal reimbursement ratio. • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” or “Low”.

The list of HSIP approved countermeasure in Tables 15 to 17 is not an all-inclusive list and only consists of

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 40
thoroughly researched countermeasures available in the HSIP calls for projects. The mix of countermeasure and CRFs included is intended to meet Caltrans’ goal for a data-driven process for local agencies to follow.

Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value listed is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for ‘all’ project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies.

3.2 Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-05
Caltrans recently issued Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-05, which in short specifies a specific signal equipment improvement that would fall under Countermeasure S02 (which is described in Table 14). The guidance discusses the benefits of the addition of retroreflective borders to signal head backplates. The Bulletin summarizes the benefits of the borders during low light and dark hours and has been proven to significantly reduce collisions at signalized intersections during these times. The treatment is also noted to be very impactful during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events where traffic signals at intersections in areas of power outages may become inactive and dark, posing additional risks to motorists and other users. It is recommended that the City begin to implement this change at all signalized intersections. The City should also consider revising City signal standards and specifications to include the retroreflective borders as standard for any future signal installations or modifications.

A quantification of the application of this countermeasure at the top nighttime collision locations in the City as an improvement program in Section 5.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 41
Table 15 – Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 42
Table 16– Countermeasures for Non-signalized Intersections

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 43
Table 17– Countermeasures for Roadways

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 44
4 COUNTERMEASURE EVALUATION
The countermeasure evaluation is for nine corridors which include the locations of 80 percent of the collisions in the City over the past ten years, divided into 17 analysis corridor segments:
• Crow Canyon Road
• Bollinger Canyon Road
• San Ramon Valley Boulevard
• Camino Ramon
• Montevideo Drive
• Alcosta Boulevard
• Broadmoor Drive
• Norris Canyon Road
• Pine Valley Road
These corridors were selected based on concentrations of collisions and encompass each of the top 50 most occurring individual collision incident locations in the City. Overall, 3,200 collisions occurred in the corridors over the past ten years.

In the following sections, each corridor segment is described with its safety and operational characteristics and individual locations are identified with potential safety countermeasures bolded and their identification number in parenthesis. Images are included to show field conditions, the source of photos is Google Maps Streetview unless otherwise noted. The corridor segments are summarized in Table 18.

Table 18 – Analysis Corridor Segments
Corridor Intersections Avg Collisions
per Year/mi
# From To Length
(mi)
Sig Unsig 10-
yr
5-yr
Crow Canyon Road 1 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon Valley Boulevard w/o

1.00 6 1 11.2 11.8
2 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Camino Ramon 0.55 5 4 76.0 61.9 3 Camino Ramon e/o Dougherty Road 2.77 11 2 7.4 7.1
Bollinger Canyon
Road
4 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Camino Ramon 0.64 5 0 48.7 47.5 5 Camino Ramon Dougherty Road (N) 2.05 7 0 15.0 12.4
6 Dougherty Road (N) E Branch Parkway 2.22 10 1 13.9 13.8 7 E Branch Parkway South City Limit 1.74 4 2 3.8 3.9
San Ramon Valley
Boulevard
8 North City Limit s/o Norris Canyon Road 1.23 4 5 11.5 11.2 9 s/o Norris Canyon Road Pine Valley Road 1.83 3 6 5.9 5.4 10 Pine Valley Road Alcosta Boulevard 1.08 2 6 1.7 1.1
Camino Ramon 11 Fostoria Way Bollinger Canyon Road 1.54 7 5 6.2 4.9 Montevideo Drive 12 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Alcosta Boulevard 1.29 2 16 3.7 4.0 Alcosta Boulevard 13 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Old Ranch Road 1.61 7 6 14.8 16.9 14 Old Ranch Road Crow Canyon Road 3.77 10 12 4.1 3.2
Broadmoor Drive 15 Pine Valley Road Montevideo Drive 1.06 0 16 4.2 3.2 Norris Canyon Road 16 Twin Creeks Drive Alcosta Boulevard 0.97 6 2 2.9 2.3 Pine Valley Road 17 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Alcosta Boulevard 1.23 1 15 1.6 1.8

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 45
The Table 19 shows the top 40 collision locations in the City, in terms of total collisions. The table includes information about the total collisions, weighted severity of collisions, and the rate of collision per every million vehicle entries (MVE). The table also includes the percentage of collisions which involved an injury as well as the percent of collisions that involved a bicycle or pedestrian.

Table 19 – Top 40 Collision Locations by Intersection
Collisions
Rank Intersection Name Total Weighted
Severity
Per MVE Percent
Injury
Percent
B/P
1 CAMINO RAMON / CROW CANYON RD 116 652 0.561 51% 9%
2 CROW CANYON RD / SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 116 588 0.622 38% 5% 3 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON PL 112 485 0.622 41% 0%
4 ALCOSTA BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 107 580 0.473 40% 3% 5 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / SUNSET DR 105 346 0.439 44% 0%
6 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 78 446 0.401 31% 8% 7 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD 69 254 0.309 43% 13% 8 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CANYON VIEW CIR 63 565 0.397 38% 10% 9 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (S) 62 323 0.266 45% 5% 10 CROW CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 61 212 0.266 54% 2% 11 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CAMINO RAMON 55 228 0.268 53% 2% 12 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / ALCOSTA BLVD 54 640 0.245 37% 7% 13 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / FOSTORIA WAY 52 156 0.357 35% 6% 14 CROW CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD 51 181 0.284 37% 8%
15 CROW CANYON RD / ALCOSTA BLVD 51 176 0.262 37% 4%
16 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / DOUGHERTY RD (N) 50 289 0.287 40% 0% 17 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 NB OFFRAMP 47 143 0.174 49% 11% 18 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / CHANTERELLA DR 46 189 0.290 52% 7% 19 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / I680 SB OFFRAMP 46 118 0.183 35% 2% 20 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / E BRANCH PKWY 43 404 0.435 53% 5% 21 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WEDGEWOOD RD 42 217 0.425 38% 10% 22 ALCOSTA BLVD / NORRIS CANYON RD (N) 41 115 0.398 34% 10% 23 CROW CANYON RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 41 461 0.292 41% 7% 24 CROW CANYON RD / CANYON CREST DR (N) 40 281 0.279 55% 0% 25 CAMINO RAMON / NORRIS CANYON RD 39 131 0.256 54% 3%
26 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / ALBION RD 39 133 0.293 41% 8%
27 FOSTORIA WAY / CAMINO RAMON (W) 39 108 0.398 33% 8%
28 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MARKET PL 35 235 0.221 51% 6%
29 CROW CANYON RD / CROW CANYON OFR (W) 35 96 0.215 16% 10% 30 ALCOSTA BLVD / BROADMOOR DR 34 257 0.439 59% 6%
31 MONARCH RD / BOLLINGER CANYON RD 33 123 0.313 48% 0% 32 DOUGHERTY RD / OLD RANCH RD 33 226 0.265 36% 0%
33 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / GALE RIDGE RD 31 250 0.210 55% 3% 34 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / WINDEMERE PKWY 30 114 0.353 50% 7% 35 CROW CANYON RD / EL CAPITAN DR 29 263 0.169 62% 3%
36 CROW CANYON RD / TWIN CREEKS DR 29 69 0.146 28% 3%
37 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD / PINE VALLEY RD 29 118 0.296 48% 10% 38 BOLLINGER CANYON RD / MAIN BRANCH RD 28 364 0.283 61% 18% 39 DOUGHERTY RD / GALE RIDGE RD 28 112 0.200 46% 0%
40 ALCOSTA BLVD / I680 28 215 0.206 50% 14%
The following section describes each corridor and specific locations within the corridors, their collision profile, description of the physical or operational conditions, and recommended countermeasures in bold typeface with the countermeasure code shown in parenthesis.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 46

4.1 Crow Canyon Road Corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road to West of San Ramon Valley Blvd
This one-mile segment of Crow Canyon Road consists of three lanes in each direction and carries between 23,000 and 29,000 vehicles per day. There are six signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection.

This section averaged 11.2 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 11.8 collisions per mile per year over the past five years. There are few driveways with direct access to Crow Canyon Road west of Twin Creek Drive. There is no on-street parking in the segment. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this section from Bollinger Canyon Road to San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

Twin Creeks Elementary School is south of
the corridor with access from Marsh Drive
via Bollinger Canyon Road or Canyon Creek
Drive and Dos Rios Drive.

In the summer of 2020, the lane striping was improved from Bott’s dots pavement markers to retroreflective thermoplastic paint.

4.1.1 Bollinger Canyon Road at Crow Canyon Road (#23)
Crow Canyon Road at Bollinger Canyon Road intersection location has the 23rd most collisions in overall citywide ranking with 41 from 2009-2020 and a collision rate of 0.29 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 19th out of the top 40 highest collision locations in the City. There were no bicycle or pedestrian collisions at this location. The primary cause of collisions was Unsafe Speed; however the location had a relatively large number of Wrong Side of Road collisions—four total with three in the last three years between 2018 and 2020. Rear end collisions (18) accounted for almost half of all collisions. The vast majority of collisions were eastbound (23) with westbound (14) the next most common direction. Northbound and southbound collisions only accounted for one collision each. A high proportion of inattentive drivers were listed at the location.

All four of the wrong-way collisions occurred west of the intersection (2,640 feet, 978 feet, 421 feet and onefoot from the intersection) where the roadway transitions from a rural two-lane roadway to the urbanized roadway to the east of the intersection. Three were traveling eastbound--two involved head-on collisions with serious injuries and the other ran off the road. The one that occurred one-foot west of the intersection was going westbound. This two-lane section of roadway
curves to the right as it approaches the intersection on a down-grade from the eastbound direction and has flashing warning signs and pavement markings for the upcoming
intersection approximately 1,200 and 700 feet west of the intersection. The centerline paint is faded (as of June 2019) and there is no median except for a raised median that begins approximately 450 feet west of the intersection and continues to the intersection.

Two primary issues occur in these conditions: vehicles fail to slow enough as they approach the intersection and they may cross the centerline as the roadway curves. The location already has safety countermeasures of curve advance warning signs (R24). It is recommended that double yellow centerline be repainted and rumble strips/stripes are installed (R30). Rumble strips should be placed approximately 1,300 feet to the west of the intersection, as vehicles approach the final bend in the roadway. This location should be monitored to determine if the eastbound curve shoulder should be widened (R16) to allow for visibility or space for guardrails, however under the HSIP other incremental measures are required prior to a funding application for the shoulder widening.
“11.2 collisions per year per mile over the
ten year analysis period and 11.8 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years.”
“Rear end collisions (18) accounted
for almost half of all collisions.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 47

4.1.2 Crow Canyon Road at Creekside Drive (#111)
There were a high proportion of westbound left
turning vehicles colliding with eastbound
through vehicles at the Crow Canyon Road at
Creekside Drive uncontrolled westbound leftturn. Misjudgment of eastbound through speeds by left-turning vehicles is likely the
major contribution factor. The angle of the
median break could be squared to force drivers
to make a slower but more direct left-turn (a
modified version of countermeasure NS15).

The existing curve may encourage higher
speed and shallower left-turns.

4.1.3 Other Corridor Locations
The other intersections in the corridor with more than seven collisions in the analysis period along with their overall citywide ranking in parenthesis are:
• Crow Canyon Road at Twin Creeks Drive (#35)
• Crow Canyon Road at Deerwood Drive (#66)
• Crow Canyon Road at Old Mill Road (#76)
• Crow Canyon Road at Old Crow Canyon Road (#71)
• Crow Canyon Road at Park Place (#98)
Most collisions in the corridor section were rear-end collisions due to unsafe speed. Systemic countermeasures to address unsafe speeds in a corridor are actions to slow traffic or to provide more time for drivers to make decisions, such as radar speed display signs and extended dilemma zone yellow phase time.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 48

4.2 Crow Canyon Road Corridor from San Ramon Valley Blvd to Camino Ramon (Interchange Area)
The ½ mile section of Crow Canyon Road at the I-680 interchange has three lanes in each direction west of the northbound off-ramp, widening to four lanes in each direction to east of Camino Ramon. The roadway carries 43,000 vehicles per day from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to the I-680 southbound ramps and 38,000 vehicles per day from the I-680
northbound ramps and Camino
Ramon.

The on-ramps are free-flow with
outside trap entrance lanes with
the westbound on-ramps consisting of two lane (one outside trap lane and one shared through and on-ramp entrance lane). The off-ramps terminate at signalized intersections. In addition to the off-ramp signalized intersections, this section has three other signalized intersections: San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Crow Canyon Place and Camino Ramon. There is no on street parking in the segment.

The transit lines operating in the segment are the County Connection 92X to the Pleasanton Train Station and County Connection 21, 321, and 95X to the Walnut Creek BART station operates from Camino Ramon to I680.

The I-680 interchange area of Crow Canyon Road has the highest numbers of collisions in the City. Over the ten-year analysis period, the segment averaged 76 collisions per mile per year, however in the past five-years it averaged 61.9 collisions per mile per year—a 18.5 percent decrease. The two highest collision locations in the City are the major intersections on either side of the interchange (at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Camino Ramon). The on-ramps are free flow and generally do not have high levels of collisions.

Intersections in the corridor from west to east are:

4.2.1 San Ramon Valley Boulevard at Crow Canyon Road (#1 - Tie) Crow Canyon Road at San Ramon Valley
Boulevard has the most collisions in
the City with 116 from 2009-2020
and a collision rate of 0.62 per
million vehicle entries which is
ranked 2nd out of the top 40
highest collision locations in the City.

Five percent of the collisions involved
bicycles (4) or pedestrians (2). The primary cause of collisions was unsafe speed. The most common type of collisions were rear-end collisions (36%) with broadside (26%) and sideswipe (22%) as the next most common type of collision.

The collisions were distributed roughly equally by direction of travel: northbound (28%), southbound (26%), eastbound (26%) and westbound (20%). The majority of at-fault vehicles were proceeding straight and most commonly had collisions with other vehicles proceeding straight or making left-turns.

The north and south leg curve as they approach the intersection and the intersection signals are only visible at the beginning of the taper of the left-turn pockets—approximately 280 feet from the intersection on both approaches.
“Over the ten-year analysis period, the segment
average 76 collisions per mile per year, however in
the past five years, it average 61.9 collisions per mile per year – an 18.5 % decrease.”
“Crow Canyon Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard
has the most collisions in the City with 116 from 2009- 2020 and a collision rate of 0.62 per million vehicle
entries which is ranked 2nd out of the top 40 highest
collision locations in the City.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 49
Clearer lane and directional signage on northbound and southbound San Ramon Valley Boulevard indicating I-680 access prior to the widening of the roadway as it approaches the intersection with Crow Canyon Road would improve the clarity of lane choice and provide advanced warning (S10). This could be accomplished through overhead signage or pavement markings.

The large physical size of the intersection means additional all-red clearance time should be included in phasing and consider overlap right-turns. There is an overlap left-turn phases in the northbound and southbound directions, where dual-left-turn lanes enter three receiving lanes on Crow Canyon Road. There is no overlap phasing in the eastbound and westbound directions since the dual left-turn lanes enter two receiving lanes on San Ramon Valley Boulevard, meaning overlapping right-turns would conflict with opposing left-turning vehicles. Delineation of left-turning lanes to the appropriate receiving lanes would clarify turning actions for drivers.

It is recommended that line extensions through the intersection for the left-turn striping (S09) be added to delineate the path for turning vehicles through the intersection. At a minimum this would include the outside opposing left-turns, however it could include both lanes and the east-west lanes as long as it is not deemed confusing to drivers.

4.2.2 I-680 Southbound Off-Ramp at Crow Canyon Road (#14) The I-680 southbound off-ramp intersection has the 14th most collisions in the City and had a collision rate of

0.21 per million vehicle entries which was the 33rd highest in the City. The off-ramp approach has dual left and right-turn lanes (four lanes total). A high percentage of the collisions at the location are between southbound left-turning vehicles and eastbound and westbound through vehicles (75%). The westbound through moving vehicles are
involved 80 percent of the
time and the eastbound
through moving vehicles are
involved 20 percent of the
time.

Reconfiguration of the signals and striping of the intersection to move the westbound signals close to the existing stop line and moving the stop line to the east 20 feet would cause vehicles to stop at a location in advance of the intersection (S08). Under the current configuration, the eastbound signal heads are 120 feet from the eastbound stop line.

Alternatively, the clearance intervals could be adjusted to allow for more all red time to allow for intersection clearance from yellow and red light running vehicles (S03).

4.2.3 I-680 Northbound Off-Ramp at Crow Canyon Road (#10) Crow Canyon Road at I-680
Northbound Off-Ramp has the
10th most collisions in the City
and has a collision rate of 0.30
per million vehicle entries which is ranked 17th out of the top 40 highest collision locations in the City. Only one bicycle collision and no pedestrian collisions occurred at the intersection. The primary cause of collisions was disregard of traffic signals and signs and unsafe speed violations. The majority of collisions were made by eastbound vehicles (65%) with the majority involved in broadside collisions (52%). The most common collision pair was eastbound through moving vehicles colliding with northbound left-turns from the off-ramp. “The I-680 southbound off-ramp intersection has the
14th most collisions in the City and had a collision
rate of 0.21 per million vehicle entries which was the
33rd highest in the City.”
“Crow Canyon Road at I-680 Northbound Off-Ramp
has the 10th most collisions in the City and has a
collision rate of 0.30 per million vehicle entries…”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 50
The collision history and the intersection geometrics indicate the northbound right-turn movement is partially masked by the left-turning vehicles due to the diagonal stop line. The off-set stop line results in an approximate 32-foot corner radius.

Options for improving the off-ramp are: to straighten the diagonal crosswalk to a triangle refuge island (NS19PB) with a channelized right-turn lane that enters an exclusive departure lane or to shift the angle of the eastbound approach to line up with the three through lanes of the departure to avoid the left-turn lane trap and better align with the off-ramp intersection (R17).

4.2.4 Crow Canyon Place at Crow Canyon Road (#3)
Crow Canyon Road at Crow Canyon
Place has the 3rd most
fcollisions in the City with 112
from 2009-2020 and a collision
rate of 0.62 per million vehicle
entries which is ranked 1st out
of the top 40 highest collision
locations in the City. The intersection is very close to the I-680 northbound ramps: the westbound departure is 300 feet from the I-680 northbound on-ramp and the eastbound approach is 600 feet from the I-680 northbound off-ramp.

No collisions involved bicycles or pedestrians. The most common primary cause of collisions was unsafe speed, however traffic signal and sign violations, unsafe turning and lane changes were also primary causes of collisions. The majority of collisions were westbound (40%) and eastbound (35%) with fifteen percent in the southbound and ten percent in the northbound. The most common types of collisions were rear end, closely followed by broadside.

This location has a number of collision hot spots. As shown by the graphic, collisions prior to the I-680 northbound on-ramp (westbound) and the departure from the northbound off-ramp (eastbound) are the major issue areas. Signal coordination for the platooning and clearance of vehicles is expected to have a positive impact to the east-west safety condition (S03). “Crow Canyon Road at Crow Canyon Place has the 3rd
most collisions in the City with 112 from 2009-2020
and a collision rate of 0.62 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 1st out of the top 40 highest collision locations in the City.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 51
The intersection also has approximately one collision per year 200 feet north and south of the intersection.

On the southbound approach, collisions occur at the roadway curve as vehicles enter and exit the Magnolia Square shopping center driveways from the continuous two-way left turn lane.

Improved designation of turning locations through a raised median (NS15) or pavement markings delineating turning locations and storage (NS07) would reduce driver uncertainty and judgment of proper storage location.

South of the intersection there is another signalized intersection located only 160 feet to the south to regulate traffic with the internal distributor road of Crow Canyon Commons. Short storage lengths, adjacency of parking stalls, constraints of adjacent land uses and individual parking areas limit alternative access points. The signal timing should be evaluated to ensure the highest demand movements for Crow Canyon Place at the Crow Canyon Commons driveways is accommodate. Striping and signage of “Do Not Block Intersection” at the Crow Canyon Commons driveway intersection with Crow Canyon Place will help discourage vehicles enterning a blocked intersection and allow clearance of opposing moves. Review of a potential for improved onsite connections to Camino Ramon to alleviate demand on Crow Canyon Place can be further explored.

4.2.5 Crow Canyon Road at Camino Ramon (#1 - Tie)
Crow Canyon Road at Camino Ramon
has the most collisions in the City
with 116 from 2009-2020 and a
collision rate of 0.56 per million
vehicle entries which is ranked
3rd out of the top 40 highest
collision locations in the City. Nine percent
of the collisions involved bicycles (4) or pedestrians (6). The most common primary causes of collisions were auto right-of-way violations and improper turning. The majority of collisions were eastbound (37%) and westbound (32%) with 18 collisions apiece northbound and southbound. The most common type of collisions were broadside collisions (40%) with rear-end (30%) and sideswipe (15%) as the next most common type of collision.
“Crow Canyon Road at Camino Ramon has the most
collisions in the City with 116 from 2009-2020 and a
collision rate of 0.56 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 3rd out of the top 40 highest collision
locations in the City.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 52
Left-Turns
The intersection has dual left-turn pockets on all approaches, however the left-turn pocket lengths are short:
220 feet on the eastbound, 140 feet on the westbound, 240 feet on the northbound and 140 feet on the southbound. This leaves little room to either merge into the lanes and little storage to remove left-turning traffic from the through lanes. Short dual left-turn lanes can cause issues during peak demand as spillback from the outside left-turn lane can block the taper to the inside lane, reducing the overall capacity of the roadway. Furthermore, the north/south left turns are split phased as the width of the intersection cannot accommodate both dual left-turns at the same time.

Based on 2019 traffic counts at the intersection1, peak hour left-turn volumes exceeding 300 vehicles per hour (a general rule of thumb to consider dual left-turn lanes) occurs westbound (301) in the AM peak hour and northbound (663) and southbound (337) in the PM peak hour. Based on these volumes, the conversion of the southbound left-turn lane to a single left turn lane along with the closing of the extension of the raised median approximately 100 feet north to add more left-turn storage could be considered to allow non-split phasing for the north/south left-turn lanes.

The larger right-of-way width of Crow Canyon Road as compared to Camino Ramon results in an intersection approximately 130 feet north-south and 80 feet east-west. The opposing dual left turn lanes must make their turns during a signal phase when four lanes of left-turning vehicles enter the intersection. It is recommended that line extensions through the intersection for the left-turn lanes be added (S09) to delineate the path for turning vehicles through the intersection. At a minimum this would include the north-south outside opposing left-turns, however it could include both lanes and the east-west lanes as long as it is not deemed confusing to drivers. The intersection should be assessed for revision of right-turn lanes and signal phasing. There were 19 reported collisions where one party was making a right-turn—seven were at the intersection in the eastbound direction which is the only right-turn move that has a signalized arrow. In the eastbound direction the right-turn lane is exclusive and is the entire length of the block from Crow Canyon Place. In the westbound direction, the right-turn lane approach is a shared through/right-turn lane.

Driveways
There are several driveways in close proximity to the intersection which could contribute to the high number of collisions that occur between the intersection stop lines and 250 feet from the intersection. Eleven percent of the at-fault party in collisions were entering traffic (12 total). This is double the collisions caused by entering vehicles than the other top overall ranked collision location in the City (Crow Canyon Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard). There are driveways at the westbound approach (160 feet and 260 feet from intersection), eastbound departure (190 feet from intersection), westbound departure (140 feet), southbound departure (190 feet), northbound departure (240 feet) and southbound approach (240 feet).

While the San Ramon Zoning Ordinance only requires a distance of 150 feet from the center of the driveway to the intersecting street, the high volumes on Crow Canyon Road necessitate a review of access management within 250 feet of the intersection is recommended to ensure safe access to and from the public streets.

Signage to notify upcoming driveways utilizing W 2-2 right side road warning signage could be considered to notify drivers of upcoming driveways. 1 CityWalk Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) W2-2 Side Road Warning Sign

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 53

4.3 Crow Canyon Road Corridor from East of Camino Ramon to Dougherty Road
This 2.75-mile segment of Crow Canyon Road is four lanes in each direction from Camino Ramon to Alcosta Boulevard, narrowing to two lanes in each direction to Dougherty Road. It carries 36,000 vehicles per day from Camino Ramon, reducing to 24,000 vehicles per day near Dougherty Road farther from the developed core of the City.

There are eleven signalized
intersections and two unsignalized
intersections—the unsignalized
intersections are at Reedland
Circle and at the shared entrance to the San Ramon Service Center/Castenada Yard on the north and Acorn Learning Center/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints parking lots on the south. This section averaged

7.4 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 7.1 collisions per mile per year over the past five years. There is no on-street parking in the segment. The City is planning to widen Crow Canyon Road by one travel lane in each direction and provide bicycle lane buffers and a new signal at the San Ramon Service Center Driveway.

Intersections in the corridor segment from west to east are:

4.3.1 Iron Horse Trail at Crow Canyon Road (#71)
The signalized crossing of the Iron Horse Trail is depicted below. It has the 71st most collisions in the City, with two collisions with a bicycle and two pedestrian involved collisions. The frequency of collisions are not an outlier as compared to other locations. However, to further limit the interaction between vulnerable users crossing Crow Canyon Road, “Stop Here on Red” (MUTCD R10-6) signs could be placed to indicate the advanced limit line and the trail curb cubs could be widened so that the curb taper is not within the crosswalk area which would allow more space for bicycles and pedestrians to enter the crosswalk.

Limited Signage/Notification of the Trail Crossing

4.3.2 Alcosta Boulevard at Crow Canyon Road (#14)
The intersection of Alcosta Boulevard at Crow Canyon is the 14th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year. It has a collision rate of 0.26 per million vehicle entries which is 29th of the top 40 most frequent collisions locations.

It is a T-intersection with
Alcosta Boulevard only at the
south leg of the intersection.

There were two collisions
“…7.4 collisions per year per mile over the ten year
analysis period and 7.1 collisions per mile per year
over the past five years.”
“The intersection of Alcosta Boulevard at Crow
Canyon is the 14th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 54
involving bicycles and none involving pedestrians. The most common primary cause of collisions was unsafe speed, however auto right-of-way, improper turning and traffic signal violations combined to be twice as frequent as unsafe speed factors. The most common types of collisions were rear end, followed by hit object, broadside, and sideswipe. The majority of collisions were eastbound (42%) and westbound (38%) directions.

Due to the T-Intersection, in order to continue north, drivers must proceed eastbound on Crow Canyon Road for one block to El Capitan Drive and southbound drivers must perform the opposite movement. Drivers making this move must merge across Crow Canyon Road in the 650-foot block. The data shows that no collisions occurred within this weaving block section, which is likely due to the ability of northbound rightturning vehicles to proceed during a left-turn phase (overlap) which would stop conflicting through moving vehicles. There is a “No Turn on Red” blank-out sign on the Alcosta Boulevard approach to reduce turning conflicts for pedestrian calls across Crow Canyon Road.

The most common movement prior to collision for the at-fault vehicle was making a left-turn—most commonly with the westbound left-turn colliding with an eastbound through-moving vehicle. Relative higher speed of downhill (westbound) vehicles reduce their reaction time.

The review of the signal coordination to determine if adjustment of the signal phasing to allow for more clearance time and limit the potential conflicts between left-turning vehicles and opposing through vehicles could be conducted (S03).

4.3.3 El Capitan Drive at Crow Canyon Road (#35)
The intersection of El Capitan Drive at Crow Canyon is the 35th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year. It has a collision rate of 0.17 per million vehicle entries which is 39th of the top 40 most frequent collision locations.

There were no bicycle collisions
and one pedestrian collision at the
location. The pedestrian-involved
collision was a wrong-way head-on collision resulting in a felony hit-and-run, but not a severe injury.

The most common primary cause of collisions was unsafe speed (50% of collisions). The most common types of collisions were rear end (65%). The majority of collisions were eastbound (42%) and westbound (38%) directions. The direction of the at-fault vehicle was predominately westbound (54%) and eastbound (40%).

Nine of the eastbound collisions (32% of all collisions) occurred more than 200 feet west of the intersection as the roadway curves first to the right and then to the left. The intersection has an adaptive signal control system and was retrofitted in 2021 with video detection which can provide advanced dilemma zone detection.

4.3.4 Barbados Drive at Crow Canyon Road (#109)
The intersection of Barbados Drive at Crow Canyon is the 109th highest collision location in the City with an average of less than one per year. However, over 70% of the collisions’ primary factor was unsafe speed and over 70% were rear-end collisions,
the majority of which were
eastbound past the intersection.

As with other locations in the
corridor, high downhill speed and
failure to react to slow-moving or stopped vehicles is the primary safety issue. The intersection has an adaptive signal control system and was retrofitted with video detection which can provide advanced dilemma zone detection.
“The intersection of El Capitan Drive at Crow Canyon
is the 35th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year.”
“…over 70% of the collisions’ primary factor was
unsafe speed and over 70% were rear-end
collisions…”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 55

4.3.5 St. George Road at Crow Canyon Road (#50)
The intersection of St. George Road at Crow Canyon Road is the 50th highest collision location in the City with an average of two collisions per year. There were no pedestrian or bicycle collisions at the location. Unsafe speed was the primary factor in 75% of the collisions which were 65% rear-end collisions; the at-fault vehicle was proceeding straight 95% of the time. Westbound moving vehicles were the primary cause of collisions 65% of the time. As with other locations in the corridor, segment speed, resulting in reduced reaction time to slowing, stopping or turning
vehicles is the primary cause of
collisions. Advanced notification
of slowing vehicles downstream
with a flashing beacon is present for westbound traffic. The intersection has an adaptive signal control system which was retrofitted in 2021 with video detection which can provide advanced dilemma zone detection.

4.3.6 Canyon Crest Drive at Crow Canyon Road - North End of Loop (#25) The intersection of Canyon Crest Drive (north end of loop) at Crow Canyon Road is the 25th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year. It has a collision rate of 0.28 per million vehicle entries which is 24th of the top 40 most
frequent collisions locations. As
with the other intersections in
the corridor section, the most
common primary collision factor was
unsafe speed and the most common type of collision was rear-end. Eastbound moving vehicles were responsible for 58% of collisions and westbound vehicles were responsible for 38% of collisions. Most collisions were rear end and occurred in or very near to the intersection which is indicative of the potential for signal timing alterations to extend clearance time (S03).

4.3.7 Shoreline Drive at Crow Canyon Road (#60)
The intersection of Shoreline Drive is the 60th highest collision location in the City with an average of 1.5 collisions per year. As with the other intersections in the corridor section, the most common primary collision factor was unsafe speed
but the most common types of
collisions were broadside, hit
object and sideswipe collisions—
the vast majority of which were in the eastbound direction (75%). This is related to the left-turning curve prior to the intersection limiting the distance available to see red lights or slowing vehicles.

Notification for eastbound vehicles of an upcoming red-light condition would encourage slowing prior to the intersection and ultimately lessen the chance of rear-end collisions (S10). This intersection was retrofitted with video detection in 2021, which provides advanced dilemma zone detection for the east and west approaches (S04).

4.3.8 Dougherty Road at Crow Canyon Road (#14)
The intersection of Dougherty Road at Crow Canyon Road is the 14th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year. It has a collision rate of 0.28 per million vehicle entries which is 22nd of the top 40 most frequent collision locations.

There were three collisions
involving bicycles and one
involving pedestrians (combined
“Unsafe speed was the primary factor in 75% of the
collisions which were 65% rear-end collisions…”
“…has a collision rate of 0.28 per million vehicle
entries which is 24th of the top 40 most frequent
collision locations.”
“The intersection of Shoreline Drive is the 60th highest collision location in the City with an average of 1.5
collisions per year.”
“The intersection of Dougherty Road at Crow Canyon
Road is the 14th highest collision location in the City with an average of five per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 56

7.8% of all collisions). Unsafe speed was the most common factor in collisions, and the location has nearly as many hit object collisions as rear end collisions. The light pole in the median of the south leg of the intersection is the likely hit object. Median warning signs are located within a few feet of the curb on the east and west leg medians. Lane extension striping for westbound left-turning (yellow for the inside left-turn lane and white for the outside left-turn lane) guide vehicles past the light pole and is intended to reduce hit object collisions.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 57

4.4 Bollinger Canyon Road Corridor from San Ramon Valley to Camino Ramon
This 0.65-mile segment of
Bollinger Canyon Road consists of
three to four lanes in each
direction and carries between
32,000 and 54,000 vehicles per day. There are five signalized intersections and no unsignalized intersections.

This section averaged 48.7 collisions per mile per year over the ten-year analysis period and 47.5 collisions per year per mile over the past five years. There is no on-street parking in the segment. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this section of the corridor.

Regulation of vehicle speed through signal coordination (S03) may be assisted by use of signage stating “signals set for 40 M.P.H.”
Intersections in the corridor segment from west to east are:

4.4.1 San Ramon Valley Boulevard at Bollinger Canyon Road (#6) The intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard is the 6th highest collision location in the City with an average of eight per year. It has a collision rate of 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is 9th of the top 40 most frequent collision locations. There were four bicycle-involved collisions and two pedestrian involved collisions.

Unsafe speed is the most common
primary collision factor and rear
end was the most common
collision type, however the next most common were hit objects (18%). Making right-turn (13%) was the second most common movement preceding a collision and this was driven by the northbound right-turn which is from a narrow, nine-foot lane shared with the bike lane, with a tight turning radius, with signal poles closely adjacent to the street. There were seven rear-end or hit object collisions related to the right-turn lane storage and beginning of the right-turn movement, and four sideswipe and one pedestrian collision due to the finishing of the right-turn movement.

Due to the short receiving area on eastbound Bollinger Canyon Road and the signal prioritization given to the Southbound I-680 off-ramp, the storage capacity of eastbound Bollinger Canyon Road between San Ramon Valley Boulevard and the Southbound I-680 on-ramp is constrained in peak period conditions. Installation of a “No Right Turn on Red” (NRTOR) illuminated sign activated to the queuing length on eastbound Bollinger Canyon Road between San Ramon Valley Boulevard and the Southbound I-680 on-ramp is recommended. “This section averaged 48.7 collisions per mile per
year over the ten-year analysis period and 47.5
collisions per year per mile over the past five years.” “The intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard is
the 6th highest collision location in the City with an
average of eight per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 58
Northbound Right-Turn
Four run-off road collisions occurred approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection where the roadway curves. On the northbound side, the curved roadway coincides with the receiving lane reduction. There are no current notification or warning signs of the curving roadway—other than pavement arrows for the northbound lane reduction. It is recommended that curve warning and “Lane Ends” signs be installed (R24) Southbound Curve Northbound Curve

4.4.2 Southbound I-680 Off-Ramp at Bollinger Canyon Road (#19) The intersection with the
southbound I-680 Off-Ramp is the
19th highest collision location in
the City with an average of 4.5
collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.18 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 37th out of the top 40 collision locations. The most common primary collision factor was traffic signals and signs violations resulting in a high percentage of broadside collisions (60%). The most common directions of travel of the atfault vehicle were westbound (65%) and southbound (24%) having collisions with opposing left-turning vehicles. Overall westbound through vehicles colliding with southbound left-turning vehicles occurred in 35% of all intersection collisions. Signal phasing improvements to allow for longer westbound clearance time (S03) would reduce potential conflicts—as a Caltrans controlled intersection signal, this would be a Caltrans improvement not for the City of San Ramon.
“The intersection with the southbound I-680 OffRamp is the 19th highest collision location in the City with an average of 4.5 collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 59
The south leg of the intersection provides access to the Bollinger Park and Ride. Due to high parking demand, parking along the entrance driveway is common. Only one collision in the Park and Ride driveway was recorded—a rear-end backing collision.

4.4.3 Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp at Bollinger Canyon Road (#18) The intersection with the
northbound I-680 Off-Ramp
is the 18th highest collision
location in the City with an
average of 4.5 collisions per
year. The collision rate is 0.17 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 38th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three pedestrian-involved collisions. The most common primary collision factor was unsafe speed resulting in 50% rear-end collisions. The westbound direction had approximately 50% more atfault vehicles than the eastbound direction. Overall rear-end collisions involving two westbound vehicles were 23% of all collisions at the intersection. The westbound through movement has one continuous green light lane which has channelizers that separate it from the two other westbound through lanes that only stop for northbound left-turns. New signage and striping in 2019 to indicate the right two lanes are for the freeway entrance only has led to a decrease in weaving collisions west of the intersection—there has only been one rear-end collision west of the intersection since installation.

4.4.4 Sunset Drive / Chevron Drive at Bollinger Canyon Road (#5) The intersection with Sunset
Drive/Chevron Drive is the
5th highest collision location
in the City with an average of
ten collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.44 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 6th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were no bicycle or pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The north leg of the intersection provides access to the Bishop Ranch retail and employment center and the south leg of the intersection provides access to the Chevron office complex. More than half of collisions occur with westbound vehicles on the west leg of the intersection as it approaches the I-680 northbound on-ramp.

Restriping on this section to add a solid white line for the exclusive right-turn lane within the last two years contributed to a 28% reduction in collisions at the intersection in 2019 as compared to the average annual of the previous nine years of data.

4.4.5 Camino Ramon / Bishop Ranch 1 at Bollinger Canyon Road (#11) The intersection with Camino Ramon / Bishop Ranch 1 is the 11th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.27 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 25th out of the top 40 collision
locations. As with the Sunset
Drive/Chevron Drive
intersection to the west, the
north leg of this intersection
provides access to the Bishop Ranch retail and employment center and the south leg of the intersection provides access to the Chevron and Pacific Gas and Electric office complexes.

There was one bicycle and no pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. Unsafe speed was the most common primary factor, with the most common type of collision rear-end in the eastbound and westbound directions. The installation of advanced dilemma zone detection for the east and west approaches would provide better signal phasing to account for the high-speed approaches of the intersection (S04). “The intersection with the southbound I-680 OffRamp is the 18th highest collision location in the City with an average of 4.5 collisions per year.”
“The intersection with Sunset Drive/Chevron Drive is
the 5th highest collision location in the City with an
average of ten collisions per year.”
“The intersection with Camino Ramon / Bishop Ranch
1 is the 11th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 60

4.5 Bollinger Canyon Road Corridor from East of Camino Ramon to Dougherty Road
This 2.05-mile segment of Bollinger Canyon Road reduces from four lanes in each direction from Camino Ramon to three lanes east of
Alcosta Boulevard to Dougherty
Road. It carries 38,000 vehicles
per day between Camino
Ramon and Alcosta Boulevard
and 33,000 vehicles per day between Alcosta Boulevard and Dougherty Road. There are seven signalized intersections and no unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. This section averaged 15 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 12.4 collisions per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease of 17.6%. There is no on-street parking in the segment. In late 2018, the median of this segment was improved to a planted median. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this segment between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

Major intersections in the corridor segment from west to east are:

4.5.1 Iron Horse Trail at Bollinger Canyon Road (#71)
The signalized intersection with the Iron Horse Trail averaged one collision per year, approximately 30 percent of which involved a bicycle or pedestrian—three bicycle and one pedestrian collision in the study period. Nearly all of the collisions occurred within the intersection (85%). The City is designing a pedestrian overcrossing which will eliminate the at-grade crossing.

4.5.2 Market Place at Bollinger Canyon Road (#29)
The intersection with Market Place is the 29th highest collision location in the City with an average of ten collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.22 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 32nd out of the top 40 collision locations. There were four
bicycle and one pedestrianinvolved collision at the
intersection. The most common
primary causes of collision were
unsafe speed and improper turning.

The most common type of collision was rear-end collisions (39%). The eastbound (44%) vehicles were most often involved in collisions. Collisions most commonly occurred in the intersection (57%) or to the east of the intersection (29%). Since unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue with the intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

4.5.3 Alcosta Boulevard at Bollinger Canyon Road (#4)
The intersection with Alcosta Boulevard is the 4th highest collision location in the City with an average of ten collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.47 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 4th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were two bicycle and one pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision was unsafe speed and traffic signal and sign violations. The most common type of collision was
rear-end collisions (34%)
followed by broadside (24%) and
hit object and sideswipe (17%
apiece). The westbound (45%)
and eastbound (33%) vehicles were most often involved in collisions. Collisions most commonly occurred in “This section averaged 15 collisions per year per mile
over the ten year analysis period and 12.4 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease
of 17.6%.”
“The intersection with Markey Place is the 29th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of ten collisions per year.”
“The intersection with Alcosta Boulevard is the 4th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of ten collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 61
the intersection (42%) or to the east of the intersection (25%) and west of the intersection (17%). Since unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue with the intersection, improved signal coordination and phasing to allow for more all-red clearance time (S03) with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended. Installation of an advanced warning sign such as Be Prepared To Stop with flashing beacons activated when the signal is red at Alcosta Boulevard and Signal Ahead pavement markings approximately 450 feet east of the intersection would allow motorists to adjust their speeds for stopped vehicles at this down grade section of Bollinger Canyon Road. The advanced warning could be activated by the signal on either an overhead mast arm or signs on the sides of the roadway similar to the warning signs east of the Crow Canyon Road and St. George Road. (S10)

4.5.4 Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle at Bollinger Canyon Road (#8) The intersection with Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle is the 8th highest collision location in the City with an average of six collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 12th out of the top 40 collision locations. There was one bicycle and five pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The crosswalks
crossing Bollinger Canyon Road
leads to the multi-use path for
pedestrian and bicyclists on the
south side of Bollinger Canyon
Road between Canyon Lakes
Drive/Canyon View Circle and Alcosta Boulevard. The City installed signs in 2021 warning the northbound and southbound turning vehicles to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The most common primary causes of collision was unsafe speed and unsafe lane changes. The most common type of collision was rearend collisions (42%) followed by broadside (18%) and hit object and sideswipe (15% apiece). The westbound (46%) and eastbound (37%) vehicles were most often involved in collisions. Collisions most commonly occurred to the west of the intersection (41%) with 27% occurring in the intersection. As with the intersection with Acosta Boulevard, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle at Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. Improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended through the newly installed video detection at the intersection.

4.5.5 Chanterella Drive at Bollinger Canyon Road (#19)
The intersection with
Chanterella Drive is the 19th
highest collision location in
the City with an average of
five collisions per year. The
collision rate is 0.29 per million vehicle
entries which is ranked 20th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were no bicycle and one pedestrianinvolved collision at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed and the most common type of collision was rear-end collisions (57%). The majority of collisions were by eastbound vehicles (56%). Collisions most commonly occurred to the west of the intersection (43%) with 35% occurring in the intersection. As with the intersection with other corridor segment intersections, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle at Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. Improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended through the newly installed video detection at the intersection.
“The intersection with Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon
View Circle is the 8th highest collision location in the City with an average of six collisions per year.”
“The intersection with Chanterella Drive is the 19th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of five collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 62

4.5.6 Gale Ridge Road at Bollinger Canyon Road – North (#33) The intersection with Gale Ridge Road is the 33rd highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is

0.21 per million vehicle entries
which is ranked 34th out of the
top 40 collision locations. There
was one bicycle and no
pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed and the most common type of collision was rear-end collisions (40%). The majority of collisions were by eastbound vehicles (58%). Collisions most commonly occurred in the intersection (35%) and to the west of the intersection (33%). As with the intersection with other corridor segment intersections, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection. Improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

4.5.7 Dougherty Road at Bollinger Canyon Road – North (#17) The intersection with Dougherty Road is the 17th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.29 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 21st out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle collisions and two pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The most common
primary causes of collision were
unsafe speed and the most
common type of collision was
rear-end collisions (30%). The
majority of collisions were by eastbound vehicles (58%). Collisions most commonly occurred within 100 feet of the intersection (84%).

The intersection geometry is wide with double left turn lanes and a wide center median making for a long pedestrian and bicycle crossing times. The class two bicycle lanes along Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road are floating (on the inside of the right-turn lane) near the intersection.

As with the intersection with other corridor segment intersections, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common issue at the intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.
“The intersection with Gale Ridge Road is the 33rd
highest collision location in the City with an average
of three collisions per year.”
“The intersection with Dougherty Road is the 17th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of five collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 63

4.6 Bollinger Canyon Road Corridor from East of Dougherty Road (N) to Dougherty Road (S)
This 2.22-mile segment of Bollinger Canyon Road is two lanes in each direction and carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. There are ten signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection in the corridor segment. This section averaged 13.9 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 13.8 collisions per mile per year
over the past five years. The
roadway provides access to several
schools:
• Quail Run Elementary
School
• Hidden Hills Elementary School
• Live Oak Elementary School
• Windemere Ranch Middle School
• Gale Ranch Middle School
• Dougherty Valley High School
There is no on-street parking in the segment. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this segment between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

It should be noted there were no collisions involving bicycles or pedestrians at the crossing of the Alamo Creek Trail of Bollinger Canyon Road near Dougherty Valley High School. This crossing has all of the key elements of a safe trail crossing: pavement markings, a gateway treatment, signalization, and an advance stop line.

The Alamo Creek Trail Crossing from Southbound Bollinger Canyon Road Major intersections in the corridor segment from northwest to south are:

4.6.1 Wedgewood Road at Bollinger Canyon Road (#22)
The intersection with
Wedgewood Road is the 22nd
highest collision location in the
City with an average of four
collisions per year. The collision
rate is 0.42 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 8th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were two bicycle collisions and two pedestrian-involved collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed and traffic signal and sign violations, and the most common type of collision was rear-end collisions (39%). The majority of collisions were by westbound vehicles (40%) and “This section averaged 13.9 collisions per year per
mile over the ten-year analysis period and 13.8
collisions per mile per year over the past five years.” “The collision rate is 0.42 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 8th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 64
eastbound vehicles (38%). As with the intersection with other corridor segment intersections, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

4.6.2 Monarch Road at Bollinger Canyon Road (#31)
The intersection with Monarch Road is the 31st highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.31 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 15th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were no bicycle or pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were
unsafe speed (49%) and traffic
signal and sign violations (18%)
and the most common type of
collision was rear-end collisions
(64%). The majority of collisions were by eastbound vehicles (52%) followed by westbound vehicles (33%).

As with the intersection with other corridor segment intersections, the unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

4.6.3 Blueheart Way / Main Branch Road at Bollinger Canyon Road (#38) The intersection with Blueheart Way / Main Branch Road is the 38th highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.28 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 23rd out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle and two pedestrian collisions, which combined to be 18% of all collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed (49%) and traffic signal and sign violations (18%) and the most common type of collision was rear-end collisions (32%). The
majority of collisions were by
eastbound vehicles (52%)
followed by westbound vehicles
(33%).

Given the proximity to Gale Ranch Middle School, the safety review of vulnerable users are of particular importance. In 2016 the intersection was improved with the installation of protected pedestrian refuges, making the crossing of Bollinger Canyon Road a two-stage crossing, yellow crosswalks, and pedestrian countdown signal heads.

4.6.4 Albion Road at Bollinger Canyon Road (#26)
The intersection with Albion Road is the 26th highest collision location in the City with an average of four collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.29 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 18th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle collisions and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed (32%), however traffic signal and sign violations and improper turning accounted
for 42% of collisions. The most
common type of collision was
broadside (35%) and rear-end
collisions (30%). The majority
of collisions were by southbound vehicles (34%) followed by northbound vehicles (32%). Collisions occurred within the intersection 36% of the time with collisions occurring on Albion Road 28% of the time—primarily at the Dougherty Valley School driveways.

It is acknowledged there is a high percentage of young drivers whose limited experience may affect “The collision rate is 0.31 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 15th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“The collision rate is 0.28 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 23rd out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“The intersection with Albion Road is the 26th highest
collision location in the City with an average of four
collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 65
judgement of conflicting vehicle speeds as they make unprotected (especially left) turns. Six of the collisions occurred in the 8:00 AM hour and seven occurred in the 3:00 PM hour.

The western driveway of the school has opposing shared through-left turn lanes which can be difficult to judge in an unprotected turn situation. Eastbound Albion should be reviewed for a potential prohibition on left-turns at unsignalized school driveway. This would likely necessitate the installation of a raised median, which could also prohibit left-turns exiting the school driveway. This would convert the driveway to rightin and right-out access only (S14).

The adjacent intersection of Albion Road at Ivy Hill Way is the 44th ranked collision location with approximately three collisions per year, the vast majority of which are broadside collisions in the intersection.

These collisions are generally from eastbound moving vehicles making left-turns having collisions with westbound straight moving vehicles. The current intersection phasing allows for unprotected eastbound left-turns, it is recommended that a flashing yellow arrow be added to indicate the unprotected left-turn condition (S02).

4.6.5 Windemere Parkway at Bollinger Canyon Road (#34)
The intersection with Windemere Parkway is the 34th highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.35 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 14th out of the top 40 collision locations. There was one bicycle collision and one pedestrian collision at the intersection.

The most common primary causes of collision were traffic signal and signs violations (37%). The most common type of collision was broadside (52%). The majority of collisions were by southbound vehicles (43%) followed by northbound vehicles (30%). Collisions occurred within the intersection 63% of the time. The most common collision
movement pairs were
southbound left-turning vehicles
colliding with northbound
straight-moving vehicles (20%).

As a 150 foot movement to make a southbound left-turn, those starting during the yellow phase likely do not exit the intersection before the northbound green phase activates. Review of the north-south phasing to ensure the clearance time is accommodating the field dilemma zone conditions (S03) is recommended.

4.6.6 Harcourt Way at Bollinger Canyon Road (#41)
Collisions at Harcourt Way have reduced in recent years from 17 from 2010 to 2014 to 7 from 2015-2019. No safety measures are recommended at the intersection.
“The collision rate is 0.35 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 14th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 66

4.6.7 East Branch Parkway at Bollinger Canyon Road (#21) The intersection with East Branch Parkway is the 21st highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.43 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 7th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle collisions and one pedestrian collision at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed (35%. The most common type of collision was hit object (44%) which numbered 17 in total. The direction of at-fault vehicle travel was evenly distributed among northbound, southbound and westbound traffic with most collisions occurring to the south and east of the intersection.

The two hotspots for hit object
collisions was 300-400 feet east
of the intersection moving
westbound associated with the
left-turn lane into Windemere Ranch
Middle School and 300-500 feet south of the intersection. The eastbound left-turn lane into Windemere Ranch Middle School channelization through the median opening could be expanded to provide more space to potentially reduce hit object incidents.

Eastbound Left Turn to Windemere Ranch Middle School
The northbound approach of Bollinger Canyon Road has a high density of near-roadway signage—East Branch Parkway directional sign and school speed limit sign with flashing lights in the median and sidewalk buffer zone on the northbound side of the roadway. There are several trees close to the roadway in both directions which, while they do not cause collisions, would result in hit object collisions.

4.6.8 Dougherty (S) Road – South at Bollinger Canyon Road (#9) The intersection with Dougherty (S) Road is the 9th highest collision location in the City with an average of six collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.27 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 27th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle collisions and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed (30%). The most common type of collision was rear end (39%). The direction of
at-fault vehicle travel was
northbound (34%) and
southbound (33%) with most
collisions occurring in the
intersection (35%) and north of the intersection (24%). Given the issues with high speeds in the northbound and southbound directions, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.
“The collision rate is 0.43 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 7th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“The intersection with Dougherty Road is the 9th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of six collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 67

4.7 Dougherty Road Corridor from south of Bollinger Canyon Road (S) to South City Limit
This 2.2-mile segment of the corridor transitions from Bollinger Canyon Road to Dougherty Road south of the intersection and is two to three lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 17,500 vehicles per day north of the intersection with Dougherty Road (S) and Bollinger Canyon Road in the four lane section. South of the intersection, the street continues as Dougherty Road which widens to six lanes and carries approximately 25,000 vehicles
per day. There are two signalized
intersections and three
unsignalized intersections in the
corridor segment. This section
averaged 3.8 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 3.9 collisions per mile per year over the past five years. The roadway provides access to Bella Vista Elementary School.

There is no on-street parking in the segment. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this segment between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

4.7.1 Old Ranch Road at Dougherty Road (#31)
The intersection with Old Ranch Road is the 31st highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.26 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 28th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were no bicycle or pedestrian collisions at the intersection—pedestrians are prohibited from crossing the south leg of the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed and the most
common type of collision was hit
object collisions (37%). The
majority of collisions were north
and south of the intersection. As unsafe north-south speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection, improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended. “This section averaged 3.8 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 3.9 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years.”
“The intersection with Old Ranch Road is the 31st
highest collision location in the City with an average
of three collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 68

4.8 San Ramon Valley Boulevard from North City Limit to Norris Canyon Road
This 1.2-mile segment of San Ramon Valley Boulevard is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 14,500 vehicles per day north of the intersection with Deerwood Road and approximately 25,000 vehicles per day south of Deerwood Road. There are four signalized intersections and five unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. This
section averaged 11.5 collisions
per year per mile over the ten
year analysis period and 11.2
collisions per mile per year over the past
five years.

There is on-street parking in the segment, predominately north of Crow Canyon Road. The County Connection bus transit Lines 21/321 operates in this segment north of Fostoria Way between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Walnut Creek BART station. The County Connection bus transit Line 35 operates in this segment between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station south of Crow Canyon Road.

4.8.1 Norris Canyon Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (#7) The intersection with Norris Canyon Road is the 7th highest collision location in the City with an average of seven collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.31 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 16th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were four bicycle and five pedestrian collisions which combined to be 13% of all collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were auto right of way violations (32%) and the most
common type of collision was
broadside collisions (38%). The
most common direction of travel
by the at-fault vehicle was
southbound (34%), followed by northbound (31%) and westbound (24%). The most common collision movement pair was northbound left-turns with southbound through moving vehicles. Nearly half of collisions occurred north of the intersection (47%) with three at the unsignalized pedestrian crossing 470 feet north of the intersection and 14 occurring at the unsignalized pedestrian crossing 850 feet north of the intersection.

The City is removing the crosswalk at the movie theater driveway 450 north of the intersection and installing rectangular rapid flash beacons at the crosswalk 850 north of the intersection to consolidate mid-block crossings and enhance pedestrian safety.

The north, south, and west leg raised medians protrude into the crosswalk, which widens the radius of leftturning vehicles, especially for northbound left-turning vehicles. These medians could be moved behind the crosswalk to allow for earlier turning movements while clearing the crosswalk area of vertical obstructions.

4.8.2 Deerwood Road/Fostoria Way at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (#13) The intersection with Deerwood Road/Fostoria Way is the 13th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.36 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 13th out of the top 40 collision locations. There was one bicycle and two pedestrian collisions at the intersection.

The most common primary cause of collision was auto right of way violations (33%) and the most common “This section averaged 11.5 collisions per year per
mile over the ten year analysis period and 11.2
collisions per mile per year over the past five years.” “The intersection with Norris Canyon Road is the 7th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of seven collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 69
type of collision was broadside collisions (35%). The most common direction of travel by the at-fault vehicle was southbound (47%), followed by northbound (24%). More than half of collisions occurred south of the intersection (53%) with 16
collisions near the In-N-Out
Burger driveways. At least 12
(75%) of the collisions in the
vicinity of the In-N-Out Burger
driveways involved turning vehicles. The north driveway is accessed from a raised median channelized leftturn lane, however the southern driveway is accessed from a two-way-left-turn-lane (TWLTL) as the roadway curves westward to the south. The TWLTL is present to provide access to property driveways on the west side of the roadway. As part of the improvements related to the Faria development there will be modification to the medians that will limit access to the northwestern most driveway of the development.

4.9 San Ramon Valley Boulevard from South of Norris Canyon Road to Pine Valley Road
This 1.8-mile segment of San Ramon Valley Boulevard is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. There are three signalized intersections and six unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. This
section averaged 5.9 collisions per
year per mile over the ten year
analysis period and 5.4 collisions
per mile per year over the past
five years. There is no on-street parking in the segment.

4.9.1 Pine Valley Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard (#35) The intersection with Pine Valley Road is the 35th highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.30 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 17th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary cause of collision was unsafe speed (35%) and the most common type of collision was rearend collisions (39%). The most common direction of
travel by the at-fault vehicle
was northbound (55%),
followed by southbound (41%). Approximately 60 percent of collisions occurred south of the intersection.

Delineation of northbound and southbound shared through-right lane with signage or pavement markings (NS07) would help to clarify turning lanes for approaching vehicles to indicate ahead vehicles may be turning in their lane and will be moving slower than through moving vehicles. “The intersection with Deerwood Road/Fostoria Way
is the 13th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year.”
“This section averaged 5.9 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 5.4 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years.”
“The collision rate is 0.30 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 17th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 70

4.10San Ramon Valley Boulevard from Pine Valley Road to Alcosta Boulevard
This 1.1-mile segment of San Ramon Valley Boulevard is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 16,000 vehicles per day. There are two signalized intersections and five unsignalized intersections and a number of commercial driveways including the Gateway Shopping Center driveway in the corridor segment.

This section averaged 1.7 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 1.1 collisions per mile per year over the past five years. There is no on-street parking in the segment. The intersections of San Ramon Valley Boulevard at
Barnwood Drive, Morgan Drive
and Montevideo Drive are outside
of the top collision locations,
however the Barnwood Drive and
Morgan Drive intersections have a large proportion of broadside collisions due to left-turns at the unsignalized intersections.

4.10.1 San Ramon Valley Boulevard at the I-680 Southbound Off-Ramp (#50) The intersection with the I-680 Southbound Off-Ramp had five collisions on the north end of the intersection, which has a discontinuous white shoulder line at the intersection.

The bicycle lanes along San Ramon Valley Boulevard could be extended through the intersection with dashes and and/or Shared Roadway Markings (sharrows). This would also improve the delineation of the northbound shoulder north of the intersection which is offset from the off-ramp stop line and shoulder line.

It is recommended the location be restriped to make a continuous white shoulder line to decrease potential confusion due to the wide shoulder and offset off-ramp stop line and shoulder line. An extension of the bicycle lane or the shoulder line from the ramp shoulder to the roadway shoulder would distinguish the shoulder lane from a travel lane (R28).

Discontinuous Shoulder Line
“This section averaged 1.7 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 1.1 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 71

4.11 Camino Ramon from Fostoria Way to Bollinger Canyon Road This 1.5-mile segment of Camino Ramon is two to three lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 12,500 to 15,500 vehicles per day. There are seven signalized intersections and five unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. This section averaged 6.2 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 4.9 collisions per
mile per year over the past five
years—a decrease of 20 percent.

There is no on-street parking in
the segment. The County
Connection bus transit Lines 21/321
operates in this segment between the San Ramon Transit Center and the Walnut Creek BART station.

Major intersections for north to south are:

4.11.1 Fostoria Way at Camino Ramon (#26 – tie)
The intersection with Fostoria Way is the 26th highest collision location in the City with an average of four collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 11th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were no bicycle collisions and two pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of
collision were turning and auto
right-of-way violations with
broadsides (35%) and sideswipe
(24%) being the most common
type of collision. Fostoria Way at Camino Ramon is an all-way stop-controlled intersection. The intersection was recently reviewed for signalization for a new development and did not meet signal warrants.

4.11.2 Norris Canyon Road at Camino Ramon (#26 – tie)
The intersection with Norris Canyon Road is the 26th highest collision location in the City with an average of four collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.26 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 30th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of
collision were auto right-of-way
violations and improper turning
resulting in the most common
type of collision of broadside
collisions (50%). The most common direction of travel by the at-fault vehicle was eastbound (38%).

Collisions at the driveways within 1000 feet north and south of the intersection accounted for half of collisions. Improved signage designating driveways and warning of turning vehicles should be considered for the adjacent unsignalized driveways (NS06).

4.12 Montevideo Drive from San Ramon Valley to Alcosta Boulevard This 1.3-mile segment of Montevideo Drive is two lane roadway that carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. In the corridor segment there are fourteen unsignalized intersections in between the signalized intersections at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. There is on-street parking along the segment. This section
averaged 6.2 collisions per
year per mile over the ten
year analysis period and

4.9 collisions per mile per
“This section averaged 6.2 collisions per year per mile over the ten year analysis period and 4.9 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease
of 20 percent.”
“The collision rate is 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 11th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“The intersection with Norris Canyon Road is the 26th
highest collision location in the City with an average
of four collisions per year.”
“This section averaged 6.2 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 4.9 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease
of 20 percent.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 72
year over the past five years—a decrease of 20 percent.

The intersections at the Iron Horse Trail and Veracruz Drive combined for about three collisions per year, more than half involving bicycles or pedestrians. This crossing of the Iron Horse Trail is unsignalized but has high-visibility signage. The most common primary collision factors are auto right-of-way violations and unsafe speed resulting in broadside collisions. All of the collisions at these locations happened during daylight hours. Collisions with eastbound vehicles were more common than westbound—likely due to the eastbound curve prior to the intersections.

Bicyclists were the at-fault party 40% of the time, meaning the needs for control of the intersection extends beyond the control of the east-west vehicle movement. In 2019/2020 improvements to the Iron Horse Trail crossing included adding Stop signs and pedestrian push button signs at Montevideo Drive. Touchless ‘wave’ sensors were installed for pedestrians. Sharrows were painted on Montevideo Drive in both directions.

Options for additional safety countermeasures at the Iron Horse Trail crossing include installation of a speed table/raised crossing (R36PB), installation of a median to delineate the crossing (NS19PB), or a signal control (NS03).

4.13 Alcosta Boulevard from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Old Ranch Road
This 1.6-mile segment of Alcosta Boulevard is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 28,000 vehicles per day near I-680 and 12,000 vehicles per day near Old Ranch Road. There are seven signalized intersections and six unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. There is on-street parking along much of the segment. This section
averaged 14.8 collisions per
year per mile over the ten
year analysis period and 16.9
collisions per mile per year
over the past five years—an
increase of 14 percent.

4.13.1 San Ramon Valley Boulevard / San Ramon Road at Alcosta Boulevard (#12) The intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard is the 12th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.25 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 31th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were four bicycle and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of
collision were auto right-of-way
violations (26%) and improper
turning (18%) resulting in the
most common type of collision of
broadside collisions (40%). The most common direction of travel by the at-fault vehicle was southbound (40%) with 43% of collisions occurring in the intersection and 44% occurring north of the intersection. The most common collision pair was southbound left-turns colliding with north through vehicles (12%). The southbound left-turn lane makes a greater than 90-degree angle turn, and therefore needs additional time to complete its movement. Review of the signal timing to allow for additional clearance time to reduce southbound left-turn conflicts with northbound movements (S03). “This section averaged 14.8 collisions per year per
mile over the ten-year analysis period and 16.9
collisions per mile per year over the past five years—
an increase of 14 percent.”
“The intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard is
the 12th highest collision location in the City with an average of five collisions per year.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 73

4.13.2 Northbound I-680 Off Ramp at Alcosta Boulevard (#38) The northbound I-680 ramp intersection is the 38th highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.21 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 35th out of the top 40 collision locations. There was one bicycle and three pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary
causes of collision were auto
right-of-way violations (25%)
resulting in the most
common type of collision of
broadside collisions (41%). The most common direction of travel by the at-fault vehicle was northbound (39%) and eastbound (39%). Adjusted signal phasing to allow for more clearance time and limit the potential conflicts between northbound left-turning vehicles and opposing eastbound through vehicles (S03) is recommended.

4.13.3 Broadmoor Drive at Alcosta Boulevard (#30)
The intersection with Broadmoor Drive is the 30th highest collision location in the City with an average of three collisions per year. The
collision rate is 0.44 per million
vehicle entries which is ranked 5th
out of the top 40 collision
locations. There were no bicycle
and two pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision was auto right-of-way violations (85%) resulting in the most common type of collision of broadside collisions (74%).

The most common direction of travel by the at-fault vehicle was northbound (47%). The most common collision pair was northbound proceeding straight and westbound proceeding straight (28%). The intersection averaged three collisions per year from 2009-2017 and average two collisions per year in 2018 and 2019. The intersection was recently improved to address broadside collisions.

4.14Alcosta Boulevard from Old Ranch Road to Crow Canyon Road This 3.8-mile segment of Alcosta Boulevard is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. There are ten signalized intersections and twelve unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. There is
on-street parking in parts of
the segment. This section
averaged 4.1 collisions per
year per mile over the ten
year analysis period and 3.2 collisions per mile per year over the past five years.

4.14.1 Norris Canyon Road at Alcosta Boulevard (#23)
The intersection with Norris Canyon Road is the 23rd highest collision location in the City with an average of four collisions per year. The collision rate is 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 10th out of the top 40 collision locations. There were three bicycle collisions and no pedestrian collisions at the intersection. The most common primary causes of collision were unsafe speed (36%) resulting in the most common type of collision of rear end collisions
(49%). The most common
direction of travel by the at-fault
vehicle was northbound (38%)
with most collisions occurring in
the intersection or to the north or west of the intersection. Right-turning vehicles were at fault in 31% of “The collision rate is 0.21 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 35th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“The collision rate is 0.44 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 5th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”
“This section averaged 4.1 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 3.2 collisions
per mile per year over the past five years.”
“The collision rate is 0.40 per million vehicle entries which is ranked 10th out of the top 40 collision
locations.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 74
collisions which is a high number—six of the 14 right-turning collisions occurred with westbound right-turning vehicles—east of the intersection. Given the lack of visibility for right-turning vehicles it is recommended a “No Right Turn On Red” sign be installed for the westbound right-turn (NRTOR).

4.15 Broadmoor Drive from Pine Valley Road to Montevideo Drive This 1.1-mile segment of Broadmoor Drive is one lane in each direction. It carries approximately 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. There are sixteen unsignalized intersections in the corridor segment. There is onstreet parking in the segment with permit parking in some sections. This segment averaged 4.2 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis
period and 3.2 collisions per
mile per year over the past five
years—a decrease of 24%.

None of the corridor
intersections were in the top 100
locations in the City. Approximately half of the collisions were rear-end collisions and no collisions resulted in severe injuries or fatalities in the corridor.

The roadway serves Montevideo Elementary School, California High School, Neil Armstrong Elementary School, Walt Disney Elementary School, Pine Valley Middle School, and Country Club Elementary School.

Crosswalks at the schools have yellow crosswalks and pavement “Slow School Xing” notification for approaching vehicles.

4.16Norris Canyon Road from Twin Creeks Drive to Alcosta Boulevard This one-mile segment of Norris Canyon Road is two lanes in each direction. It carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day east of Camino Ramon and 24,000 vehicles per day west of Camino Ramon. There are six signalized intersections and
two unsignalized intersections
in the corridor segment.

There is no on-street parking
in the segment except
between Twin Creeks and San
Ramon Valley Boulevard Drive. This segment averaged 2.9 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 2.3 collisions per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease of 22%.

4.16.1 Annabel Lane at Norris Canyon Road (#41)
The signalized intersection of Annabel Lane, to the east of the I-680 overpass, has the 41st most collisions in the City with an average of 2.5 collisions per year. Half of the collisions were broadside collisions.

Approximately 25% of collisions involved a bicycle or a pedestrian. There are class two bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the intersection,
with floating lanes on the
inside of the eastbound and
westbound right-turn lanes
that are discontinuous through the right-turn pocket taper. This bicycle corridor is an east-west route that avoids the I-680 interchanges of Crow Canyon Road to the north and Bollinger Canyon Road to the south.

The bicycle and pedestrian collisions were equally distributed in the north, east, west legs and within the intersection. There were no bicycle or pedestrian collisions on the south leg of the intersection. Bicycle lane green dashed markings are extended across the right-turn taper in the eastbound and westbound directions.

Potential improvements include:

Continuation of the bicycle lane by dashed line striping or sharrow markings through the intersection. “This segment averaged 4.2 collisions per year per
mile over the ten-year analysis period and 3.2
collisions per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease of 24%.”
“This segment averaged 2.9 collisions per year per
mile over the ten-year analysis period and 2.3
collisions per mile per year over the past five years—a decrease of 22%.”
“Approximately 25% of collisions involved a bicycle or
a pedestrian.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 75
Installation of advanced stop bars before the crosswalk with a bicycle box (S20PB) in the eastbound and westbound directions.

4.17 Pine Valley Road from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard
This 1.2-mile segment of Pine Valley Road is one lane in each direction. It carries approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. The intersection
of Pine Valley Road at San Ramon
Valley Boulevard is a signalized
intersection and the rest of the
fifteen intersections in the
corridor segment are unsignalized.

There is on-street parking in the segment. This segment averaged 1.6 collisions per year per mile over the ten-year analysis period and 1.8 collisions per mile per year over the past five years—an increase of 15%. The roadway serves Walt Disney Elementary School and Pine Valley Middle School. No single location had collisions that occurred at a frequency of more than one per every two years, and therefore the individual locations were not reviewed for potential safety countermeasures. 5 Priority Projects
Priority locations for safety countermeasures were identified by review of the collision data and field conditions. Recommended countermeasures were analyzed using crash reduction factors (CRFs) applied to the collisions at the location in the past five years that would be reduced by the countermeasure. Overall 38 locations were analyzed for countermeasure effectiveness.

Ten priority locations were selected based the following criteria:
• Location was in the top three ranked locations for Total Collisions, Weighted Collision Severity, and Collision Rate and had more than five percent of the collision severity in the past five years address by the countermeasure(s); or
• Location had more than twenty percent of the collision severity in the past five years that would effectively be addressed by the countermeasure(s).

These criteria prioritize the highest collision locations and the most effective collision countermeasures.

An eleventh priority project consists of installing retroreflective borders to signal head backplates at 100 signalized intersections, beginning with the 46 highest nighttime-collision signalized intersection locations.

These were locations with four or more nighttime collisions in the analysis period. It should be noted that some locations in the City have had retroreflective borders installed on signal head backplates in recent years which may be included in the quantification of overall benefit from this programmatic countermeasure project.

The total estimated cost for the priority projects is $780,000, with the instillation of an additional 54 signalized intersection retroreflective borders to signal head backplates costing an additional $270,000. This brings total cost to $1,050,000 for the complete installation of the retroreflective signal head borders citywide.
“This segment averaged 1.6 collisions per year per
mile over the ten-year analysis period and 1.8
collisions per mile per year over the past five years—
an increase of 15%.”

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 76
Table 20 – Collision Countermeasure Analysis of Benefit All Collisions Rate Weighted
Severity
CM
Benefit %
Addressed Priority Priority Rank
Cost
Estimate
Intersection Name Total Rank Per MVE Rank Total Rank
Bollinger Canyon Rd at Dougherty Rd (S) 62 9 0.27 27 289 9 147.4 51% Yes 1 $40,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Crow Canyon Rd 41 23 0.29 19 291 8 128.7 44% Yes 2 $270,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Canyon Lakes Dr 63 8 0.4 12 229 13 49 21% Yes 3 $40,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Chanterella Dr 46 19 0.29 20 72 35 46.2 64% Yes 4 $40,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Gale Ridge Rd 31 33 0.21 34 69 36 45.7 66% Yes 5 $40,000 Alcosta Blvd at San Ramon Rd 54 12 0.25 31 566 1 40.4 7% Yes 6 $10,000 Camino Ramon at Bollinger Canyon Rd 55 11 0.27 25 153 21 40 26% Yes 7 $30,000 San Ramon Valley Blvd at Pine Valley Rd 29 35 0.3 17 74 32 26.3 35% Yes 8 $5,000 Crow Canyon Rd at SB I-680 *Caltrans Location 51 14 0.21 33 35 41 21.5 61% Yes 9 $35,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Monarch Rd 33 31 0.31 15 65 39 18.7 29% Yes 10 $40,000 Retroreflective Borders on Signal Heads 100 Locations (46 Locations analyzed for CM benefit) 316.65 - Yes - $230,000 Canyon Crest Dr at Crow Canyon Rd (N) 40 25 0.28 24 225 14 30 13% No $10,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Wedgewood Rd 42 22 0.42 8 146 22 21.5 15% No $40,000 Dougherty Rd at Old Ranch Rd 33 31 0.26 28 191 16 14.8 8% No $30,000 Crow Canyon Rd at San Ramon Valley Blvd 116 1 0.62 2 445 2 14 3% No $15,000 Albion Rd at Bollinger Canyon Rd 39 26 0.29 18 73 34 13 18% No $50,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Dougherty Rd (N) 50 17 0.29 21 182 17 12.7 7% No $40,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Windemere Pkwy 30 34 0.35 14 74 32 11 15% No $10,000 Alcosta Blvd at Bollinger Canyon Rd 107 4 0.47 4 380 4 11 3% No $50,000 Albion Rd at Ivy Hill Way 26 44 - - 67 37 10.8 16% No $100,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at SB I-680 *Caltrans
Location 46 19 0.18 37 76 31 8.6 11% No $10,000
Camino Ramon at Norris Canyon Rd 39 26 0.26 30 66 38 8.4 13% No $1,000 Crow Canyon Rd at Twin Creeks Dr 29 35 0.15 40 33 43 6 18% No $50,000 Crow Canyon Rd at NB I-680 *Caltrans Location 59 10 0.27 26 99 28 6 6% No $350,000

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 77
All Collisions Rate Weighted
Severity
CM
Benefit %
Addressed Priority Priority Rank
Cost
Estimate
Intersection Name Total Rank Per MVE Rank Total Rank
Bollinger Canyon Rd at San Ramon Valley Blvd 78 6 0.4 9 124 25 5.9 5% No $51,000 Alcosta Blvd at I-680 Ofr 28 38 0.21 35 172 19 5 3% No $10,000 Bollinger Canyon Rd at Market Pl 35 29 0.22 32 35 41 4.1 12% No $10,000 Crow Canyon Pl at Crow Canyon Rd 112 3 0.62 1 224 15 4 2% No $55,000 Creekside Dr at Crow Canyon Rd 7 109 0.06 - 127 24 3.5 3% No $50,000 Alcosta Blvd at Crow Canyon Rd 51 14 0.26 29 89 29 2.3 3% No $10,000 Crow Canyon Rd at Deerwood Rd 15 66 0.13 - 9 49 1.5 17% No $50,000 Annabel Ln at Norris Canyon Rd 27 41 - - 29 46 1.2 4% No $5,000 Crow Canyon Rd at Park Pl (W) 9 98 0.08 - 9 49 0.5 6% No $50,000 San Ramon Valley Blvd at I680 SB Off Ramp 20 50 0.18 - 26 47 0.5 2% No $5,000 Crow Canyon Rd at Shoreline Dr 16 60 0.17 - 10 48 0.3 3% No $40,000 Alcosta Blvd at Norris Canyon Rd (N) 41 23 0.4 10 54 40 0.2 0% No $10,000 Camino Ramon at Crow Canyon Rd 116 1 0.56 3 336 7 0.2 0% No $5,000 Crow Canyon Rd at Old Crow Canyon Rd 11 87 0.1 - 30 45 0 0% No $50,000 Subtotal – Priority Projects 465 1843 564 31% $780,000
Subtotal – Retroreflective Borders on Signal
Heads 54 locations not analyzed as part of the CM Benefit $270,000 Total – All Projects 1,687 5174 760 15% $2,207,000
*Cost Estimate Assumptions:
• S02: Improve Signal Hardware - $100,000
• S03: Improve signal timing - $10,000
• S04: Adv. Dilemma Zone Detect. - $30,000
• S09: Pavement markings - $5,000
• S10: Advance warning - $10,000
• NS06: Warning/regulatory signs - $1,000
• NS07: Pavement markings - $5,000
• NS15: Direct. median openings - $50,000
• NS17: Install right-turn lane - $50,000
• NS19PB: Refuge islands - $100,000
• R16: Curve shoulder widening - $250,000
• R17: Horizontal alignment - $250,000
• R24: Curve adv. warning signs - $1,000
• R28: Edge or centerlines - $5,000
• R30: Install rumble strips - $20,000
• Retroreflective Heads: $400 per head, est. 12 per intersection: $5,000

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 78
Below are the top 10 locations with the highest recommended countermeasure benefit listed in descending order:

Dougherty Road (S) at Bollinger Canyon Road
Given the issues with high speeds in the northbound and southbound directions review of signal coordination and yellow time durations (S03) and phasing to lengthen the dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

Countermeasure Benefit: 147.4
Bollinger Canyon Road at Crow Canyon Road
It is recommended that double yellow centerline be repainted and rumble strips/stripes are installed (R30).

Rumble strips should be placed approximate 1,300 feet to the west of the intersection, as vehicles approach the final bend in the roadway, to minimize noise impacts on residences. This location should be monitored to determine if the eastbound curve shoulder should be widened (R16) to allow for sight-line visibility and potentially space for guardrails, however under the HSIP other incremental measures are required prior to a funding application for the shoulder widening.

Countermeasure Benefit: 128.7
Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle at Bollinger Canyon Road The unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the Canyon Lakes Drive / Canyon View Circle at Bollinger Canyon Road intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing to lengthen the dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

Countermeasure Benefit: 49.0
Chanterella Drive at Bollinger Canyon Road
The unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the Chanterella Drive at Bollinger Canyon Road intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing to lengthen the dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

Countermeasure Benefit: 46.2
Gale Ridge Road at Bollinger Canyon Road – North
The unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection, improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04) is recommended.

Countermeasure Benefit: 45.7
San Ramon Valley Boulevard / San Ramon Road at Alcosta Boulevard Review of the signal timing to allow for additional clearance time to reduce southbound left-turn conflicts with northbound movements (S03).

Countermeasure Benefit: 40.4
Camino Ramon / Bishop Ranch 1 at Bollinger Canyon Road
Installation of advanced dilemma zone detection for the east and west approaches would provide additional yellow time to account for the high-speed approaches of the intersection (S04).

Countermeasure Benefit: 40.0
Pine Valley Road at San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Delineation of northbound and southbound shared through-right lane with signage or pavement markings (NS07) would help to clarify turning lanes for approaching vehicles to indicate ahead vehicles may be turning in their lane and will be moving slower than through moving vehicles.

Countermeasure Benefit: 26.3

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 79
I-680 Southbound Off-Ramp at Crow Canyon Road
Reconfiguration of the signals and striping of the intersection to move the westbound signals close to the existing stop line (S04) and moving the stop line to the east by 20 feet would cause vehicles to stop at a location in advance of the intersection (S09). Under the current configuration, the westbound signal heads are 120 feet from the westbound stop line. The intersection is operated by Caltrans and the City would need to work with Caltrans to make any improvements.

Countermeasure Benefit: 21.5
Monarch Road at Bollinger Canyon Road
The unsafe east-west speed is the most common safety issue at the intersection, examination of the signal coordination (S03) and detection to lengthen the dilemma zone and align the yellow change and red clearance signal timing (S04) intervals is recommended.

Countermeasure Benefit: 18.7
Retroreflective Borders to Signal Head Backplates
It is recommended the City revise signal standards and specifications to include the retroreflective borders as standard for any future signal installations or modifications. The top 46 signalized intersection locations for nighttime collisions—those with four or more collisions with functioning signals during the analysis period— were analyzed as priority locations as shown in Table 21. The retroreflective borders will be applied to the remaining 54 signalized intersections (100 signalized locations total) as a systemic improvement.

Countermeasure Benefit (cumulative of all locations): 316.65 Table 21– Priority Locations for Retroreflective Border Installation on Signal Heads Intersection Nighttime Incidents
with Functioning
Signals
Weighted
Benefit
ALCOSTA BLVD and BOLLINGER CANYON RD 30 44.7
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and CHEVRON PARK CIR W 21 8.7
CROW CANYON RD and SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 18 19.35
BOLLINGER CANYON OFR and BOLLINGER CANYON RD (W) 18 1.65 CAMINO RAMON and CROW CANYON RD 17 3.9
CAMINO RAMON and BOLLINGER CANYON RD 16 5.25
CROW CANYON PL and CROW CANYON RD 15 5.7
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 14 1.8
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and DOUGHERTY RD (S) 12 4.35
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and MARKET PL 12 2.85
ALCOSTA BLVD and ALCOSTA OFR 12 19.2
DEERWOOD RD and SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 11 5.7
CANYON CREST DR and CROW CANYON RD (N) 11 4.05
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and WEDGEWOOD RD 10 20.1
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and WINDEMERE PKWY 10 4.8
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and CANYON LAKES DR 9 21.45
ALBION RD and BOLLINGER CANYON RD 9 2.1
ALCOSTA BLVD and SAN RAMON RD 8 20.85
CROW CANYON RD and DOUGHERTY RD 8 2.1

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 80
Intersection Nighttime Incidents
with Functioning
Signals
Weighted
Benefit
ALCOSTA BLVD and CROW CANYON RD 8 1.2
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and DOUGHERTY RD (N) 8 1.35
CROW CANYON RD and CROW CANYON OFR (E) 7 1.05
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and BOLLINGER CANYON OFR (E) 7 2.1
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and CHANTERELLA DR 6 0.15
ALCOSTA BLVD and BROADMOOR DR 6 19.2
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and GALE RIDGE RD 6 1.2
DOUGHERTY RD and GALE RIDGE RD 6 0.15
ALBION RD and IVY HILL WAY 6 1.05
MONTEVIDEO DR and SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 6 0.3
SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD and I680 SB OFFRAMP 6 1.95
CROW CANYON OFR and CROW CANYON RD (W) 5 1.05
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and EAST BRANCH PKWY 5 18.3
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and CROW CANYON RD 5 0.15
CAMINO RAMON and FOSTORIA WAY (W) 5 0.3
CROW CANYON RD and TWIN CREEKS DR 5 1.05
ALCOSTA BLVD and DAVONA DR 5 1.05
ALCOSTA BLVD and VILLAGE PKWY 5 1.95
CROW CANYON RD and ST GEORGE RD 5 2.7
DOUGHERTY RD and RED WILLOW RD 5 18.3
CAMINO RAMON and NORRIS CANYON RD 4 1.2
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and BLUEHART DR 4 18.9
BOLLINGER CANYON RD and TALAVERA DR 4 19.05
SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD and BOLLINGER CROSSING 4 0
DEERWOOD RD and OLD CROW CANYON RD 4 1.65

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Iteris, Inc.| 81
6 Conclusions
The San Ramon LRSP describes a framework for systemic safety review of the City’s transportation system.

The study reviewed conditions in the city in conjunction with collision incidents over the last ten years. The LRSP supports continuation of current City safety programs. It looked at 86 locations in the City in detail for the assessment of potential safety countermeasures. From the analysis, 11 priority projects have been identified:
• Bollinger Canyon Rd at Dougherty Rd (S) - review of signal coordination and yellow time durations (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04). • Bollinger Canyon Rd at Crow Canyon Rd – repaint the double yellow centerline and install rumble strips/stripes (R30).
• Bollinger Canyon Rd at Canyon Lakes Dr - improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04).
• Bollinger Canyon Rd at Chanterella Dr – improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04).
• Bollinger Canyon Rd at Gale Ridge Rd – improved signal coordination (S03) and phasing with improved dilemma zone detection and timing (S04).
• Alcosta Blvd at San Ramon Rd - Review of the signal timing to allow for additional clearance time to reduce southbound left-turn conflicts with northbound movements (S03). • Camino Ramon at Bollinger Canyon Rd - Installation of advanced dilemma zone detection for the east and west approaches would provide additional yellow time to account for the high-speed approaches of the intersection (S04).
• San Ramon Valley Blvd at Pine Valley Rd – Delineation of northbound and southbound shared through-right lane with signage or pavement markings (NS07). • Crow Canyon Rd at SB I-680 *Caltrans Location - Reconfiguration of the signals and striping of the intersection to move the westbound signals close to the existing stop line (S04) and moving the stop line to the east by 20 feet would cause vehicles to stop at a location in advance of the intersection (S09).
• Bollinger Canyon Rd at Monarch Rd - signal coordination (S03) • Retroreflective Borders on Signal Heads at 100 locations The total estimated cost for the priority projects is $780,000, with the instillation of an additional 54 signalized intersection retroreflective borders to signal head backplates costing an additional $270,000. This brings total cost to $1,050,000 for the complete installation of the retroreflective signal head borders citywide.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan) Innovating Through Informatics™
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2125
Oakland, CA 94612
iteris.com
© 2021 Iteris, Inc. All rights reserved.

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: A: Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022-047 : Local Roadway Safety Plan)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director By: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Mayor appoint two Council Members to the General Plan Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee and affirm the members of the Planning Commission General Plan Ad Hoc Committee for participation.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The General Plan Update was initiated by the City Council on May 11, 2021 to update all General Plan Elements, including the Housing Element, and the Climate Action Plan. New relevant topics will be added to the General Plan to comply with recent updates/mandates in State law, and assess the City’s changing landscape.

The need for additional Housing Opportunity Sites (HOS) draws attention to the conflict between competing land use needs and policy objectives. With the constraints of a UGB and desire for infill development to reduce urban sprawl, City policy has been to focus development on existing underdeveloped parcels. High RHNAs in past housing cycles during the 2000s required the City to create HOS on larger parcels that could be more easily redeveloped. The land use designation on various San Ramon shopping centers were amended from retail to mixed use because they could support higher densities while placing goods and services in close proximity to residents.

In 2017, in light of the changing retail climate and the approval of the City Center project, the City prepared a Retail Analysis that evaluated existing retail sites and provided recommendations on long term strategies for retail and mixed use development. As a result, the City updated the Economic Element, Land Use, and Housing Element policies in 2018 to better align with the new retail strategy. With the addition of CityWalk as a HOS, residential land uses were removed from several shopping centers such as Diablo Plaza (San Ramon Valley Blvd. and Crow Canyon Road) and Gateway Center (San Ramon Valley Blvd. and Alcosta Blvd.); however, the mixed use designation was retained on Crow Canyon Commons (Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Place), the Marketplace (Market Place and Alcosta Blvd.), and Country Club Village (Alcosta Blvd. and Village Parkway).

10.2 Packet Pg. 134
Because mixed use projects generally result in the conversion/reduction of retail uses in order to accomodate on-site residential, there is a concern regarding the loss of retail uses and sales tax revenue for the City. As part of the Update process, the City is preparing a new Retail Analysis to better understand the current retail conditions and how best to move forward with balancing the retail and residential needs of the City. This analysis would include the short-term and longterm retail sector impacts of COVID-19 and the increasing trend towards online retail sales which will necessitate re-examining the appropriate mix of retail and service-based uses to activate shopping centers.

One policy consideration is that with the recent passage of Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), parcels that allowed for residential land uses as of January 1, 2018 are highly restricted from being converted to a non-residential or less-intensive use through January 2025, and with the adoption of SB 8 extends SB 330’s sunset date from 2025 to 2030. Even a reduction in development standards such as height or density would be limited by the State. Therefore, any existing parcels that already allow for mixed use or residential use will likely have to maintain these land uses in General Plan 2040.

Based on these factors, at the March 26, 2022 City Council Goal Setting Session, the Council agreed to form an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of two City Council and two Planning Commissioners to update the definition of Mixed Use to convey the City’s desire to preserve retail on existing neighborhood retail centers, while meeting our RHNA obligation.

The Council/Commission Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee would be formed for a limited purpose and term, and once the work is complete will be terminated. For continuity and to avoid Brown Act concerns, staff would recommend the Mixed Use Ad Hoc Committee include the members of the Planning Commission General Plan Ad Hoc Committee. As with the Planning Commission General Plan Ad Hoc Committee, the meetings would be noticed and open to the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff to coordinate meetings.

10.2 Packet Pg. 135

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director By: Cindy Yee, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Introduction of Ordinance (Next in Line) for Westside Specific Plan (WSP) Amendment and Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SPA 19-400-001 & IS 19-250-002)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Applicant has filed a Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan, Architectural Review Land Use Permit, Tree Removal, and Environmental Review applications for a new 84-bed Senior Assisted Living Facility on a 0.7-acre site at the corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Westside Drive. The site currently consists of a vacant, historically-significant single-family residential house. The development project is located within the Westside Specific Plan area with a current land use designation of ‘Park’; the Applicant is requesting a land use change to ‘Residential’ to match the current General Plan ‘Residential’ land use designation and associated amendments to the Specific Plan to facilitate the care facility development.

The Project requires review and approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) as well as development applications and CEQA review for the development proposal. Pursuant to Measure G, this public hearing is the second of three required public hearings before the City Council on the SPA.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report; introduce the Ordinance, waive the reading and read by title only, open the public hearing to receive public testimony; close the public testimony portion of the hearing and provide feedback to staff on the proposed Westside Specific Plan (WSP) Amendment; continue the public hearing to April 26, 2022 for additional public comment on the proposed WSP Amendment; and set April 26, 2022 as the date for Ordinance adoption.

INTRODUCTION
Application: Description:

10.3 Packet Pg. 136
SPA 19-400-001 Specific Plan Amendment application to amend the Westside Specific Plan in order to facilitate the development of the El Nido Senior Assisted Living Facility
IS 19-250-002 Environmental review application for the proposed Project.

Location:

Figure 1: Westside Specific Plan Area Land Use Plan
Figure 2: El Nido Development Project Area
19251 San Ramon Valley Blvd. (APN: 211-100-057)

10.3 Packet Pg. 137
Applicant:

Solhail Siddiqi
18 Winding Creek Way
San Ramon, CA 94583
Property Owner:

El Nido Foundation LLC (Solhail Siddiqi)
18 Winding Creek Way
San Ramon, CA 94583
General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation:

Single-Family Medium Density Westside Specific Plan—Park (P) Site Description:

The proposed location of the Senior Assisted Living Facility is approximately 0.7-acres in size and a flat elevation at the southwest corner of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Westside Drive.

The site is currently developed with a vacant two-story historically significant single-family residential House (not suitable for occupancy) with three existing mature oak trees on the property. The Westside Specific Plan Area is an approximately 3,300-acre area that guides the preservation and development on the west side of the City.

Specific Plan Amendment/Measure G:

Government Code § 65453 states that a Specific Plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a General Plan. The San Ramon General Plan is subject to Measure G (1999), which requires that subsequent amendments to the General Plan be adopted by a 4/5 vote of the City Council after recommendation in favor of such amendment is made by a 4/5 vote of the Planning Commission following a minimum of three public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the initial joint public hearing to introduce the Specific Plan Amendment to each body (which was held on December 21, 2021), a Planning Commission hearing was conducted on January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 01-22 recommending City Council approval of the proposed SPA. Tonight is the City Council’s second public hearing to consider the SPA and CEQA analysis.

Environmental Review/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status:

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended and is attached as Attachment B (electronic copy of IS/MND available at:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Depart ments/Community%20Development/Planning/El%20Nido_ISMND_February2022_PublicRevie wDraft.pdf.)
Additionally, a Response to Comments (RTC) Memorandum, dated March 9, 2022 was prepared by the City’s consultant to address comments received on the IS/MND (Attachment C, Exhibit

10.3 Packet Pg. 138
C, Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22).

Public Outreach/Notification:

On April 1, 2022, a 10-day notice of the City Council public hearing for April 12, 2022 was posted in the East Bay Times newspaper and mailed to interested parties, pursuant to Government Code Section 65091(a)(4) and Chapter D7-IV of the Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In November 1989, the City adopted the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) which guides the preservation and development of the approximately 3,300 acre Westside area of the City. In 1997, the City adopted an update to the WSP (Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: 1997 Current WSP Land Use Plan
The El Nido House (“House”) is one of the oldest homes in the San Ramon Valley and associated with one of the pioneer families in the Valley. The Harlan family constructed the home, referred to as “El Nido” (The Nest), and moved the home to its current site roughly between 1856 and 1858. The site’s original inhabitants, Joel and Minerva Harlan, resided on the property and operated a ranch and horticultural business along San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

The property and home has been passed down through several generations of Harlans and Geldermanns.

10.3 Packet Pg. 139
Figure 4: Photo of El Nido Parcel, corner of Westside Dr. & San Ramon Valley Blvd.

As part of the General Plan (GP) and Westside Specific Plan (WSP), the House site was originally designated as a Park in the 1980s. In 1994, the Greystone Ranch subdivision located on the northeast corner of Westside Drive and San Ramon Valley Blvd. was approved for 88 single family homes, the Oak Creek Condominiums for 92 multiple-family attached residences, and the 0.7-acre subject site for a future Park. At several points in time during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the property owner had offered to dedicate the property to the City for a possible historic park on the site. These offers were not acted upon, and in 2011, the City approved a General Plan Amendment at the request of the property owner to change the parcel’s land use designation from Parks to Single Family Medium Density Residential with the expectation that when the property were to be developed, the WSP would need to be amended to align the WSP land use designation with the GP land use designation. Since 2011, the property owner has sought opportunities to relocate the House in order to develop the site.

The El Nido House

10.3 Packet Pg. 140
Figure 5: General Plan 2035 Land Use Map (19251 San Ramon Valley Blvd.) On November 22, 2017, the Applicant submitted project plans for a Development Plan Concept Review for the proposed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly development on the proposed site. As part of that concept, the Applicant was requesting to relocate the House to 2610 Pine Valley Road in an effort to preserve the historic character of the house. Ultimately, after much discussion and analysis, the relocation proposal was not successful, and the Applicant was left to explore other options including addressing the House on site.

In December 2019, the Applicant presented a 60-room three-story Senior Assisted Living Facility development concept to the Planning Commission that would move the House to the eastern property line in order to preserve the structure on-site. The first floor of the House is proposed to serve as the dining and kitchen area of the Care Facility while the second floor would be used as the Facility’s office. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the proposed land use and the on-site House relocation concept, but requested additional information on the site design, lot coverage, and circulation.

In March 2020, the Applicant submitted their formal development plan applications for a Specific Plan Amendment, Development Plan, Architectural Review, Land Use Permit, Initial Study, and Tree Removal. The applications were deemed complete for processing on August 17, 2020. In September 2020, the Applicant requested the applications be placed on hold so that they could work with the State Office of Historic Preservation on the disposition of the House.

In January 2021, the Applicant provided additional information prepared by their Architectural Historian on the history of the House and how the House can maintain its eligibility for historical designation. In May 2021, the City selected an environmental consultant to prepare the CEQA environmental analysis.

On August 12, 2021, the ARB reviewed the proposed development applications and after providing feedback on the Project design, requested that the item be continued to a future ARB meeting date to allow the Applicant an opportunity to address the comments received. On October 6, 2021, the Applicant submitted revised Project plans. Changes to the project plans

10.3 Packet Pg. 141
dated October 6, 2021 were limited to modifications to the architecture and elevations drawings; no changes were made to the site plan and landscape plans.

On October 28, 2021, the ARB reviewed the revised development applications and after providing additional feedback on the Project design, recommended Final Architectural Review approval with comments. On December 13, 2021, the Applicant submitted updated Project Plans (dated December 13, 2021) in response to the ARB’s comments from the October 28th meeting.

On December 21, 2021, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint public hearing (first of three scheduled public hearings) on the Westside Specific Plan Update (WSP), and the El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project (link to December 21, 2021 staff report http://sanramonca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3012&Inline=True). The Council and Commission received a staff report, applicant presentation, and 26 written and 27 verbal public comments and then provided feedback on the WSP Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living project. The Commission requested staff address several questions related to the proposed Project and continued the public hearing to January 18, 2022.

On January 18, 2022, after receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 15, 2022 to allow staff additional time to complete the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and respond to the Commission’s questions and comments. On February 15, 2022, after receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 15, 2022.

On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held their fourth public hearing on the WSP Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living project and after discussing the proposed SPA and IS/MND, adopted Resolution No. 01-22 recommending City Council approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and adoption of the IS/MND (Attachment C).

CEQA Analysis Summary
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by the City’s consultant to analyze potential impacts from the proposed project to the environment pursuant to CEQA (Attachment B). The analysis in the IS/MND concluded that the proposed Project, with implementation of mitigation measures, will have no significant impacts on the environment.

The Applicant has agreed to compliance with all mitigation measure in the IS/MND. As such, preparation of an EIR is not required by CEQA. After consideration of the verbal and written comments received and the Response to Comments Memorandum prepared by the City’s environmental Consultant, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 01-22 recommending adoption of the IS/MND to the City Council.

Proposed WSP Amendment
The El Nido Senior Assisted Living site has a Medium Density (6.0 to 14.0 dwelling units/acre) General Plan (GP) land use designation. In 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-11 recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment from a “Park” to a “Medium-Density” Residential designation. Subsequent to the

10.3 Packet Pg. 142
Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2011-029 approving the General Plan Amendment. While the GP land use designation is “Medium-Density Residential”, the site’s WSP land use designation is “Parks” and has remained unchanged since its designation in 1989 when the WSP was originally adopted. At the time of the site’s GPA in 2011, no development was proposed and it was determined that in the future, when the site was developed, the WSP would be amended to reflect and align with the “MediumDensity Residential” GP land use. Since 2017, after a change in property ownership, the Applicant has sought to amend the WSP align with the GP land use in order to facilitate the development of the El Nido Senior Assisted Living Facility.

The Planning Commission has held four public hearings on the WSP Amendment and El Nido Senior Assisted Living Project. The Applicant is proposing seven amendments and the City is proposing one amendment to the 1997 Westside Specific Plan. On February 15, 2022, based on feedback received regarding the proposed WSP Amendment, staff presented updated text to the Planning Commission to clarify the type of development and land uses the proposed text changes would apply to and removed vague language. On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22, recommending City Council approval of SPA 19-400-001 and IS 19-250-002 which includes 8 proposed changes to the WSP as detailed in Exhibit A, Proposed WSP Amendments, dated February 15, 2022 (Attachment C).

Introduction of Ordinance
The WSP, in addition to being a policy document, is intended to regulate land use and development standards within the Plan Area. Because the WSP is largely a policy document, the land use and development standards contained within must be adopted by Ordinance to have regulatory (zoning) authority. When adopted by Ordinance, the WSP (including Amendments to the Plan) will function as the Zoning Ordinance for the area; where the WSP is silent such as procedures and definitions, the Zoning Ordinance will govern. The adopting Ordinance indicates that the Specific Plan is the primary land use and development regulatory document for the WSP.

The proposed Ordinance would signify that the Specific Plan is the governing land use document for properties within that area.

Staff is requesting that the City Council introduce the Ordinance (Attachment A), waive the reading and read the Ordinance by title only. The introduction of the Ordinance is the first part of a two-part process of adopting an Ordinance and provides the opportunity for discussion of the proposed Ordinance. Adoption of the Ordinance is the second and final action by the Council and, if deemed appropriate by the Council after taking public testimony, will take place at a future public hearing. Thirty days following the adoption of the Ordinance, it will become effective.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Development Project is an Applicant-initiated project. As such, the project applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the processing of entitlement and any special studies or contract services required to complete the review of the project. New development

10.3 Packet Pg. 143
and the reinvestment of existing properties may result in a higher property tax basis and other impact fees and funding mechanisms to ensure that City service levels are maintained.

NEXT STEPS

1. City Council Public Hearing No. 3 on April 26, 2022

2. If appropriate, adoption of the WSP Amendment and IS/MND ATTACHMENT:

A: ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE) - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY

COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ZONING REGULATIONS
B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with appendix) available online C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-22 recommending SPA and associated CEQA adoption to the City Council
D: Public Comment Received Since March 15, 2022

10.3 Packet Pg. 144

ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE)

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS

TO THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ZONING

REGULATIONS
SOHAIL SIDDIQI (Applicant) AND
VARIOUS (Property Owners)
THE CITY OF SAN RAMON DOES ORDAIN as follows:

Section 1. The Development Standards and Zoning Regulations for the Westside Specific Plan shall be those contained in Chapter 4 (Land Use and Housing) and Chapter 7 (Community Design), as amended by the Proposed WSP Amendments, dated February 15, 2022 attached as Exhibit 1 and WSP Amendment to Figures attached as Exhibit 2.

Section 2. Should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days form the date of its passing. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be posted in three public places within the City of San Ramon along with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced on April 12, 2022 and after public hearings was adopted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon on April 26, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
__________________________________
David Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________

10.3.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: A: ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE) - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE Christina Franco, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit 1- Proposed WSP Amendments, dated February 15, 2022 Exhibit 2 - WSP Amendment to Figure

10.3.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: A: ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE) - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE Exhibit 1
Proposed Westside Specific Plan Amendments, February 15, 2022 Applicant’s Proposed Specific Plan Amendment

1. Chapter 3, “Specific Plan
Goals & Objectives”, add
“Supporting Goal &
Objective”, pg. 13
Add: “Preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable housing”.

2. Chapter 3: Figure 4.1 Land
Use Plan, pg. 17
Amend WSP Land Use designation for 0.7 acre site from
“Park” to “Medium Density Residential”.

3. Chapter 7, “Community
Design Policy” add
“Guiding Policies”, pg. 41
Add: “Encourage the preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such
preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable
housing”.

4. Chapter 7, “Community
Design Policy”, add
“Design Policies San
Ramon Valley Boulevard
Area” pg. 44
Add: “Encourage the preservation of properties and buildings of significant public interest, particularly when such
preservation will result in enabling and/or facilitating the development of senior housing and care, and affordable
housing”.

5. Add terminology
“Properties and buildings of
significant public interest”
definition, pg. 13 and 44
“Properties and buildings of significant public interest” shall mean “such properties that, while not necessarily designated as being of historical significance nonetheless are because of their past use and history, architectural style and/or
community connection, of importance to preserve”

6. Chapter 7, Community
Design, “Exception to
Standards”, pg. 46
In the Medium Density Residential land use, allow Lot
Coverage up to 40% for properties and buildings of
significant public interest.

7. Chapter 7, Community
Design, “Exception to
Standards”, pg. 46
Allow up to 0.70 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for properties and buildings of significant public interest.

City’s Proposed Specific Plan Amendment

8. Chapter 12 “Affordable
Housing”, add reference to
the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and
requirement to provide
affordable housing, pg. 73
Add: “Require each residential project to provide
inclusionary housing consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

10.3.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: A: ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE) - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE Exhibit 2
WSP Amendment to Figure 4-1 Land Use Plan

10.3.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: A: ORDINANCE (NEXT IN LINE) - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF SAN RAMON

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

AND EL NIDO ASSISTED LIVING
FEBRUARY 2022
LEAD AGENCY:

City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 973-2549
www.sanramon.ca.gov

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF SAN RAMON

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

AND EL NIDO ASSISTED LIVING
FEBRUARY 2022
LEAD AGENCY:

City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 973-2549
www.sanramon.ca.gov
PREPARED BY:

Montrose Environmental
1801 7th Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 447-3479
www.montrose-env.com

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 i Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND EL NIDO

ASSISTED LIVING
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Summary/Environmental Checklist Form ............................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purpose of Study .............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Organization of the Initial Study ...................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 1-3

1.5 CEQA Environmental Determination ............................................................................. 1-4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Historic Harlan House and Senior Assisted Living Facility ........................... 2-1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ............................................................. 2-2 Westside Specific Plan .................................................................................... 2-2 Construction .................................................................................................... 2-3 On-Site Operations .......................................................................................... 2-3 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 2-3

2.4 Project Review and Approval ........................................................................................... 2-8 Lead Agency ................................................................................................... 2-8 CEQA Actions................................................................................................. 2-8 Other Agency Actions ..................................................................................... 2-8 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (CHECKLIST) ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Evaluation Terminology .................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-5 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................. 3-5 Setting ............................................................................................................. 3-5 Discussion of Impacts ..................................................................................... 3-8 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-10

3.3 Agriculture/Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 3-11 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-11 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-12 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-13 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-14

3.4 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-15 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-15 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-15 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-20 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-24

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Table of Contents
February 2022 ii Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.5 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-25 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-25 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-26 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-30 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-33

3.6 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-36 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-36 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-36 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-41 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-43

3.7 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 3-45 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-45 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-45 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-49 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-50

3.8 Geology/Soils ................................................................................................................. 3-51 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-51 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-52 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-55 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-57

3.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 3-59 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-59 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-59 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-64 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-66

3.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3-67 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-67 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-68 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-70 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-74

3.11 Hydrology/Water Quality ............................................................................................... 3-75 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-75 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-76 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-78 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-81

3.12 Land Use/Planning ......................................................................................................... 3-83 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-83 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-83 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-84 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-85

3.13 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... 3-86 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-86 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-86 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-87 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-87

3.14 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 3-88 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-88

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Table of Contents
February 2022 iii Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-88 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-94 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-97

3.15 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 3-98 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................... 3-98 Setting ........................................................................................................... 3-98 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................... 3-99 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 3-99

3.16 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 3-100 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-100 Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-100 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-101 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-103

3.17 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-104 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-104 Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-104 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-104 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-105

3.18 Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................. 3-106 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-106 Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-106 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-107 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-109

3.19 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-110 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-110 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 3-110 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-112 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-114

3.20 Utilities/Service Systems .............................................................................................. 3-115 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-115 Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-115 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-117 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-120

3.21 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 3-121 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................. 3-121 Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-121 Discussion of Impacts ................................................................................. 3-123 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3-124

3.22 Mandatory Finding of Significance .............................................................................. 3-125 4 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................... 4-1 City of San Ramon – Lead Agency ............................................................................................ 4-1 Analytical Environmental Services – Consultant ....................................................................... 4-1 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 5-1

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Table of Contents
February 2022 iv Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Violation Criteria .................................... 3-16 Table 3-2. BAAQMD Attainment Status ................................................................................................................ 3-17 Table 3-3. BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-4. Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-5. Operational Emissions ............................................................................................................................ 3-22 Table 3-6. Health Risk Screening ............................................................................................................................ 3-47 Table 3-7. PG&E-Owned Electricity Generating Sources ....................................................................................... 3-47 Table 3-8. PG&E Renewable Energy Deliveries ..................................................................................................... 3-48 Table 3-9. Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................ 3-65 Table 3-10. Operational GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................ 3-65 Table 3-11. Typical Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................ 3-90 Table 3-12. Land Use Compatibility ....................................................................................................................... 3-93 Table 3-13. Construction Equipment Noise ............................................................................................................ 3-94 Table 3-14. Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment ........................................................................ 3-96 Table 3-15. Weekday Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ....................................................................... 3-96

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2. Site and Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 4. Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-7

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Air Quality Tables
Appendix B. Project Plans
Appendix C. Biological Technical Reports
Appendix D. Cultural Resources Reports
Appendix E. Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix F. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G. Parking Assessment
Appendix H. VMT Analysis

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 1-1 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Contact Person and Phone Number: Cindy Yee, Senior Planner [email protected]
(925) 973-2562
Project Location: The Project Site is located at 19251 San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County, California. The Project Site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Westside Drive.

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: El Nido Foundation LLC 18 Winding Creek Way
San Ramon, CA 94583
General Plan Designation: Single-Family Medium Density Residential Zoning Ordinance: The Project Site is zoned Park.

Specific Plan Designation: The Project Site is located within the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) area and designated in the WSP Land Use Map as
“Park”.

Description of the Project: The Proposed Project includes the relocation and preservation of the historic Harlan House as well as the construction of an attached three-story senior assisted living facility with 48 rooms and 84 beds. The Proposed Project includes infrastructure improvements, including subterranean parking and landscaping. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Westside Specific Plan and rezoning of the Project Site. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is included in Section 2.3.

Existing and Surrounding Land Uses: The Project Site is comprised of one 0.7-acre parcel with the corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 211-100-
057. The Project Site is currently developed with a vacant

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 1 Introduction
February 2022 1-2 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
two-story, single-family residential house, referred to as the Harlan House.

The Project Site is surrounded by multi-family residential to the west and south, single-family residential to the north, and San Ramon Valley Boulevard/Interstate-680 (I-680) to the east.

Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval may be Required:

Contra Costa County
Consultation with California Native
American Tribes
On August 20 and August 24, 2021, the City sent letters to each tribe which has requested formal notification of projects in the geographical area providing detailed information on the Proposed Project and describing the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation process. The letter requested that the tribes notify the City within 90 days if they would like to engage in formal consultation regarding
possible significant effects that the Proposed Project may have on tribal cultural resources. The City received a
response from Wilton Rancheria dated September 14, 2021.

Refer to the discussion in Section 3.19 regarding
consultation with Native American Tribes under AB 52 and SB 18.

1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The City of San Ramon (Lead Agency or City) has prepared this Initial Study (IS) for the Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Project (Proposed Project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended), codified in California Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Pursuant to these regulations, this IS is intended to inform City decision-makers, responsible agencies, interested parties, and the general public of the Proposed Project and its potential environmental effects. This IS is also intended to provide the CEQA-required environmental documents for all City, local, and state approvals or permits that might be required to implement the Proposed Project. This IS supports a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as defined under CEQA Guidelines § 15070.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This document is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction: Describes the purpose, contents, and organization of the document and provides a project summary. Includes the significance determination, which identifies the determination of whether impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project are significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation may be required.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 1 Introduction
February 2022 1-3 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Section 2.0 – Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the Proposed Project.

Section 3.0 – Environmental Impact Analysis: Contains the Environmental Checklist from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with a discussion of potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are noted following each impact discussion.

Section 4.0 – List of Preparers
Section 5.0 – References
Appendices – Contains information to supplement sections within the IS.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Proposed Project, involving at least one impact requiring mitigation to bring it to a less than significant level. Impacts to these resources are evaluated using the checklist included in Section 3.0. The Proposed Project was determined to have a less than significant impact or no impact without mitigation on unchecked resource areas.
܆ Aesthetics ܆ Agriculture and Forest
Resources
܈ Air Quality
܈ Biological Resources ܈ Cultural Resources ܆ Energy
܈ Geology and Soils ܆ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ܈ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
܈ Hydrology and Water Quality ܆ Land Use and Planning ܆ Mineral Resources ܆ Noise ܆ Population and Housing ܆ Public Services
܆ Recreation ܈ Transportation ܈ Tribal Cultural Resources ܆ Utilities and Service Systems ܆ Wildfire ܈ Mandatory Findings of Significance

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 1 Introduction
February 2022 1-4 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.5 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
܆ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
܈ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ܆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
܆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
܆ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 2-1 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant proposes the relocation and preservation of the historic Harlan House as well as the construction of an attached three-story senior assisted living facility with 48 rooms and 84 beds. The Proposed Project includes on-site infrastructure and improvements, including subterranean parking and landscaping. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the Westside Specific Plan and rezoning of the Project Site.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project Site is located at 19251 San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County (County), California (Figure 1; Figure 2). The Project Site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Westside Drive.

The Project Site is comprised of one 0.7-acre parcel with the corresponding APN 211-100-057. The Project Site is designated as Single-Family Medium Density Residential in the City’s General Plan, and is located within the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) area and designated in the WSP Land Use Map as “Park”.

The Project Site is currently developed with a vacant two-story, single-family residential house, referred to as the Harlan House. The Project Site is surrounded by multi-family residential to the west and south, single-family residential to the north, and San Ramon Valley Boulevard/I-680 to the east. An aerial photograph of the Project Site is provided in Figure 3.

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

HISTORIC HARLAN HOUSE AND SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY The Proposed Project consists of the construction of a three-story senior assisted living facility with 48 rooms and 84 beds. The Proposed Project also includes the relocation and preservation of the Harlan House. The Harlan House would be connected to the main residential care facility through a covered corridor. The Proposed Project would include a total building footprint of approximately 38,143-square feet (sf) and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The exterior design of the senior assisted living facility would complement the original architectural design of the Harlan House. A site plan showing the approximate building footprint (ground level) is included as Figure 4.

Relocation of the Harlan House would include moving the Harlan House approximately 40 feet towards San Ramon Valley Boulevard, maintaining its current orientation. Furthermore, the Harlan House would be reconstructed to match its historic-era appearance to the extent feasible. This would include, but is not limited to, reconstruction of the porch in the front of the house, reconstruction of the kitchen and bathroom in the rear of the house, and installation of custom windows and doors. Renovations to the Harlan House would be done in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3). See Section 3.6.4 for further information regarding proposed renovations.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 2 Project Description
February 2022 2-2 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Proposed Project proposes the ground floor of the restored Harlan House would be used as the common area and the main dining hall of the residential care facility. The upper level of the Harlan House would be used as office space for the administrative staff. The Harlan House would be made available for scheduled public tours and planned events organized by the San Ramon Historic Foundation.

Site improvements consisting of curbs, gutters, sidewalks for pedestrian access, signage, lighting, landscaping, and striping would be installed throughout the Project Site. The senior assisted living facility would include roof-mounted solar voltaic panels.

The Proposed Project would be designed and constructed to comply with the applicable requirements of the 2019 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 2 (California Building Code), Part 3 (California Electrical Code), Part 4 (California Mechanical Code), Part 5 (California Plumbing Code), Part 6 (California Energy Code), Part 9 (California Fire Code), and Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen]).

SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
The main entrance and exit, including access to the subterranean parking garage, would be provided via two separate driveways on the north side of the building on Westside Drive.

The Proposed Project would provide 33 parking spaces for staff and visitors (Appendix G). Five parking spaces would be located on the main level, and 28 parking spaces will be located in a subterranean parking garage. Residents would not have their own vehicles. A complimentary shuttle service would be provided to residents to commute to their medical appointments, shopping, and visits to their place of worship.

Access to the main building would be provided via an entryway located on the northern side of the building. Access to each floor would be available from the elevator toward the center of the building. A stairwell would also be provided on the southern side of the building to access each floor. Access to the Harlan House would be provided from the main building via the covered corridor, and a separate outdoor entryway to the Harlan House would be provided on the eastern side of the building.

WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
The Proposed Project includes an amendment to the WSP to address exceptions to the Project Site’s zoning standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “Medium-Density Residential” (RM) under the Westside Specific Plan. The amendment to the WSP consists of adding the following development standard exceptions for the RM land use designation: 1) Increased Floor Area Ratio from

0.50 to 0.70 for properties and buildings of significant public interest; and 2) Increased lot coverage from 25 percent to 40 percent for properties and buildings of significant public interest. This amendment would allow the Proposed Project’s proposed Floor Area Ratio of 0.67 and a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent.

Additionally, the WSP goals and policies would be updated to reflect the desire to preserve properties and buildings of significant public interest. The WSP amendment would include a reference to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance not currently addressed in the WSP. Minor updates to maps and tables would occur to ensure document consistency with the above-described revisions.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 2 Project Description
February 2022 2-3 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

CONSTRUCTION
The Proposed Project is anticipated to begin construction by April of 2022 and last for approximately 12 months. Construction activities would include minor site grading, excavation, trenching, development of the senior assisted living facility, preservation of the Harlan House, and architectural coatings. Equipment associated with these activities generally includes dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, cranes, forklifts, welders, pavers and paver equipment, rollers, and air compressors. A detailed breakdown of the estimated equipment use type, hours used, horsepower, and load factors are provided in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) report listed in Appendix A.

Construction entrances would include two separate driveways on the north side of the Project Site on Westside Drive. During construction, use of the driveways would be timed to maintain public access to surrounding roadways. All equipment staging/storage areas would be located within the Project Site.

ON-SITE OPERATIONS
The Proposed Project would require a maximum of 38 new employees, with approximately 19 employees present on the Project Site at any given time, and there is anticipated to be 84 residents at maximum. The senior assisted living facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The staff would work in three eight-hour shifts. Special events hosted at the Harlan House could result in temporary staff scheduling changes.

UTILITIES
Water Supply
The Project Site is located within the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) water supply service area. Therefore, water would be supplied to the Project Site from the City. Because the Project Site is located in a fully developed area and water utilities exist on and in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Proposed Project would tie into an existing EBMUD water main located in Westside Drive (EBMUD, 2017).

Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The Project Site is located within the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) wastewater collection and treatment service area. The DSRSD operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (GPD) (DSRSD, 2021). The plant operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) (California Water Boards, 2017). The Proposed Project would tie into existing DSRSD wastewater infrastructure located in Westside Drive.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Project Site
580
680
280
84 101
880
4 85
24 160
242
580
80 680
87 17
84 4
1 82
130
9 236
238
84 92
Figure 1
Regional Location
SOURCE: ESRI World Street Map, 2022;
Montrose Environmental, 2/2/2022
048
Miles
City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study / 221558 LegendSCALE
Project Site
Contra Costa County

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 680
Davona Dr
Broadmoor Dr
San Ramon
Westside Dr
Morgan Dr
Tareyton Ave
Montevideo Dr
Pine Valley Rd
Bishop Dr
Marsh
Dr
Ramon
Ascot Dr
Derby Dr Mangos Dr
Estero Dr
Bollinger Canyon Rd
Talavera Dr
El Suyo Dr
Corey Pl
Toluca Dr
Ensenada Dr
Calais Dr
Alcosta Blvd
Vera Cruz Dr
Sedgefield Ave
Canyon Hill s Rd Del Mar Dr
Kent Pl
Mar ket P l
May Way
Pine Valley
Toltec Cir
Hawkins Dr
Athens Dr
Blue Fox Way
Westchester Dr
Toby Rd
Interlachen Ave
Ashby Way
Butte Ave
Springfield Dr
Millbridge Dr
Pebble P l
Kittery Ave
Sombrero Cir
Cortona Dr
Nantucket Dr
Todd Way
Sant a nder Dr
Ce lay a Cir
Canyon Woods Dr
Rosario Ct
Carlow Way
Brewin Ln
Madelia Pl
Chapparal Ct
Winthrop Ave
Sa ge Cir
Fallen L e af Cir
Oak Creek Dr
Roma Pl
Lomond Cir
Schaefer Ranch Rd
Fryer Ct
Card ona Cir
Haven Pl
Elisha Ln
Gregg Pl
Talus Ct
Mavis Pl
Alcosta Blvd
Figure 2
Site and Vicinity
SOURCE: "Dublin, CA” USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle,T2S R1W, Unsectioned Area of Dublin, CA, Mt Diablo Baseline & Meridian; Contra Costa County Parcels; ESRI, 2022; Montrose Environmental, 2/2/2022
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study / 221558 LegendSCALE
Project Site

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Project Site
Westside Dr
Sutter Creek Ln
Baywood Ln
Cutter Ct
Centennial Way
San
Ramon Valley Blvd
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
SOURCE: Contra Costa County Parcels;
Metro Maxar aerial photograph, 11/4/2019;
ESRI, 2022; Montrose Environmental, 2/2/2022
City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study / 221558 0 30 60
Feet
SCALE

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with Westside Dr
Baywood Ln
San Ramon Valley Blvd
Figure 4
Site Plan
SOURCE: Edward C Novak Architect, 2020; Contra Costa County Parcels; Metro Maxar aerial photograph, 11/4/2019;ESRI, 2022; Montrose Environmental, 2/2/2022 SCALE
0 20 40
Feet
City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study / 221558 Project Site
New Structure
Relocated Historical Home

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 2 Project Description
February 2022 2-8 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.4 PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

LEAD AGENCY
In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Ramon is the ‘Lead Agency’ for the Proposed Project, which is defined as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project.” The following discretionary actions would be taken by the City in order to approve the Proposed Project:
The Proposed Project requires approval of an amendment to the WSP, including those regarding floor area ratio and maximum lot coverage, as described in Section 2.3.3. The Proposed Project requires rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP.

The following ministerial actions would be taken by the City after project approval:
Approval of Improvement Plans for grading, drainage, and utilities Encroachment permits for construction of access driveways and utilities Building permits

CEQA ACTIONS
Prior to approving the Proposed Project, the City must undertake CEQA review including:
Adoption of the MND pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and Mitigation Monitoring – Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to reflect the measures required to mitigate significant impacts, if any, of the project.

The IS and MND are intended to provide the CEQA documentation for approval of the Proposed Project.

OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS
There are no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies with approval authority over the Proposed Project. The Project Applicant would obtain all permits required by law.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with February 2022 3-1 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
(CHECKLIST)

3.1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15063, an IS should provide the lead agency with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration for a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines state that an IS may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence.

If it is determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the checklist must indicate whether the impact is Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation, or Less Than Significant. Findings of No Impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed project do not require further discussion.

3.1.1 EVALUATION TERMINOLOGY
The following sections contain the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of a proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified and no mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, an EIR must be prepared. Less than significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Impacts that would be reduced to a less than significant level by feasible mitigation measures identified in this checklist. Less than significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The Proposed Project would have no impact.

3.1.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
In addition to growth associated with the build-out projections in the City’s General Plan, the projects described below were considered in determining whether the impacts of the Proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable in accordance with Section 15064(h) of the CEQA Guidelines. Recently completed, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Project Site (City of San Ramon, 2021) are related to growth associated with the build-out projections in the City’s General Plan and include:

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-2 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Proposed Projects:
o Bridges Golf Club Deck & Building Addition - Request for a Development Plan Amendment, Architectural Review, and Minor Use Permit applications to construct a 9,935-sf deck and building addition to the existing Bridges Golf Club building with 10 new parking spaces for expanded private events at four guest capacities, each with a corresponding parking program. The project also includes a request to allow a parking reduction with a valet parking service during private events at the main parking lot and the practice facility. o Belmont Village Senior Care Facility – Proposal to construct a 177-unit, 183-bed residential care facility for the elderly providing a mix of independent living, assisted living, and secured memory care.
o Primrose School - Proposal to establish a day care land use in an existing, vacant retail center. Scope of the work includes modifications to the parking lot and expansion of the square footage of the existing building.
o Bishop Ranch 9 Solar Installations - Solar system with photovoltaic panels mounted on new canopies within the existing parking lots.
o Bridges Golf Club Parking Lot Solar Canopy Project - Request for a Development Plan Amendment to install a solar system with photovoltaic panels mounted on new canopies within the existing parking lot.
o Bishop Ranch 6 Residential Development - Proposal to demolish three existing office buildings and develop a new 404-unit-for-sale residential project on a 31-acre site. o TTLC Townhomes - Proposal to construct 57 dwelling units within six multi-family buildings of varying sizes on an existing 2.46-acre lot.
o Windflower Fields Golden Skate - Proposal to construct 47 condo units within eight multifamily buildings of varying sizes on an existing 3.57-acre lot. Approved/Under Construction:
o Texaco Expansion - Request for a Development Plan Amendment & Architectural Review applications of a previously approved project from 2017 which has since expired in June 2018. The project would add 222-sf to the existing building, increase the size of the existing convenience store, reduce the number of service bays from four to three bays, and add four new parking spaces behind the existing building.
o Bishop Ranch (CityWalk) Master Plan - The Master Plan area is 134.98 acres consisting of four blocks and includes the integration of up to 4,500 multi-family residential units, a 169-key hotel, up to an additional 170,000-sf of retail, new office shared parking structures into the existing Bishop Ranch campus, and allows miscellaneous land uses in the City Center Mixed Use zoning district. The project also includes a new Development Agreement.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-3 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
o City Center Hotel - Request for a Development Plan, Architectural Review, and Use Permit applications to construct a new 114,392-sf, 5-story building for a 169-key hotel land use (City Center Hotel) located on an existing 1.46-acre property of the City Center project area at the southeast corner of the Camino Ramon and Bishop Drive intersection. The project includes a previously submitted Land Use Permit application for a shared collective parking concept between the proposed City Center Hotel parcel and the adjacent existing parcel with the Bishop Ranch 3 south parking garage and the adjacent surface parking lots. o San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Training Center - Development Plan Amendment and Architectural Review applications for a training facility, which consists of a classroom building, a storage building, a training tower, and other training purposes o Costco Gas Station - Removing the existing building to construct a 32-pump gas station for Costco Club members.
o Emergency Operations Center Addition - An addition of a two-story 8,100-sf Emergency Operations Center building by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. o Tesla Electric Vehicle Charging Station (Gateway Center) - Request for a Minor Exception and Architectural Review applications to remove four existing parking spaces and construct 16 Tesla electric vehicle charging parking spaces along with associated equipment within the existing parking lot at the Gateway Center. The project also includes a request to reduce the parking standard for the Gateway Center by eight parking spaces. o American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) Wireless Expansion - Expansion of the equipment area at the base of the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) tower to install an emergency generator.
o Bishop Ranch 15 Solar Panels - Proposal to install a solar system and a battery storage facility with photovoltaic panels mounted on the rooftop of the existing four office buildings. o Bishop Ranch 8 Solar Panels - Proposal to install a solar system and a battery storage facility with photovoltaic panels mounted on new canopies within the existing parking lots. o Bishop Ranch 2600 Solar Project - Proposal to install a solar system and a battery storage facility with photovoltaic panels mounted on the rooftop of the existing buildings and the parking structure.
o Gomez Residence - A request for review of a proposal to construct a 3,788-sf single-family residence with an attached 3-car garage and lanai, on a vacant 0.61-acre parcel and to reduce a 100-foot creek setback to 48 feet.
o The Preserve Development - Request for a vesting tentative map, Architectural Review, and Development Plan Amendment for a 600-unit residential subdivision.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-4 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
o San Ramon Apartments - A mixed use development consisting of 169 apartment units with 6,146-sf for commercial uses.
o Chang Residential Subdivision - Proposal for a Development Plan and Subdivision application for 43 single-family dwelling units, with a minimum of 12,500-sf lot size. o Aspen Wood Senior Apartments - Development Review application for 95 multi-family senior apartment units.
o Deer Creek South Senior Apartments - Architectural review for 185 affordable senior apartment units within the Dougherty Valley Village Center. o Brar Residence - Request for Architectural Review to construct a new single-family residential home on a vacant lot.
o Lots C & D Single-Family Homes - Request for review of an Architectural Review application for the architectural design, landscape, and site grading for two new single-family residential homes located near the intersection of Bollinger Canyon Road and the (future) Faria Preserve Parkway.
o Faria Neighborhood 5: Promenade at the Preserve - Request for a Development Plan application for a 40-unit single-family residential development and a 122-unit multi-family development on a 10.6-acre parcel.
o General Plan 2040 Update
o Camp Bow Wow Development - Request for development entitlements to construct a new 8,280-sf single-story building with a 21-space parking lot and landscaping on an existing

0.60-acre vacant parcel. The tenant would be a new Animal Services – Boarding/Training land use (Camp Bow Wow) for up to 86 dogs at any one time. The project also includes a Minor Exception to reduce the perimeter landscape width and a Minor Exception to allow a 5- foot high retaining wall.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-5 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), intends to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to scenic highways. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been designated. Cities and counties can nominate eligible scenic highways for official designation by identifying and defining the scenic corridor of the highway. The municipality must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-6 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives include:

Policy 4.8-G-1 The maintenance and enhancement of San Ramon’s identity.

Policy 4.8-I-2 Ensure that the design, location, and size of new development blends with the environment and a site’s natural features
Policy 4.8-I-3 Continue to refine citywide lighting standards to ensure appropriate illumination levels for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and that lighting is of a consistent character and quality while reducing light pollution.

Policy 4.8-I-4 Ensure that parking facilities adequately address the community image, aesthetics, and functional needs of the City.

Policy 4.8-I-8 Use the development review process to ensure that new development minimizes impacts and preserves and/or enhances significant views of the natural landscape.

Policy 4.8-I-11 Require new office and commercial development to provide outdoor art that is clearly visible to the public or contribute to a citywide public art program though the development of an in-lieu fee program.

Policy 4.8-I-12 Encourage attractive, drought-tolerant landscaping on private property that is suitable for San Ramon’s climate.

Policy 4.8-I-14 Ensure that businesses provide signs that are attractive and consistent with neighboring commercial uses, minimize visual clutter from roadways and other public areas, and, where possible, cannot be seen from residential neighborhoods.

Policy 4.8-I-20 Require all walls and fences to be designed to minimize visual monotony.

City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan
Applicable WSP goals, policies, and objectives include:

LU Plan Policy 4 Allow for higher density housing associated with a senior housing site along San Ramon Boulevard, and when below-market-rate housing is provided pursuant to the City’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus.

LU Plan Policy 7 Utilize the design standards and guidelines set forth in the Community Design Element and the Appendix as criteria for evaluating future development applications.

Design Policy – San Ramon Boulevard Area

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-7 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy 2 Minimize the appearance of a strip development comprised of a number of separate subdivisions and create a coherent development pattern composed of buildings with complimentary architectural character that relates to an internal and continuous collector street extending from Alcosta Boulevard to the northern portion of the site.

Policy 6 Maintain a minimum setback of twenty feet averaging 30 feet in width) along San Ramon Valley Boulevard for landscaping and to emphasize berms and slopes as opposed to freestanding walls as a way of mitigating noise impacts from the freeway.

Policy 7 Encourage a continuity of landscape and wall treatments along San Ramon Valley Boulevard and discourage the use of long, uninterrupted walls for privacy and/or sound mitigation
Appendix Westside Design Guidelines – This section establishes guidelines for development in the Westside area to be used when evaluating the design of specific projects
Environmental Setting
As described in Section 2.0, the 0.7-acre Project Site is currently developed with a vacant two-story, single-family residential house known as the Harlan House. The Project Site is relatively flat and, aside from the dwelling, dominated by trees and ruderal vegetation. San Ramon Valley Boulevard and I-680 are both located to the east of the parcel. The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 438 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The visual characteristics of the Project Site consist of trees, ruderal vegetation, and a single dwelling with a footprint covering a relatively small portion of the total parcel. The area surrounding the Project Site is primarily residential urban development. An existing fence provides a visual barrier from the surrounding residential areas, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and Westside Drive. Furthermore, existing vegetation on and around the Project Site and along the side of I-680 provides a visual barrier from I-680 to the Project Site. Due to the local topography, long-range views of open hillsides are visible to the west of the Project Site.

Scenic Resources
There is no comprehensive list of specific features that automatically qualify as scenic resources; however, certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination. The following is a partial list of visual qualities and conditions that, if present, may indicate the presence of a scenic resource:
A tree that displays outstanding features of form or age. A landmark tree or a group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of attention. An unusual planting that has historical value.
A unique, massive rock formation.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-8 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
A historic building that is a rare example of its period, style, or design, or which has special architectural features and details of importance.
A feature specifically identified in applicable planning documents as having a special scenic value.
A unique focus or a feature integrated with its surroundings or overlapping other scenic elements to form a panorama.
A vegetative or structural feature that has local, regional, or statewide importance.

The Project Site is surrounded by multi-family residential to the west and south, single-family residential to the north, and San Ramon Valley Boulevard/I-680 to the east. The existing two-story dwelling on the Project Site, known as “Harlan House” was found to be historically and architecturally significant (Architectural Resources Group, 1995). Aside from this, there are no other unique scenic resources on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally, I-680, located to the east of the Project Site, is classified as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans, 2021). The Project Site is located between approximately 200 and 250 feet from I-680, and the Project Site is visible from I-680.

Nighttime Lighting Conditions
The Project Site experiences low to medium nighttime ambient light levels with light primarily sourcing from the surrounding residential development and streetlamps and car headlights on nearby roadways.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. While the re-location of Harlan House would result in the house being located in a less prominent position on the site, and would, therefore, be blocked from view when looking from the west, the restoration proposed as part of this project would improve the appearance of the house. The architectural style of the new building consists of elements intended to complement the design of Harlan House. The new building walls would be finished with stucco, lap-siding, and simulated stone veneer in various shades of yellow, brown, and white. Building trim around windows, gable fenestration and shingles would be used for the roof. Furthermore, the existing fence on the northern and eastern boundaries of the Project Site is approximately 6 feet tall with minimal gaps. The proposed replacement of this fence with a visually permeable fence line would enhance visibility to Harlan House from the north and east (refer Sheet A13 and A14 of Appendix B). Therefore, overall impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Question B
Would the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Project Site is located adjacent to I-680, which is a classified as a State

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-9 Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Scenic Highway (Caltrans, 2021). While the historic Harlan House would be moved and relocated, the house would be relocated to the boundary closest to I-680 and would, therefore, not be blocked by the new development on site. Furthermore, the project proposes to restore Harlan House and would, therefore, improve the scenic resources in the area.

As part of the Proposed Project, three trees would be removed. However, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain the appropriate tree removal permit prior to removal of trees. As part of the tree removal permitting process, the minimum number of replacement tree plantings and acceptable species of replacement plantings would be made a condition of project approval prior to the removal of protected trees. Furthermore, a Landscape Plan has been developed for the Proposed Project which would enhance the visual character of the site by adding additional trees and vegetation (refer to Sheet A13, A14, and PL-1 of Appendix B).

Finally, while some scenic resources would be modified, this section of I-680 is bordered by existing trees that partly obscure the Project Site, meaning that despite its proximity to I-680, it is not prominently visible from I-680. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant.

Question C
Would the project: In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in an urbanized area. As described in Section 2.3.3, the Proposed Project includes an amendment to the WSP to address exceptions to the Project Site’s zoning standards, as well as rezoning of the Project Site from “Park” to “RM” under the WSP. The Proposed Project would meet the height and setback development standards of the WSP for the RM district, and the WSP amendment would ensure that the Proposed Project would also meet the Floor Area Ratio and maximum lot coverage development standards. Since the Proposed Project is considered to be commercial, the planned usage as a residential care facility for the elderly is consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area. Approval of the WSP amendment would ensure consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Based on all of the reasons listed above, impacts to the visual character and quality of the Project Site and vicinity would be considered less than significant.

Question D
Would the project: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. The surrounding area is fully developed. Existing sources of light adjacent to the Project Site include street lighting, lighting from residential dwellings, security lighting, and lighting from vehicles. The Proposed Project would introduce new sources of light on the Project Site for similar purposes, including site and building lighting, and all new light sources would be consistent with the types of lighting sources in the vicinity of the Project Site

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-10Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and typical of similar residential facilities, and would be designed in compliance with City lighting standards. The Proposed Project would be constructed out of a mix of materials, including concrete, stucco, lap-siding, and simulated ledge stone veneer (refer to Sheet A10-11 of Appendix B); none of the non-window surfaces or building materials proposed for the project are reflective or would produce glare.

Potential impacts to daytime and nighttime views associated with lighting on the Project Site would, therefore, be considered less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Project Site include growth within the City and County limits according to the build out projections in the City’s General Plan, as well as those projects described in Section 3.1.2. The Project Site lies within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as delineated in the City’s General Plan, and is, therefore, expected by the City to experience development. The Proposed Project would not change the general visual character of the vicinity of the Project Site and new project-related light sources would not negatively affect the ambient light in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to aesthetic impacts, including new light sources, would not be cumulatively considerable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-11Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.3 AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-12Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Federal
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state and local units of government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland (7 United States Code [USC] § 4201).

State
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which monitors the conversion of the State's farmland to and from agricultural use, was established by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), under the Division of Land Resource Protection. The program maintains an inventory of state agricultural land and updates its "Important Farmland Series Maps" every two years.

Williamson Act
The Williamson Act is a State program that was implemented to preserve agricultural land. Under the provisions of the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act 1965, Section 51200), landowners contract with the county to maintain agricultural or open space use of their lands in return for reduced property tax assessments (DOC, 2019).

Forestry Resources
Forestry Resources are defined in the California PRC Section 12220(g) as “land that can support 10- percent native tree cover of a species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” The California Government Code Section 51104(g) defines “timberland” as “privately owned land, or land acquired for State forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre”.

Environmental Setting
According to the California Important Farmland Finder provided by the FMMP, the entire Project Site and vicinity is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (DOC, 2021. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance exists on or in the close vicinity of the Project Site, the closest is approximately a mile from the Project Site. The Project Site is not zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act contract.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-13Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Project Site is classified by the FMMP as “Urban Built-Up Land” and does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on agricultural or forestry resources.

Question B
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, the Project Site is not adjacent to any properties zoned for agriculture or under a Williamson Act contract. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on resulting from conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Question C
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project Site does not contain forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land, and would have no impact.

Question D
Would the project: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project Site does not contain forest land. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on agricultural or forestry resources.

Question E
Would the project: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-14Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project Site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or forest land. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land. The Proposed Project would have no impacts on agricultural or forestry resources.

Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of agriculture or forest land; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-15Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.4 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under the Clean Air Act (CAA), establishes maximum ambient concentrations for the six criteria air pollutants (CAP), known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The six CAPs are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns in size and smaller (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively).

The California CAA (CCAA) establishes maximum concentrations for the six CAPs, as well as four additional air pollutants in California (visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride). These maximum concentrations for the State are known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Concentrations above these time-averaged limits are anticipated to cause adverse health effects to sensitive receptors.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-16Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and has jurisdiction over local air districts and has established their own standards and violation criteria for each CAP under the CAAQS. Refer to Table 3-1 for the standards and violation criteria for the various averaging times for criteria pollutants of concern in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) under the NAAQS and CAAQS.

NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Designations
As shown in Table 3-2, the BAAQMD has been designated nonattainment for the federal and State O3 standards, the State PM10 standard, and the federal and State PM2.5 standards. The BAAQMD either meets the federal and State standards or is unclassifiable for all other CAPs.

TABLE 3-1. NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR

QUALITY STANDARDS AND VIOLATION CRITERIA
Pollutant Averaging Time
Standard
(parts per million)
Standard
(microgram per
cubic meter)
Violation Criteria

CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS
Ozone (O3)
1 hour 0.09 N/A 180 N/A If exceeded N/A
8 hours 0.070 0.070 137 137 N/A
If exceeded on
more than 3 days
in 3 years
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8 hours 9 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic
mean

0.030 0.053 57 100 N/A If exceeded
1 hour 0.18 0.100 470 188 If exceeded N/A
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual arithmetic
mean
N/A 0.030 N/A N/A N/A If exceeded
24 hours 0.04 0.14 105 N/A If exceeded
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
1 hour (primary) 0.25 0.075 655 196 N/A N/A
3 hours
(secondary) N/A 0.5 N/A N/A
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual arithmetic
mean
N/A N/A 20 N/A If exceeded If exceeded
24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 If exceeded
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic
mean (primary) N/A N/A 12 12 If exceeded If exceeded
Annual arithmetic
mean (secondary) N/A N/A N/A 15 If exceeded If exceeded

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-17Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pollutant Averaging Time
Standard
(parts per million)
Standard
(microgram per
cubic meter)
Violation Criteria

CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS CAAQS NAAQS
24 hours N/A N/A N/A 35 If exceeded
If exceeded on
more than 1 day
per year
Lead (Pb)
30-day Average N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If equaled or
exceeded N/A
Rolling 3-month
Average N/A N/A N/A 0.15 N/A If exceeded
Source: CARB, 2016.

TABLE 3-2. BAAQMD ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS NAAQS
Ozone (O3) 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment (marginal) 1-hour Nonattainment Not Applicable
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour Attainment Attainment
1-hour Attainment Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean Nonattainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
24-hour Nonattainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean Nonattainment Nonattainment (moderate)
24-hour Not Applicable Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Annual Arithmetic
Mean Not Applicable Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24-hour Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment 1-hour Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb) 30 Day Average Not Applicable Attainment
Calendar Quarter Not Applicable Attainment
Source: BAAQMD, 2019.

California State Implementation Plan
California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) is comprised of the State’s overall air quality attainment plans to meet the NAAQS, as well as the individual air quality attainment plans of each air quality management district (AQMD) and Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The items included in the California SIP are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F §52.220.

The California SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), AQMD and APCD rules, State regulations, and federal controls for each air basin and California's overall air quality.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-18Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Many of the items within the California SIP rely on the same control strategies, such as emissions standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations, and limitations on emissions from consumer products. AQMDs and APCDs, as well other agencies such as the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare draft California SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. The CCAA identifies CARB as the lead agency for compiling items for incorporation into the California SIP, and submitting the items to the USEPA for approval.

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the above-listed California CAPs, Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are another group of pollutants regulated under the CCAA. TACs are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than the CAPs, but are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects.

There are 244 chemicals listed by the State as TACs with varying degrees of toxicity.

Sources of TACs include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), grading (asbestos), and diesel motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs. Instead, these pollutants are typically regulated through a technology-based approach for reducing TACs. This approach requires facilities to install Maximum Achievable Control Technology on emission sources.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The 2017 Clean Air Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) is prepared with the cooperation of the BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the most recent revision to the Clean Air Plan, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2017). The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan serves to:
Update the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, pursuant to air quality planning requirements defined in the California Health & Safety Code; Include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors (reactive organic gas [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) and reduce transport of O3 and its precursors to neighboring air basins; and
Build upon and enhance the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants.

The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a wide range of proposed “control measures,” or actions to reduce combustion-related activities, decrease fossil fuel combustion, improve energy efficiency, and decrease emissions of potent greenhouse gases (GHG). Numerous measures reduce multiple pollutants simultaneously: for example, O3, particulate matter, air toxins, and GHGs. Others focus on a single type of pollutant, such as “super GHGs” – defined as those GHGs with very high global warming potential (GWP) such as methane (CH4) – or are progressive actions to remove harmful particles in the air (BAAQMD, 2017).

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-19Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD Board of Directors unanimously adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These thresholds are designed to establish the level at which the BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines were approved and adopted in May 2017. While the BAAQMD is currently working on updating the CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, no drafts have been released and therefore the 2017 version of the guidelines are the most recent available. Refer to Table 3-3 for a summary of BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Thresholds.

TABLE 3-3. BAAQMD CEQA THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant ConstructionRelated Operations-Related
Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors
(Regional)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lb/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lb/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(tpy)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust)
Best
Management
Practices1
None
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Accidental Release of
Acutely Hazardous Air
Pollutants*
None
Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials locating near receptors or new receptors locating near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant
Odors None 5 confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years Notes: lb/day = pounds per day; ppm = parts per million; tpy = tons per year 1) Fugitive dust emissions from construction-related activities are considered less than significant with incorporation of BAAQMD Best Management Practices.

Source: BAAQMD, 2017b
Environmental Setting
The City of San Ramon is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. This region of the SFBAAB is bordered on the east by the East Bay hills and on the west by the San Francisco Bay. This region is indirectly affected by marine air flow and sea breezes, although less so than regions closer to the Golden Gate Bridge. The climate is also affected by its close proximity to the San Francisco Bay. During warm weather, the San Francisco Bay cools the air it comes in contact with, while during cold weather the San Francisco Bay warms the air. The normal northwest wind pattern carries this air onshore during the daytime while bay breezes draw air from the land offshore at night. Wind speeds are moderate in this subregion with annual average wind speeds of approximately seven miles per hour (mph) close to the San Francisco Bay and approximately six mph further inland. Air temperatures are moderated by the subregion's proximity to the Bay and to the sea

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-20Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
breeze. Average maximum temperatures are in the mid-70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) during the summer months and in the high 50°F to low 60°F during the winter months (BAAQMD 2017b).

Sensitive Receptors
Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality related health problems. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, increasing the potential exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.

The land surrounding the Project Site is primarily residential land use. The nearest residences are multifamily condominiums located immediately south of the Project Site. There are no hospitals or schools in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Methodology
CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from all construction and operational-related sources.

CalEEMod provides default values when site-specific inputs are not available. The default values are provided in Appendix A. The following site-specific inputs and assumptions were used for the purposes of air quality modeling:
Emissions from construction were calculated based on all construction-related activities, including but not limited to grading, use of construction equipment, material hauling, building, and site preparation.
Construction would occur over a period of 12 months, starting April 2022 and ending April 2023. Vehicle trips were estimated based on trips rates from the Institute of Traffic Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.
The Proposed Project would comply with BAAQMD rules and regulations (i.e., low volatile organic compound cleaning supplies and paint).

The results of the CalEEMod modeling are discussed below and output files are provided in Appendix A.

Resulting emission estimates are compared to applicable BAAQMD thresholds to evaluate the effects of construction activities on regional air quality.

Questions A and B
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-21Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Construction
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As stated above, the Project Site is under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. Emissions generated from grading and building construction activities resulting from the Proposed Project would be short-term, intermittent, and temporary in nature. Grading and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in the generation of ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions. PM2.5 and PM10 are generally the direct result of site grading, excavation, road paving, and exhaust associated with construction equipment. PM emissions are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities. Emissions of NOx and ROG are generally associated with employee vehicle trips, delivery of materials, and construction equipment exhaust. Table 3-4 shows emissions from construction activities and compares these to BAAQMD thresholds to determine if the construction emissions of the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on regional air quality, thereby conflicting with or obstructing BAAQMD air quality plans.

TABLE 3-4. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year Pollutants of Concern (lbs/day)
ROG NOx PM2.5 PM10
2022 1.20 15.11 0.50 0.55
2023 27.06 6.69 0.30 0.32
Highest Emission Year 27.06 15.11 0.50 0.55
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 54 82
Exceed BAAQMD Threshold No No No No
Source: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 3-4, construction emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 would not exceed the BAAQMD applicable significance thresholds.

The BAAQMD’s approach to analysis of construction-related particulate impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD considers construction-related fugitive dust impacts of projects to be less than significant if a suite of recommended dust-control measures is implemented. Dust control measures are required by the BAAQMD for compliance with their Clean Air Plan. The absence of dust control measures during construction would conflict with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, which would be a potentially significant impact. Therefore, BAAQMD-identified Best Management Practices (BMP) for control of fugitive dust are included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1. With Mitigation Measure AQ-1, dust control measures would be implemented and the Proposed Project would not obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Furthermore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any CAP for which the Proposed Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on regional air quality with mitigation.

Operation
Less than Significant. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. The primary operational emissions associated with new development projects include PM and ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) that are emitted as vehicle exhaust. All operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-5.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-22Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE 3-5. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Pollutants of Concern (tons/yr)
ROG NOx PM2.5 PM10
Area 0.30 0.01 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00
Total 0.36 0.09 0.03 0.03
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 10 15
Exceed BAAQMD Threshold No No No No
Source: Appendix A
Table 3-5 shows that project emissions would be below BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on regional air quality and would not conflict with applicable air quality plans.

Question C
Would the project: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant with Mitigation. Sensitive receptors are individuals or groups of people that are more affected by air pollution than others, including young children, the elderly, and individuals weakened by disease or illness. Locations that may contain high concentrations of sensitive receptors include residential areas, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. As stated above, the Proposed Project does not contain any components that would result in long-term stationary emissions.

The Proposed Project includes construction activities in close proximity to existing residences north, west, and south of the Project Site. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would generate PM10 and other pollutants during construction. Although these emissions would cease with completion of construction work, sensitive uses adjacent to the construction area could be exposed to elevated dust levels and other pollutants. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce emissions from construction activities by controlling fugitive dust and limiting idling times for construction equipment.

Further, as discussed above, CAP emissions would be below the applicable BAAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, with mitigation, construction of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts on proposed sensitive receptors. The method for determining cumulative health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted stationary sources, rail activities, and roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius or “zone of influence”) to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.

BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool for

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-23Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources BAAQMD, 2017). There are no permitted stationary sources located within 1,000 feet of the project site. I-680 is located to the east, in close proximity to the project site. The cumulative cancer risks impacting the proposed residences from existing emission sources within 1,000 feet of the project site, is shown in Table 3-6.

TABLE 3-6. HEALTH RISK SCREENING
Distance from Property Site Boundary
(feet)
Cancer Risk from I-680
(per million)
PM2.5 Concentration
from I-
ȝJP

250 21.50 0.5
BAAQMD Thresholds 100 0.8
Exceed BAAQMD Threshold No No
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Highway Screening Analysis Tool, 2016; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Stationary Source Risk & Hazard GIS Tool, 2020 As shown in Table 3-6, residents of the Proposed Project would not experience a potentially significant cumulative health impact. Additionally, cancer risk and PM concentrations would be further minimized through the installation of air filtration devices with a rated Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)- 13 or higher, as required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6. MERV-13 air filters are considered high efficiency filters able to remove 80 percent of PM2.5 from indoor air and may reduce concentrations of DPM from mobile sources by approximately 50 percent. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Question D
Would the project: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. Construction activities that have the potential to emit odors and similar emissions include operation of diesel equipment, generation of fugitive dust, and paving (asphalt). Odors and similar emissions from construction are intermittent and temporary, and generally would not extend beyond the construction area. Due to the temporary and intermittent nature of construction odors, impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to a region’s air quality conditions on a cumulative basis; therefore, by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. If a project’s individual emissions contribute toward exceedance of the NAAQS or the CAAQS, then the project’s cumulative impact on air quality would be significant. In developing attainment designations for criteria pollutants, the USEPA considers the region’s past, present, and future emission levels.

AQMDs determine suitable significance thresholds based on an area’s designated nonattainment status.

These thresholds provide a tool by which the districts can achieve attainment for a particular criteria pollutant that is designated as nonattainment. Therefore, the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds consider the region’s past, present, and future emissions levels.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-24Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Implementation of the Proposed Project combined with future development within the project area could lead to cumulative impacts to air quality. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of CAPs that when combined with future growth within the Project area could lead to cumulative impacts to air quality. As discussed in detail above, emissions resulting from the Proposed Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, and construction would be in conformance with the applicable SIP developed to address cumulative emissions of CAPs in the SFBAAB. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on local and regional air quality with implementation of mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
AQ-1
The following BMPs will be implemented during construction. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times will be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage will be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment will be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and name of the appropriate Applicant representative regarding dust complaints will be posted. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-25Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-26Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or waters of the U.S. USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project would impact a surface water resource that qualifies as a wetland or water of the U.S.

Projects impacting waters of the U.S. that require a CWA Section 404 permit additionally require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit. Authority to issue a Section 401 permit has been delegated by the USEPA to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Under the CWA, beneficial uses lost from impacts due to a project must be replaced by a mitigation project of at least equal function, value, and area. In instances where a surface water resource is not identified as a water of the U.S., but is identified as a water of the State by the RWQCB, jurisdiction falls under the PorterCologne Act discussed below.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are tasked with implementation of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC § 1531 et seq.).

Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 CFR Subsections 17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (direct or indirect harm) by individuals, unless a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit is granted to an individual or a Section 7 Incidental Take Permit is granted to a federal Lead Agency for potential take occurring during otherwise lawful activities. The USFWS also designates species of concern. While species of concern are not afforded legal protection under the FESA, the USFWS may still recommend specific management actions or publish guiding documents for these species. Project-related impacts to such species, either as individuals or populations, would also be considered significant and require mitigation. Under the FESA, loss of habitat for listed species is considered a significant impact.

Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is defined under the FESA as specific geographic areas within a listed species range that contain features considered essential for the conservation of the listed species. Designated Critical Habitat for a given species supports habitat determined by the USFWS to be important for the recovery of the species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC §§ 703-712). The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 CFR § 10. This includes feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR § 21).

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-27Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Fish and Game Code
California Fish and Game Code §§ 1600-1616 regulate impacts to State waters and stream and lake beds. Section 1602 requires California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) notification before beginning any activity that may obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. California Fish and Game Code § 1602 applies to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State.

In addition to protections for habitat, California Fish and Game Code includes provisions that protect individuals of certain species. California Fish and Game Code §§ 2582, 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 include provisions against the take of any CDFW Fully Protected Species without a permit. Prior to implementation of the FESA and California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) maintained a list of those species believed to be rare or in peril of extinction, classified as “Fully Protected.” While most species currently identified by CDFW as Fully Protected are listed under FESA and/or CESA, those species that are not formally listed but are designated as Fully Protected, are still considered special-status species. Therefore, take of a Fully Protected Species is prohibited. CDFW additionally maintains a list of “Species of Special Concern,” which are similarly afforded protection under California Fish and Game Code and are evaluated under CEQA. Under the Code, “take” is defined as attempting to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt” to perform such an action. California Fish and Game Code § 3503 also includes provisions against the needless destruction of eggs and nests of any bird.

California Endangered Species Act
CDFW implements state regulations pertaining to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA; California Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq., and CCR Title 14 §§ 670.2, 670.51) prohibits the take (interpreted to mean the direct killing of a species) of species listed under CESA (California Fish and Game Code § 2080; 14 CCR §§ 670.2, 670.5). A CESA permit (Individual Take Permit) must be obtained if a project would result in the “take” of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. California Fish and Game Code § 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: (1) the “take” is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the “take” will be minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and (4) authorization will not jeopardize continued existence of listed species (California Fish and Game Code § 2081).

Under CESA, the CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under State law (California Fish and Game Code § 2070). In addition to the list of threatened and endangered species, CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State-listed species may be present in the project area and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact upon such species.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-28Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Porter-Cologne Act
In instances where a surface water resource is not identified as a water of the U.S., the RWQCB may still classify the resource as a water of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act. Projects that impact waters of the state that do not meet the definition of waters of the U.S. generally require a Waste Discharge Requirement Permit (WDR) from the RWQCB, or a waiver from this requirement. Waste Discharge Requirements Permits are required pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 for any persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste, including dredge or fill, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state. The WDR permit is obtained through the RWQCB that has jurisdiction over the site on which impacts occur. The Project Site falls within the jurisdiction of the SFBRWQCB.

City of San Ramon General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan identifies policies and actions related to biological resources. The following policies are identified in the General Plan related to biological resources and form the foundation for the City’s policies and actions related to preservation and management of such resources:

Guiding Policy 8.1-G-1 Protect and maintain the quality of biological resources in the San Ramon Planning Area, while also balancing the needs of growth and development.

City of San Ramon Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance Title D, Division 5, Chapter II of the City’s Municipal Code provides preservation and permitting requirements for the removal of trees during land development. Per this ordinance, a tree removal permit is typically necessary for the removal of trees within City limits, unless conditions are met for exemption (City of San Ramon, 2021b).

Environmental Setting
Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this assessment, special-status has been defined to include those species that are:
Listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed for, or candidates for, listing);
Listed as endangered or threatened under the CESA (or proposed for listing); Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§ 1901); Designated as fully protected, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§ 3511, § 4700, or § 5050);
Designated as species of concern by the CDFW (CEQA Guidelines § 15380); or, Defined as rare or endangered under CEQA.

Methodology
A biological resources survey was conducted by Analytical Environmental Services (AES) Biologist Amy Gondran on August 11, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking transects throughout the Project Site and documenting findings with camera and field notes. The inside of the Harlan House was surveyed

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-29Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
room by room, but only the first floor was surveyed due to safety concerns regarding the upper floors.

Background review of biological information was obtained from the following sources:
Aerial photographs of the Project Site and surrounding area; California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list of special-status plant species known to occur in the Dublin and Diablo quads (CNPS, 2021; Appendix C);
CDFW California Natural Diversity Database list of special-status species known to occur in the Dublin and Diablo quads (CDFW, 2021; Appendix C)
USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation list of species listed or proposed for listing under FESA that occur in the vicinity of the Project Site (USFWS, 2021; Appendix C); USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of wetland features (USFWS, 2021b; Appendix C);
USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species (USFWS, 2021c; Appendix C); and
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) custom soils report (NRCS, 2021).

Habitats
The Project Site is situated within a developed residential community and consists of ruderal/disturbed habitat comprised of a historic house, gravel pad, non-native grasses, oaks trees, and ornamental shrubs.

Species observed include bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and valley oak (Quercus lobata). The historic house had multiple entry points for wildlife to access, and white wash droppings were observed inside. Burrows were also observed throughout the Project Site. No special-status species were observed at the time of survey.

A certified arborist prepared an arborist report for the Project Site to document the onsite and adjacent trees. Two coast live oaks, one valley oak, and one honey locust were observed on the Project Site (see Appendix C for details). One of the coast live oak was deemed in poor form with a substantial lean, which consequently makes preservation problematic. The other coast live oak was also determined to be in poor condition and necessitates removal. The valley oak was determined to be in good condition (Appendix C).

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and State
No wetlands or watercourses are present on the Project Site. Review of NWI did not indicate any wetlands or aquatic resources onsite, and review of the NRCS soils report indicate that soils on the Project Site are non-hydric.

Special-Status Species
Based on survey results, review of background species lists, and species’ associated habitat requirements, the Project Site may provide low quality habitat for one special-status plant species and two special-status animal species: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Regionally occurring species with no potential to occur on the Project Site were ruled out based on lack of suitable habitat,

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-30Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
soils, elevation, necessary substrate, and/or other environmental indicators. Special-status species were not observed during the survey.

Critical and Essential Fish Habitat
No USFWS designated or proposed Critical Habitat occurs on the Project Site (USFWS, 2021c).

Additionally, no Essential Fish Habitat occurs on the Project Site.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Special-Status Species
No, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Based on an analysis of the habitat requirements associated with regionally occurring special-status species, it was determined that the Project Site contains marginally suitable habitat one special-status plant species and two special-status animal species:

Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Congdon’s tarplant has the potential to occur within the ruderal/disturbed habitat of the Project Site. Pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat have the potential to be roosting within the historic house.

While no special-status plants were observed during the survey, the survey did not occur during the optimal identification period for these plants and it is possible that special-status plants may already be present or establish on the Project Site prior to construction. Removal of special-status plants would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that potentially occurring special-status plants, although unlikely to occur, are identified at a seasonally appropriate time and avoided prior to construction, or appropriately mitigated for.

Pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat have the potential to be roosting within the historic house. White wash droppings were observed within the structure at the time of survey, and there are multiple entry points for wildlife. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that potentially roosting bat species would be avoided during construction activities.

Migratory Birds
No, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a migratory bird in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Suitable habitat for nesting birds protected under California Fish

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-31Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Game Code, as well as the MBTA, occurs on and within 500 feet of the development footprint.

Nesting migratory birds and raptors could be affected if vegetation removal or loud noise-producing activities associated with construction commence during the general nesting season (February 15 through September 15). Disturbance of an active nest would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 includes a pre-construction nesting bird survey to identify active nests should construction commence during the general nesting season, and a disturbance-free buffer around active nests during construction until a qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Question B
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS because there are no sensitive habitats located on the Project Site. The Project Site consists of ruderal/disturbed habitat. This habitat type is not considered sensitive and provides little value to plant and wildlife species. There are no riparian or other sensitive habitats on the Project Site.

Question C
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The Project Site consists of ruderal/disturbed habitat. There are no wetlands or aquatic features located on the Project Site.

Question D
Would the project: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact. No, the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project Site has previously been disturbed and is situated within a developed residential area near major thoroughfares and I-680, limiting wildlife access to the Project Site. No wildlife corridors were identified within the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site does not support wildlife nurseries or access to wildlife nurseries. There would be no impact.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-32Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Question E
Would the project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As discussed, the arborist report described four trees onsite, and three of the four trees would need to be removed due to the Proposed Project’s footprint (Appendix C). The City has a tree preservation and protection ordinance that requires a tree permit prior to removal for any tree that is not exempt. The two on-site coast live oaks would require permitting for removal. Removal of the two coast live oaks without an approved permit would be inconsistent with the City’s tree protection ordinance. However, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain the appropriate tree removal permit prior to the removal of coast live oaks. No tree removal permit is required for the removal of the honey locust, as this tree does not meet the trunk diameter criterion for preservation and/or permitting under the City of San Ramon Planning Services tree removal permit requirements. As part of the tree removal permitting process, the minimum number of replacement tree plantings and acceptable species of replacement plantings would be made a conditional of project approval prior to the removal of protected trees. For the remaining on-site tree that can be preserved, the valley oak, this tree could be damaged during construction. Recommendations in the arborist report, included as Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in Section 3.5.4, prevent damage to the valley oak during construction. With Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and the acquisition of the necessary tree removal permit prior to removal of protected trees, this impact would be less than significant.

Question F
Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that include the Project Site.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The context for determining cumulative impacts considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Past development in the vicinity of the Project Site is largely associated with the larger City of San Ramon, including residential development, transportation infrastructure, commercial and industrial uses, and agricultural uses. Future development is guided by the City’s General Plan.

It is unlikely that special-status plants occur on the Project Site. However, with Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Proposed Project would identify special-status plant locations prior to construction, if any.

Identified plants would be avoided, transplanted, or replaced through compensatory plantings, resulting in no net loss of special-status plants. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to special-status plants.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-33Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
There is potential for special-status bat species to be roosting within the historic structure on site.

However, with Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure that potentially roosting bat species would be avoided during construction activities. Should a special-status bat roost be detected and deemed necessary to be removed, replacement of suitable, species-specific roost habitat at a 1:1 ratio would be provided prior to exclusion. Consultation with CDFW would occur to determine proper habitat replacement methodology. There would be no cumulative impacts to special-status bat species.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3, the Proposed Project would avoid potential impacts to nesting migratory birds. Because potential impacts would be avoided, the Proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute to impacts to nesting birds.

The Proposed Project would be compliant with the City’s tree protection ordinance. Cumulatively considered projects in the City would be required to be compliant with local regulation and plans and would, therefore, require the appropriate permits, as necessary. Because the Proposed Project is compliant with City ordinance and permitting requirements, and because other projects would need to be compliant, cumulative impacts are less than significant.

Overall, the Proposed Project would not contribute a significant level of cumulative, direct, or indirect impacts to sensitive habitats, special-status species and their habitat, or migratory birds. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not conflict with local plans or policies protecting biological resources. Other cumulatively considerable projects would be required to implement measures to project biological resources consistent with federal, state, and local policies. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative regional impacts associated with biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.

MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO-1 Special-Status Plants
A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction botanical survey of the Project Site at a seasonally appropriate time for regionally-occurring special-status species, including the Congdon’s tarplant which was identified as having the potential to occur on the Project Site. If any special-status plant species are found during the pre-construction survey, a high-visibility fencing, no-disturbance buffer be established by the biologist around the species’ location to avoid direct or indirect impacts. Encroachment into the nodisturbance buffer area will not be permitted and fencing will remain in place until all construction activities have ceased.

Should a special-status plant be identified for which impacts are unavoidable, consultation with the appropriate agency will occur to determine the appropriate mitigation for impacts. The USFWS will be consulted for federally-protected species, and/or the City for CNPS-listed species. Mitigation will include either transplanting of plants by a qualified biologist, or in-kind compensatory plantings. Transplanted and planted individuals will be monitored annually by a qualified biologist for a minimum of three years with annual reports to the appropriate authority. Should a transplanted or compensatory planting fail, the plant will be replaced and subject to three additional years of monitoring. Compensatory plantings will occur at a minimum ratio of 2:1 and achieve a minimum success rating of 75 percent.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-34Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BIO-2 Bat Survey
A qualified bat biologist will conduct pre-construction bat surveys of all potentially suitable bat habitats in the vicinity of any construction activities, including buildings scheduled to be modified or relocated, within two weeks of the beginning of construction activities. Additional surveys may be completed up to one year in advance of construction activities to identify potential roosts and perform exclusion, if necessary. Preconstruction surveys will include evening fly-out surveys at each potential egress accompanied by acoustic monitoring, daytime surveys, and surveys for bat sign. If no bats and/or evidence of bats (e.g., guano) are detected during the pre-construction surveys, no additional surveys are required. If no evidence of bats occurs, then no further mitigation will be necessary. If bats or evidence of bats are detected during the pre-construction surveys, a qualified bat biologist will facilitate bat evacuation from structures.

Evacuation or removal will avoid the maternity roosting season and occur only during the following seasonal periods of bat activity: 1) prior to maternity season from approximately March 1 (or when night temperatures are above 45 °F and when rains have ceased) through April 15 (when females begin to give birth to young) and 2) prior to winter torpor from September 1 (when young bats are self-sufficiently volant) until October 15 (before night temperatures fall below 45 °F and rains begin). Evacuation may include the installation of appropriate exclusionary devices around building structures while bats are away from their roosts. Should the qualified biologist determine that special-status bat exclusion from existing structures is necessary, an exclusion plan will be provided to CDFW as appropriate. The exclusionary devices will be monitored frequently at appropriate times and intervals to ensure that all bats have left the roosts and that no bats re-enter during the duration of construction activities impacting the bat habitat structure. Once construction activities are complete, the exclusionary devices will be removed. Should construction halt for a period of more than seven days, an additional pre-construction survey will occur for suitable bat roost habitat for which exclusion has not occurred.

Should a special-status bat roost be detected and deemed necessary to be removed, replacement of suitable, species-specific roost habitat at a 1:1 ratio will be provided on-site prior to exclusion.

Consultation with CDFW will occur to determine proper habitat replacement methodology and adaptive management measures.

BIO-3 Nesting Bird Survey
If groundbreaking is scheduled to begin during the general nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey of the Project Site and publicly-accessible areas within 500 feet of the Project Site within five days prior to site disturbance.

Results of the pre-construction survey will be submitted to the City. If nesting birds are not observed, then further mitigation is not required.

If an active nest is identified, the following will occur:
The qualified biologist will establish a minimum 100-foot Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) around the nest. The ESA may be reduced if the biologist determines that a smaller ESA would still adequately protect the nest. Similarly, the ESA may be enlarged if the biologist determines a larger buffer is necessary to protect the nest.
The City of San Ramon Development Department will be notified within 24 hours.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-35Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Work may not occur within the ESA until the qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer active.

BIO-4 Tree Preservation Measures
For the tree that is to remain onsite, the valley oak, a fence will be erected around the tree prior to construction equipment coming onsite and include the following specifications:
Six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Posted signs saying "TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM PROJECT ARBORIST”.
The fencing will be located as close to this location as possible while allowing room for construction to occur. This includes the “Tree Projection Zone" being a distance of five feet beyond the canopy of the tree that is indicated to remain.

This fencing is to remain onsite during the entire period of construction of the Proposed Project. A final inspection by a certified arborist is required at the end of the Proposed Project’s construction and is to be done prior to the tree fencing being removed.

In addition, any tree or root pruning during construction will be supervised by an International Society of Arborists (ISA)-certified Arborist/Project Arborist, and the following construction activities will be performed under the supervision of a certified arborist:
Demolition.
Excavation of structure foundations.
Any drainage or utility pipes or lines within the drip-line or root zone of the trees to be protected. Trimming of trees.
Any grading or excavation work within the drip-line or root-zone of the trees to be protected.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-36Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Information in this section is summarized from a Feasibility Study (ARG, 1995) and an assessment of the Proposed Project’s compatibility with historic preservation standards (Architectural Assessment) (Brunzell Historical, 2021) prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix D).

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that, for projects financed by or requiring the discretionary approval of public agencies in California, the effects that a project has on historical and unique archaeological resources be considered (PRC § 21083.2). Historical resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance (PRC § 50201). The CEQA Guidelines (§ 15064.5) define three cases in which a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA review:
The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
The resource is included in a local register of historic resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey that meets the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC (unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant).

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-37Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC §§ 5020.1(j), 5024.1, or significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 5024.1 defines eligibility requirements and states that a resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Resources must retain integrity to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. Resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (PRC § 5024.1(d)(1)).

PRC § 21083.2 governs the treatment of a unique archaeological resource, which is defined as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated” that it meets any of the following criteria:
It contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
It has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type.
It is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
In the event of discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether the remains are Native American. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-38Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives are located within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of San Ramon General Plan (2015). Applicable implementation policies include:

Implementing Policy 8.7-I-1: Require that new development evaluate potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources and, if necessary, implement appropriate mitigation measures to protect the resources. Projects that disturb undeveloped land or propose the demolition or substantial modification of structures 45 years of age or older will be required to evaluate potential cultural resource impacts.

Implementing Policy 8.7-I-2: Protect and maintain the integrity of officially listed historic resources.

Implementing Policy 8.7-I-4: As a standard condition of approval, require all development projects involving grading and excavation to implement appropriate measures in the even that burial sites or human remains are encountered during earthwork activities.

City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan
Applicable WSP policies are located within the Conservation/Open Space element of the City of San Ramon Westside Specific Plan (1997). Applicable preservation policies include:

Preservation Policy 5: Ensure that all historic and cultural resources are preserved and enhanced, including the rock walls and any archaeological sites. The Harlan Homestead, the Boone home and the David Glass house are designated as places of historic interest that should be preserved. If desirable, the historic homes may be relocated to an appropriate site set aside as a preservation “park” area.

Cultural Context
Prehistoric Setting
Northern California has been occupied for at least the last 10,000 years. The early inhabitants have been identified as the Paleo Indians who were nomadic, using primarily large pointed tools for hunting and collecting seafood. It is assumed that the Bay Area was inhabited from 5,000 to 10,000 years ago; however, no sites have been identified (Contra Costa County, 2005).

With the sea level stabilizing, the Bay and Delta were substantially formed. The subsistence pattern of the early inhabitants shifted with emphasis placed on acorn processing and hunting. Trade increased and tools and ornaments were more abundant as well as more refined. Between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago, cultural patterns were established in large villages along the shoreline and inland permanent streams throughout the Bay Area. The population grew rapidly and a complex society developed (Contra Costa County, 2005).

The beginning of the cultures that were in place at contact with the Spanish was approximately 1,500 years ago. This period saw continuation of the growth of economic specialization and the introduction of

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-39Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the bow and arrow. The three groups that inhabited Contra Costa County, the Coastanoan (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, and Northern Valley Yokuts, established their territorial boundaries. Prehistoric evidence indicates that perhaps the Yokuts were the last to arrive in the Bay Area (Contra Costa County, 2005).

The Coastanoans inhabited the western hills, plains, and Bay shore from Carquinez south to Salinas. All of the village sites were associated with a permanent source of fresh water. Many were at the mouth of streams along the Bay shore, but a number of villages were established inland along permanent streams at the base of the hills at the 50- to 150-meter elevation, as evidenced by the many sites which have been identified. Special use and seasonal use sites were established throughout the Coastanoan territory, often in association with rock outcrops or abundant food sources (Contra Costa County, 2005).

The Bay Miwok settled along the western slopes of the Diablo range, the inland valleys, and on the northern coastal plains. Their largest villages were located in the San Ramon Valley. The Northern Valley Yokuts settled along the eastern slopes of the Diablo range to the San Joaquin River. Their primary villages were along the San Joaquin River with only scattered use of the eastern plains and smaller secondary villages in the inland valleys. In 1776, Mission Dolores was established in San Francisco.

Cultural subjugation, plagues, and subdivision of the area into ranches largely destroyed Native American lifestyles (Contra Costa County, 2005).

Historic Setting
Topography, climate, and historical conditions shaped the patterns of settlement in Contra Costa County during the second and third quarters of the 19th century. The rich alluvial soils that covered the valley floors, the white and live oak, sycamore and chamise that grew on the hillsides, the mild climate, and the wind-sheltered valley floors created conditions ideal for settlement. The San Ramon, Acalanes, Laguna Palos Colorados, and San Miguel Ranches were established by Califorinios in the San Ramon, Tassajara, Green, Moraga, and Lafayette valleys during the period 1826-1828 (ARG, 1995).

Toward the middle of the 19th century, lumber houses and specialized outbuildings serving the needs of farming, livestock, and dairy enterprises were built. At that time, a ranch was an extensive industrial enterprise operated by one family, with the help of hired hands. Although little is known about the operation of the Harlan ranch during this period, it is thought to have been an extensive enterprise (ARG, 1995).

Joel Harlan was born in Wayne County, Indiana in 1828. In 1831, he moved with his parents and extended family to southwestern Michigan. The Harlan family began the trek to California c. 1845-1846.

After reaching California, Joel Harlan resided in Napa, San Francisco, Coloma (during the Gold Rush), and Mission San Jose. In 1849, he married Minerva Fowler, a native of Bellevue, Illinois. In 1852, Joel and Minerva Harlan moved to the Amador Valley where he built a house on the Alameda and Contra Costa County line (ARG, 1995). Joel Harlan purchased 1,000 acres from Leo Norris in 1852 and an additional 2,000 acres from Norris in 1856; he may also have purchased 300 acres from the Bartolome Pacheco League, originally part of the first Rancho San Ramon.

There is some debate regarding the origin of the house – it may have been constructed circa 1852 and located approximately 1.75 miles to the south, near the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. When Alameda County was created in 1853, the “house of Joel Harlan” was a point

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-40Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
defining the border between Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The original house may have been moved to the subject property in 1856 and used as the core of the Gothic Revival-style two-story house that was completed in 1858, which currently stands on the parcel.

Joel Harlan resided there until his death in 1875. Minerva Harlan and her children lived in El Nido (Harlan House) until her death in 1915 (ARG, 1995). The Harlan House remained inhabited by the Harlan Family until 1923. During this time, many acres of the property were sold. Following the death of the final Harlan Family inhabitants, the property was believed to be vacant between 1923 and 1935. In 1933, following Addie’s death, Carmen Stolp Geldermann, Minerva’s granddaughter, was named administratrix of the estate, and in 1935, Carmen and her husband and son, Harlan Geldermann, moved into the Harlan House. At this time, a few alterations were made to the Harlan House, including the addition of a pergola to the front porch.

The estate, however, was still not settled, and a group of Harlan heirs sued Carmen in 1941. In the late 1940s, Harlan Geldermann moved back onto the family property with his young family. By 1961, Harlan and his wife Audrey were living adjacent to the main house. About this time, the Geldermanns “modernized” the house, although the nature of these renovations is unclear. During this period, the grounds around the house were lavishly landscaped, with lawns, rounded beds for flowers and shrubs, and mature trees that had been planted decades before. Harlan continued living on the property after his parents’ death with his wife and children, apparently moving into the main house about 1970. Harlan Geldermann died in 1979; it does not appear that members of the Harlan family lived in the house after his death.

During the 1970s and 1980s, much of the vicinity around the Harlan House was developed as residential subdivisions. In the 1990s, subdivisions were constructed on parcels near the house itself. Over time changes were made, either to accommodate changes in style and taste or, as in the case of the kitchen, to replace a succession of kitchen wings, each destroyed by fire. A full width front porch and veranda were depicted in historic photographs of the building but have since been removed; likewise, outbuildings that once existed are now gone. Architectural details are included in the two reports (ARG, 1995; Brunzell, 2021) included in Appendix D.

Record Search
A record search was completed on August 4, 2021 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University (NWIC File No.: 21-0175), a review of pertinent literature and historic maps, a Native American contact program, and a field survey. The NWIC search included the Project Site and a

0.25-mile buffer zone. The records search was completed to: (1) determine whether cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to the study area and to determine if the parcel was surveyed in the past; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on archaeological, ethnographic, and historical documents and literature, and; (3) to review the distribution of nearby archaeological sites in relation to their environmental setting. This record search included, but was not necessarily restricted to, a review of the NRHP, CRHR, historical marker listings, Contra Costa County resource listings, and historic maps.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-41Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
No archaeological surveys have been recorded within the Proposed Project Site other than those performed by ARG (1995) and Brunzell (2021); however, four have been completed within the 0.25-mile buffer. The only known resource within the 0.25-mile buffer is the Harlan House.

Field Survey
AES Senior Archaeologist Charlane Gross, M.A., RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology, conducted a cultural resources field survey of the Project Site on August 11, 2021. At the time of the survey, the Project Site was thickly covered in mowed grasses and forbs, with shrubs around the front of the parcel and three large oak trees along the back. The house sits on a low rise, with a number of small dirt piles scattered across the landscape. There are no structures other than the Harlan House, which was in a semi-dilapidated condition at the time of the survey. The survey consisted of transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals, but overall ground surface visibility was poor, less than 5 percent. The best visibility was in rodent burrow backdirt and some slightly cleared areas near the house. Artifacts observed included shell fragments, calcined faunal fragments, window glass, patinated curved bottle glass, undecorated whiteware fragments, and a fragment of a glass inkwell. All of these artifacts are contemporary with the period of occupation of the house, but none appeared to be individually significant.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Although its historic importance was widely accepted by the 1960s, El Nido has never been formally evaluated; none of the early documentation of the Harlan House has included formal evaluation under NRHP or CRHR criteria. ARG (1995) concluded that the property appeared eligible for historic listing and suggested 1852 – 1915 as the period of significance, using Minerva Harlan’s death as an endpoint. ARG also recommended retention of the front porch and rear addition (both extant when the report was prepared). By 2010, the porch and rear addition had been removed.

Brunzell (2021) stated that the property’s integrity has been negatively impacted over the intervening years by the loss of the landscaping, outbuildings, and modern construction nearby. Demolition of the rear wing and front porch has also caused a partial loss of integrity. However, the property appears eligible to the NRHP and the CRHR under both criteria A/1 (historical significance) and C/3 (architectural significance). Wood frame houses constructed in the 1850s are extremely rare in California; it is highly likely that this is the oldest example of its property type in Contra Costa County. Its history is also unusual in that it was used as a residence by the same family for approximately 120 years. Despite its poor condition and the alterations performed since the late 1990s, it is easily able to convey its original significance as an 1850s farmhouse. Therefore, it appears to possess the associations as well as the integrity required for historical listing. A somewhat longer period of significance may be appropriate, and an end point of circa 1938 was recommended by Brunzell (2021). This would encompass the entire period when the first and second generations of Harlans occupied and actively farmed the property.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-42Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Each of the evaluations (ARG, 1995; Brunzell, 2021) have emphasized that the Proposed Project, shifting the Harlan House approximately 40 feet so that it can be restored and reused, then adding new structures for the Assisted Living facility, is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 presented in Section 3.6.4 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level by requiring adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Question B
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the results of the records search, literature review, and field survey, there are no known prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Site, and the potential for unknown CRHR-eligible prehistoric resources within the Project Site is considered to be low due to the level of previous disturbance and the distance from a natural water source. There is a greater potential that buried historic resources, such as foundations, privies, trash pits, and wells associated with the Harlan House would be uncovered during construction. If buried resources are discovered during construction, impacts to those resources are potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 presented in Section 3.6.4 would ensure that inadvertently discovered prehistoric or historic resources would be investigated and evaluated for eligibility to the CRHR. These actions would reduce potential impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Question C
Would the project: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Based on the results of the records search, literature review, and field survey, there are no known cultural resources within the Project Site, and the potential for unknown CRHR-eligible resources within the Project Site is considered to be low due to the level of previous disturbance and the distance from a natural water source. There is always the potential, however remote, that previously unknown human remains could be encountered during subsurface construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 presented in Section 3.6.4 would ensure that inadvertently discovered resources would be investigated and evaluated for eligibility to the CRHR. Moreover, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 would provide for the appropriate treatment of human remains. These actions would reduce potential impacts to previously unidentified human remains to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Potential cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project area have the potential to impact cultural resources. Archaeological and historic resources are afforded special legal protections designed to reduce the cumulative effects of development. Potential cumulative projects and the Proposed Project would be subject to the protection of cultural resources afforded by the CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 and related provisions of the PRC. Given the non-renewable nature of cultural resources, any impact to protected sites could be considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-43Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
above, no known protected archaeological or historic resources were identified within the Proposed Project’s Development Footprint. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 provide for the protection of unanticipated finds made during ground disturbing activities. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources is considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
CR-1 Harlan House
In the event that the Proposed Project is completed as planned, i.e. the Harlan House is relocated approximately 40 feet closer to the road and new construction is added to the property, conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards shall be required, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) as detailed in the Architectural Assessment (Brunzell, 2021). Every feasible effort will be made to replicate distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Historic photographs shall be consulted in order to carefully match the reconstruction of the front porch to its historic-era appearance in all details and materials.

Restoration features suggested in the Architectural Assessment (Brunzell, 2021) shall be implemented. Existing elements of the building that date from the historic era and are salvageable shall be retained and repaired.
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the Harlan House will be avoided. An architectural historian who meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards professional qualifications shall be consulted in planning the specifics of the relocation and restoration of the Harlan House.
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old but shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

CR-2 Inadvertent Resource Discovery
In the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all such finds will be subject to PRC § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. Archaeological resources include prehistoric materials as well as historic features associated with the earliest periods of El Nido. Therefore, the Project Proponent shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to monitor daily ground-disturbing activities associated with relocation of the historic Harlan House and construction of new facilities. These activities include, but are not limited to, all grading activities, foundation excavation, utility excavation, tree removal,

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-44Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and site preparation. Once ground disturbing activities are complete, archaeological monitoring may cease.

Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following:
All work within a 30-foot radius of the find will halt, and the City will be notified within 24 hours.

Workers will avoid altering the materials until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with CRHR criteria. The Project Proponent will include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement.
The qualified archeologist will make recommendations to the City on the measures that will be implemented to protect the discovered resources. These measures may include, but not be limited to, avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation, mapping, data collection, and/or re-burial on project property so the resource(s) are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity.

If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(b)(3)(C), a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, will be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies will be deposited with the NWIC. If necessary, excavation and evaluation of the finds will comply with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
If the find represents a prehistoric resource, representatives of the Native American community will be consulted. Construction will not resume in the vicinity of the find until consultation is concluded, or until a reasonable, good-faith effort has failed to provide a resolution that is acceptable to the consulting parties.

CR-3 Human Remains Discovery
In the event that human remains are encountered during construction activities, the City will comply with Section 15064.5 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. The county coroner will be notified within 24 hours of the encounter, and all project-related ground disturbance within 100 feet of the find will halt until the county coroner has been notified. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC to identify the most likely descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Project-related ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find will not resume until the process detailed in Section 15064.5 (e) has been completed.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-45Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.7 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1974 Warren-Alquist Act (PRC § 25000 et seq.) established the California Energy Commission (CEC) and created a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Legislature continues to amend the Act to address pressing energy needs and issues, and the CEC publishes an updated version of the Act each year. The 2019 edition of the Warren-Alquist Act was published in February of 2019.

State of California Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 requires the CEC to adopt an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. The IEPR contains an assessment of major energy trends and issues facing the electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors within California. The IEPR provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the economy of California; and protect public health and safety.

The IEPR calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the IEPR identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-46Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Draft 2019 IEPR was submitted for public comment on November 8, 2019 and covers a broad range of topics including decarbonizing buildings, integrating renewables, energy efficiency, energy equity, electricity reliability, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, a natural gas assessment, a transportation energy demand forecast, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. The 2019 IEPR provides the results of the CEC assessments on a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, clean energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs.

California Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (California Building Energy Efficiency Standards) specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in California. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The most recent standards were adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020 (for building permit applications submitted on or after that date). These standards are updated every three years. The new standards require better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Non-residential buildings are expected to use about 30 percent less energy compared to the 2016 Energy Efficiency Standards, primarily due to lighting upgrades.

California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen, specified in CCR, Title 24, Part 11, is a State-wide regulatory code for all buildings, residential and commercial included. The regulations are intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low-pollution emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment. The standards require that all new residential and non-residential development implement various energy conservation measures, including ceiling, wall, and concrete slab insulation; weather stripping on doors and windows; closeable doors on fireplaces; insulated heating and cooling ducts; water heater insulation blankets; and certified energy efficient appliances. CALGreen is updated periodically and the latest update, CALGreen 2019, became effective on January 1, 2020.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program was established in 2002 by SB 1078 and requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide a certain percentage of their supply from renewable sources. The initial requirement was that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales had to be served by renewable resources by 2017. The RPS program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 that mandated a 50 percent RPS by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, increasing the RPS to 60 percent by 2030 and requiring all electricity in California to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Assembly Bill 1007 (Pavley)-Alternative Fuel Standards
Assembly Bill (AB) 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California; therefore, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other local, State, and federal

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-47Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
agencies. The final State Alternative Fuels Plan, published in December 2007, attempts to achieve an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with personal transportation, even as the population of California increases.

City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives related to energy include:

Policy 12.8-I-1 Increase the use of energy conservation features, renewable sources of energy and low-emission equipment in new and existing development projects within the City.

Policy 12.8-I-2 Encourage the use of solar-ready roofs into residential and commercial development. New residential development should include proper solar orientation (south-facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal), clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water systems, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. Roofs for commercial development should be designed to maximize potential area available for solar panels and provide electrical conduit to support future installation.

Environmental Setting
Energy would be supplied to the Project Site by PG&E.

PG&E Electric Utility Operations
PG&E provides “bundled” services (i.e., electricity, transmission, and distribution services) to most of the six million customers in its service territory, including residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural consumers. Customers also can obtain electricity from alternative providers such as municipalities or Customer Choice Aggregators, as well as from self-generation resources like rooftop solar installations. In 2018, PG&E generated and/or procured a total of 48,832 gigawatt hours of electricity. Of this total, PG&E owns 7,686 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity (Table 3-7). The remaining electrical power is purchased from other sources in and outside of California.

TABLE 3-7. PG&E-OWNED ELECTRICITY GENERATING SOURCES
Source Generating Capacity (MW)
Nuclear 2,240
Hydroelectric 3,891
Fossil Fuel-Fired 1,400
Fuel Cell 3
Photovoltaic 152
Total 7,686
Source: PG&E, 2018.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-48Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Renewable Energy Resources
California law requires load-serving entities, such as PG&E, to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy they deliver to their customers. SB 350 became effective on January 1, 2016, increasing the amount of renewable energy that must be delivered by most load-serving entities, such as PG&E, to their customers from 33 percent of their total annual retail sales by the end of the 2017-2020 compliance period to 50 percent of their total annual retail sales by the end of the 2028-2030 compliance period. In September 2018, the California Governor signed SB 100 into law, increasing the California electricity portfolio that must come from renewables from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030; and establishing a State policy that 100 percent of all retail electricity sales must come from RPS-eligible or carbon-free resources by 2045.

Renewable generation resources, for the purposes of the RPS program, include bioenergy such as biogas and biomass, certain hydroelectric facilities (30 MW or less), wind, solar, and geothermal energy.

During 2018, 38.9 percent of energy deliveries from PG&E were from renewable energy sources, exceeding the annual RPS target of 28 percent (Table 3-8).

TABLE 3-8. PG&E RENEWABLE ENERGY DELIVERIES
Source Percent of Total Energy Portfolio
Biopower 4.4
Geothermal 3.7
Wind 10
RPS-Eligible Hydroelectric 2.7
Solar 18.1
Total 38.9
Source: PG&E, 2018.

Electricity Transmission
As of December 31, 2018, PG&E owned approximately 18,000 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines operating at voltages ranging from 60 kilovolts (kV) to 500 kV (PG&E, 2018). PG&E also operated 84 electric transmission substations with a capacity of approximately 65,000 megavolt amperes (MVA). The PG&E electric transmission system is interconnected with electric power systems in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, which includes many western U.S states; Alberta and British Columbia, Canada; and parts of Mexico.

Electricity Distribution
The PG&E electric distribution network consists of approximately 107,000 circuit miles of distribution lines (approximately 20 percent underground and 80 percent overhead), 50 transmission switching substations, and 769 distribution substations, with a capacity of approximately 32,000 MVA (PG&E, 2018).

These distribution substations serve as the central hubs of the PG&E electric distribution network.

Emanating from each substation are primary and secondary distribution lines connected to local transformers and switching equipment that link distribution lines and provide delivery to end users. In some cases, PG&E sells electricity from its distribution facilities to entities, such as municipal and other

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-49Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
utilities, that resell the electricity. PG&E operates electric distribution control center facilities in Concord, Rocklin, and Fresno, California; these control centers are a key component of the PG&E effort to create a smarter, more resilient grid.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction
Less than Significant. Construction of the Proposed Project would consume energy primarily from fuel consumed by construction vehicles and equipment. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, paving, and building. Fuel consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on available fuel. There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce energy consumption by requiring the contractor to minimize equipment idling time. These measures would further reduce fuel and energy use during all stages of construction and avoid the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel energy.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel energy as it would comply with relevant standards.

Operation
Less than Significant. As described in Section 2.3, the Proposed Project would be designed and constructed to comply with the applicable requirements of the California Building Code and CALGreen.

Additionally, the Proposed Project would incorporate energy-efficient design features to include, but not be limited to, photovoltaic panels, energy efficient appliances and fixtures, and drought tolerant landscaping. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Question B
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As described above, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable State and local energy standards, such as the California Building Code, CALGreen, and the City Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-50Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. With regard to energy usage, the California Public Utilities Commissions’ LongTerm Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceedings were established to ensure a safe, reliable, and costeffective electricity supply in California. A major component of the LTPP proceeding addresses the overall long-term need for new system reliability resources, including the adoption of system resource plans.

These resource plans will allow the California Public Utilities Commission to comprehensively assess the impacts of state energy policies on the need for new resources. As discussed above, several aspects of the Proposed Project would help manage the amount and efficiency of energy consumption and would ensure that the related consumption is not inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary, or place a significant demand on regional energy supplies. Therefore, impacts to energy resources resulting from the Proposed Project, combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulative impact to which the Proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-51Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.8 GEOLOGY/SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-52Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
CEQA
CEQA provides protection for unique paleontological resources and unique geologic features, and requires that planners consider impacts to such resources in the project review process. CEQA distinguishes between ubiquitous fossils that are of little scientific consequence, and those, which are of some importance by providing protection for the latter. While CEQA does not precisely define unique paleontological resources, criteria established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) provide guidance. The SVP defines a significant paleontological resource as one that meets one or more of the following criteria (SVP, 1995):

Provides important information shedding light on evolutionary trends and/or helping to relate living organisms to extinct organisms; provides important information regarding the development of biological communities; demonstrates unusual circumstances in the history of life; represents a rare taxon or a rare or unique occurrence, is in short supply and in danger of being destroyed or depleted; has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or provides important information used to correlate strata for which it may be difficult to obtain other types of age dates.

CEQA similarly fails to define precisely a unique geologic feature. For the purpose of this analysis, a unique geologic feature is a resource or formation that:

Is the best example locally or regionally; embodies distinct characteristics of a geologic principal that is exclusive locally or regionally; provides a key piece of geologic information important in geology or geologic history; is a type locality of a geologic feature; or contains a mineral not known to occur elsewhere locally or regionally; or is a common teaching tool.

Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1997, the U.S. Congress passed the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction (NEHR) Act to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was significantly amended in November 1990 by the NEHR Act, which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.

NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities, improvement of building codes and land use practices, risk reduction through postearthquake investigations and education, development and improvement of design and construction techniques, improvement of mitigation capacity, and accelerated application of research results. The NEHR Act designates Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the Lead Agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other NEHR Act agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-53Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed by the California Legislature to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must regulate most development in fault zones established by the State Geologist. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Study Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC §§ 2690–2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.

California Building Standards Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBC) (CCR Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The CBC also applies to building design and construction in the state and is based on the International Building Code used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with numerous more detailed and/or more stringent regulations.

The CBC includes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards by reference. The ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures provides structural load requirements for earthquakes and other hazards. ASCE 7 is referenced throughout the CBC, especially in Chapter 16 Structural Design.

City of San Ramon Municipal Code, Title C, Division C7
Title C, Division C7 of the City Municipal Code establishes administrative requirements for issuance of permits and approval of plans and inspection of grading construction in accordance with the requirements for grading and excavation within the Uniform Building Code as adopted and modified by the City ordinance. Furthermore, it sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, erosion control, grading and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments.

Environmental Setting
Regional Geology
The Project Site is located near the eastern boundary of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province (Province) of California, near the margin of the Great Valley Province (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2002). The Province lies between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley of California and stretches from the Oregon border to the north and continues south to the Santa Ynez River near Santa Barbara. The northern and southern portions of the Province are divided by a depression containing the

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-54Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Bay. Much of the Province is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges, ridges, and valleys composed of the Franciscan Complex. According to CGS’s Geologic Map of California, the dominant rock type in the project vicinity is Type Q, which is a Pleistocene-Holocene period type characterized by alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits (CGS, 2015).

Site Topography
The topography of the Project Site is relatively flat, with an average elevation of 438 feet amsl. There are no mapped landslides or landslide features on the Project Site (DOC, 2015).

Paleontological Setting
The City lies in a geological transition zone between the Sacramento Valley to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. The deposits underlying the City comprise a variety of rock types dating from various geologic periods, with certain formations containing fossils, some of which may be paleontologically significant. Fossils are the preserved remains of ancient organisms. Mineralized organisms are the most commonly known type of fossils and usually consist of hard material such as bone, shell, and wood. Many common fossils have shapes that can look very bone-like and are usually preserved after being quickly buried in sediment.

Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones
The City is located in a relatively high seismic hazard area (USGS, 2018). The Alquist-Priolo Act defines active faults as those that have shown seismic activity during approximately the past 11,000 years, while potentially active faults are those that have shown activity within the Quaternary period, or the past 1.8 million years (CGS, 2019). The Calaveras fault zone runs parallel to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, approximately 600 feet west of the Project Site. The fault zone consists of multiple fault sections in the vicinity of the Project Site, including fault sections that are considered potentially active as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act (USGS, 2021). There are no mapped faults located on the Project Site.

Seismic Shaking Intensity
The combined probability of a major quake in the Bay Area is 72 percent over the next 30 years (USGS, 2021b). Therefore, future seismic shaking is anticipated at the Project Site. Ground shaking severity at the Project Site would depend on the distance from the fault rupture, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the site-specific soil conditions.

Soils
The Project Site consists of Clear Lake clay, which is a soil type typical of areas with low slopes and are poorly drained (NRCS, 2021). A soil type’s potential to induce electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete or uncoated steel is known as “risk of corrosion.” The rate of corrosion is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity, and texture of the soil. The soil type on the Project Site has a moderate concrete corrosion rating and a high steel corrosion rating (NRCS, 2021).

Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength caused by seismic forces acting on water-saturated, granular soil leading to a “quicksand” condition generating various types of ground failure. Soils comprised of sand and sandy loams that are in areas with high groundwater tables or high rainfall are

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-55Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
subject to liquefaction. As described in in the geotechnical investigation of the Project Site, included as Appendix E, the risk of liquefaction on the Project Site is considered nil.

An expansive soil is a soil that is prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content, which can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. As described in the geotechnical investigation of the Project Site, included as Appendix E, the Project Site includes expansive soils.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ((i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Although the Project Site is located in an area that may be subject to seismic ground shaking in the future, there are no mapped surface faults on the Project Site that would have the potential to rupture. As described in Section 3.8.2, there are fault sections in the vicinity of the Project Site that are considered potentially active as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act. Although potential damage to people or structures from seismic ground shaking could occur, compliance with the CBC would require the seismicdesign response spectrum to be established and incorporated into the design of all new structures. Any new structures and utilities would be designed to withstand seismic forces per CBC requirements.

Therefore, these construction standards would minimize the seismic ground shaking effects on developed structures to a less than significant level.

Question B
Would the project: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the temporary disturbance of soil and may expose disturbed areas to storm events, which could generate accelerated runoff, localized erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could exacerbate soil erosion and result in the loss of topsoil; this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require the implementation of erosion control measures as described in Section 3.11.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure that potential impacts resulting from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less than significant level.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-56Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Question C
Would the project: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant. As described in Appendix E, the Project Site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that has been identified as unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project. Compliance with the CBC would ensure that the Proposed Project would not exasperate existing conditions related to unstable geologic units or soils. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Question D
Would the project: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project Site is located on soils that are subject to expansion, which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (refer to Appendix E for additional information). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 includes a requirement for a final geotechnical evaluation, which would be performed by a registered engineer and would determine if development areas include soil that has potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landslides. The geotechnical evaluation and the recommendations therein would be to CBC and ASCE 7 structural design standards. Compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code (Title C, Division C7) and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from liquefaction, landslides, unstable geologic units or soils, or expansive soils; this is a less than significant impact with mitigation.

Question E
Would the project: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include septic tanks or new on-site wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Question F
Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No individually significant paleontological resources were observed within the Project Site. Because fossil localities cannot be predicted without actually disturbing a rock unit, paleontological resources may be uncovered during project construction; if such a discovery were made, it would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-57Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Implementation of the Proposed Project and other potential cumulative projects in the region, including growth resulting from build-out of the City General Plan could result in increased erosion and soil hazards, expose additional structures and people to seismic hazards, and potentially damage unique paleontological resources or sites. These impacts are mitigable with implementation of construction-period erosion control programs, standard seismic safety measures incorporated in building design, and procedures for inadvertent paleontological or geological discoveries.

The Proposed Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure GEO-2 to ensure a less than significant effect; therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
GEO-1 Final Design-Level Geotechnical Report
The following measures will be implemented to prevent the loss of life or property as a result of development on unstable or expansive soils. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new buildings or parking structures, a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical Engineer will prepare a final geotechnical report that provides design-grade specifications for structural engineering of all new construction and retrofitting of historic buildings. The Project Proponent will submit the final design-level geotechnical report for the City Planning and Building Services Department for review and approval. The report must be compliant with the CBC, City’s Municipal Code (Title C, Division C7), and incorporate CGS Special Publication 117A guidelines. According to the CBC Chapter 18, the geotechnical report must include, at a minimum, the following:
A plot showing the location of the soil investigations. A complete record of the soil boring and penetration test logs and soil samples. A record of the soil profile.
Elevation of the water table, if encountered.
Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including but not limited to: bearing capacity of natural or compacted soil; provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils; mitigation of the effects of liquefaction, differential settlement and varying soil strength; and the effects of adjacent loads.
Expected total and differential settlement.
Deep foundation information in accordance with CBC § 1803.5.5. Special design and construction provisions for foundations of structures founded on expansive soils, as necessary.
Compacted fill material properties and testing in accordance with CBC § 1803.5.8. Controlled low-strength material properties and testing in accordance with CBC § 1803.5.9.

The report will also consider the effects of seismic hazard in accordance with CBC § 1803.7.

It is the responsibility of the Project Proponent to provide engineering inspection and certification that earthwork and construction have been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the report. All recommendations provided in the final design-level geotechnical report must comply with ASCE 7 minimum load requirements.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-58Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recommendations made as a result of these investigations to protect new structures and reduce impacts from geological hazards shall be incorporated into project design. These measures are anticipated to include requirements to construct foundations designed to resist movements of expansive soils and removal of unstable soils and replacement with suitable fill or engineered materials if needed.

If the final geotechnical report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other issues that could lead to structural defects, a certification of completion of the requirements of the geotechnical report will be submitted to City prior to issuance of building permits.

GEO-2 Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Paleontologist Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) be encountered, the City and Applicant will be notified within 24 hours of the encounter, and all project-related ground disturbance within 100 feet of the discover will halt until the Applicant has been notified. A note will be required on the final improvement plans approved by the City that if paleontological resources are discovered on-site, the Applicant will retain a qualified professional paleontologist or registered geologist to observe all grading and excavation activities throughout all phases of project construction and to salvage fossils as necessary. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require temporarily halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist will report such findings to the Applicant and to the City. The paleontologist will determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, that ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds will first be offered to a State-designated repository such as the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, or the California Academy of Sciences.

All findings and results will be documented in accordance with current professional standards.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-59Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.9 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

SETTING
Regulatory Setting
The following regulatory background gives context to the issues of climate change and importance to reducing GHGs in California.

State and Local
Assembly Bill 1493
Signed by the California Governor in 2002, AB 1493 requires that CARB adopt regulations requiring a reduction in GHG emissions emitted by cars in the State. AB 1493 is intended to apply to 2009 and newer vehicles. On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted a necessary CAA waiver for California to implement AB 1493.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by the California Governor on June 1, 2005 and established the following statewide emission reduction targets:
Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010,
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and
Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

EO S-3-05 created a Climate Action Team (CAT) headed by the Cal/EPA that included several other State agencies. The CAT is tasked by EO S-3-05 with outlining the effects of climate change on California

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-60Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and recommending an adaptation plan, as well as creating a strategy to meet the emission reduction targets.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) Signed by the California Governor on September 27, 2006, AB 32 codifies a key requirement of EO S-3-05, specifically the requirement to reduce GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 tasks CARB with monitoring State sources of GHGs and designing emission reduction measures to comply with emission reduction requirements. However, AB 32 also continues the efforts of the CAT to meet the requirements of EO S-3-05 and states that the CAT should coordinate overall State climate policy.

To accelerate the implementation of emission reduction strategies, AB 32 requires that CARB identify a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented relatively quickly. In October 2007, CARB published a list of early action measures that it estimated could be implemented and would serve to meet about 25 percent of the required 2020 emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). To assist CARB in identifying early action measures, the CAT published a report in April 2007 that updated their 2006 report and identified strategies for reducing GHG emissions (USEPA, 2007). In its October 2007 report, CARB cited the CAT strategies and other existing strategies that can be utilized to achieve the remainder of the emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). AB 32 requires that CARB prepare a comprehensive “scoping plan” that identifies all strategies necessary to fully achieve the required 2020 emissions reductions.

Consequently, in December 2008, CARB released its scoping plan to the public; the plan was approved by CARB on December 12, 2008. An update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan occurred on May 22, 2014, and included new strategies and recommendations to ensure reduction goals of near-term 2020 are met with consideration of current climate science.

A second update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update addresses the 2030 target established by SB 32, as discussed below, and establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet a 40 percent reduction in GHG by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The key programs that the 2017 Scoping Plan Update builds on include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, an increase in the use of renewable energy in the State, and a reduction of methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes (CARB, 2017).

Executive Order S-01-07
EO S-01-07 was signed by the California Governor on January 18, 2007. It mandates a State-wide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. This target reduction was identified by CARB as one of the AB 32 early action measures in the October 2007 report (CARB, 2007).

Senate Bill 375
SB 375 was approved by the California Governor on September 30, 2008. SB 375 provides for the creation of a new regional planning document called a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS). An SCS is a blueprint for regional transportation infrastructure and development that is designed to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks to target levels set by CARB for 18 regions throughout California. Each of the various metropolitan planning organizations must prepare an SCS that is included

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-61Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
in their respective regional transportation plan. An SCS influences transportation, housing, and land use planning. CARB then determines whether the SCS will achieve regional GHG emissions reduction goals.

Senate Bill 605
On September 21, 2014, the California Governor signed SB 605 that requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the State no later than January 1, 2016. As defined in the statute, short-lived climate pollutant means "an agent that has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, from a few days to a few decades, and a warming influence on the climate that is more potent than that of carbon dioxide." SB 605, however, does not prescribe specific compounds as short-lived climate pollutants or add to the list of GHGs regulated under AB 32. In developing the strategy, CARB completed an inventory of sources and emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the State based on available data, identified research needs to address any data gaps, identified existing and potential new control measures to reduce emissions, and prioritized the development of new measures for short-lived climate pollutants that offer co-benefits by improving water quality or reducing other air pollutants that impact community health and benefit disadvantaged communities.

The final strategy released by CARB in March 2017 focuses on methane (CH4), black carbon, and fluorinated gases, particularly hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), as important short-lived climate pollutants. The final strategy recognizes emission reduction efforts implemented under AB 32 (e.g., refrigerant management programs) and other regulatory programs (e.g., in-use diesel engines, solid waste diversion). The measures identified in the final strategy and their expected emission reductions will feed into the update to the CARB Scoping Plan.

Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 was signed by the California Governor on April 29, 2015. It sets interim GHG targets of 40 percent below 1990 by 2030, to ensure California will meet its 2050 targets set by EO S-3-05. It also directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2030 Target Scoping Plan Concept Paper was released on June 17, 2016.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350 codifies the GHG targets for 2030 set by EO B-30-15. To meet these goals, SB 350 also raises the California RPS from 33 percent renewable generation by 2020 to 50 percent renewable generation by December 31, 2030.

Senate Bill 32
Additionally, SB 32, signed in 2016, further strengthens AB 32 with goals of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Based on GHG emissions inventory data compiled by CARB through 2017 and the emission limit of 431 million metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) established in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014), California emission reduction goals for near-term 2020 will be met.

California Renewable Portfolio Standards - SB 1078, SB 350, and SB 100 The California RPS program was established in 2002 by SB 1078 and requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide a certain percentage of

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-62Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
their supply from renewable sources. The initial requirement was for at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales to be served by renewable resources by 2017. The RPS program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 which mandated a 50 percent RPS by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increased the RPS to 60 percent by 2030 and requires all electricity in the State to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CCR Title 20, contain standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. The regulations are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current standards were adopted by the CEC in 2018. The standards outlined in the regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California. More than 23 different categories of appliances are regulated, including refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings.

California Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)
The State regulates energy consumption under Title 24 Building Standards Code, Part 6 of the CCR (also known as the California Energy Code). The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were developed by the CEC and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The California Energy Code is updated every three years, with the most recent iteration (2016) effective as of January 1, 2017, and the next version (2019) planned to go into effect on January 1, 2020. The CEC’s long-term vision is that future updates to the California Energy Code will support zero-net energy for all new single-family and low-rise residential buildings by 2020 and new high-rise residential and non-residential buildings by 2030. Refer to Section 3.7 for additional information on Title 24 requirements.

California Green Building Standards Code
Title 24 Building Standards Code, Part 11 of the CCR is referred to as CALGreen. The purpose CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality. Refer to Section 3.7 for additional information on Title 24 requirements.

CEQA Guidelines
Under CEQA, GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts because no single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in climate (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b)). Therefore, the evaluation of cumulative GHG impacts presented below evaluates whether the Proposed Project would make a considerable contribution to cumulative climate change effects. Additionally, BAAQMD has not established quantitative thresholds relative to GHG emissions.

Plan Bay Area 2040
The ABAG and the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are jointly responsible for regional planning for the nine county, 101 city, Bay Area. The San Francisco Bay area’s

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-63Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Plan Bay Area 2050 has been prepared jointly by the MTC and the ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a regional plan intended to provide a strategy for the reduction of GHG emissions and air pollutants within the San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan that serves as a Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). As an SCS, the Plan Bay Area 2050 is required to comply with regional targets for reducing GHG emissions through the integration of transportation and land use planning. ABAG has not provided a specified means of identifying an individual development project’s compliance with the Plan Bay Area 2050; however, for the purposes of this analysis, the conformance of the proposed project with the overall goal of the Plan Bay Area 2050 to reduce regional GHG emissions is generally considered..

City of San Ramon General Plan
Applicable City General Plan goals, policies, and objectives related to GHG emissions include:

Policy 12.9-I-1 Strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its internal governmental operations and land use activities within its authority by 15 percent below 2008 levels by the year 2020 pending adoption of revised targets for the City’s Climate Action Plan. The City will also work with the MTC to ensure that the City receives its proportionate fair share reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as may be identified under the provisions of SB 375 (2008 Chapter 728) for any projects or activities requiring approval by MTC.

Policy 12.9-I-2 Keep current and maintain the City’s adopted CAP as an implementation strategy of the General Plan 2035.

City of San Ramon Climate Action Plan
On August 23, 2011, the City adopted the San Ramon CAP to address climate change locally and comply with the GHG reduction targets associated with AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The CAP strategy is primarily based upon the land use, transportation, and conservation policies that are part of the General Plan 2030. The CAP demonstrates that through land use planning/density choices, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and energy conservation measures such as increased energy efficiency for buildings, more efficient water use and recycling programs, the City can do its proportionate share to achieve the State greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Environmental Setting
“Global warming” and “climate change” are common terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century. Natural processes and human actions have been identified as impacting climate. The IPCC has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from preindustrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. Since the 19th century however, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other activities are believed to be a major factor in climate change. GHGs in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space—a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary to keep the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-64Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have trapped solar radiation and decreased the amount that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature.

CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), HFC, perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed historical concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is intensified. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing, natural gas leaks from pipelines and industrial processes, and incomplete combustion associated with agricultural practices, landfills, energy providers and other industrial facilities. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change, and is the GHG emitted in the highest volume. The effect that each GHG has on global warming is the product of the mass of their emissions and their GWP. GWP indicates how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. For example, CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of approximately 30 and approximately 275 times that of CO2, which has a GWP of 1.

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported as MT of CO2e. CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted by a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in higher quantities and accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from commercial developments and human activity.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Given the global nature of climate change impacts, individual project impacts are most appropriately addressed in terms of the incremental contribution to global cumulative impacts. This approach is consistent with the view articulated by the IPCC Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014).

Therefore, this analysis is of the cumulative impacts related to climate change.

Methodology
The Proposed Project’s short-term construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod. CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The site-specific inputs and assumptions used for the purposes of GHG emissions modeling are listed in Section 3.4.3.

For this analysis, predicted project-related GHG emissions were compared to the BAAQMD’s operational GHG threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e (BAAQMD, 2017b). The quantitative thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets. Thus, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (the

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-65Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
state Climate Change Scoping Plan). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Questions A and B
Would the project: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project would emit GHG emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel in heavy equipment. The BAAQMD has not established a quantitative significance threshold for evaluating construction-related emissions; however, the BAAQMD does recommend quantifying and disclosing construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were quantified for informational purposes. As shown in Table 3-9, GHG emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project are estimated to be approximately 175 MT of CO2e, or approximately 6 MT of CO2e per year when amortized over a 30-year period (i.e., the lifetime of the project).

TABLE 3-9. CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Source GHG
MT of CO2e
2021 Construction Activities 138.35
2022 Construction Activities 36.30
Construction-Related GHG Emission 174.65
Amortized over Life of the Project1 5.82
1 Life of the project is estimated to be 30 years based on air district recommendations (SCAQMD, 2008).

Source: Appendix A.

Operation
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in GHG emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources.

As shown in Table 3-10, the Proposed Project would result in approximately 179 MT of CO2e per year.

TABLE 3-10. OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Source GHG
MT of CO2e/year
Area 3.81
Energy 39.19
Mobile 101.86
Waste 22.03
Water 6.48
Operational Subtotal 173.37
Amortized Construction Emissions 5.82
Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 179.19

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-66Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 1,100
Exceed BAAQMD threshold? No
Source: Appendix A.

Findings
Less than Significant. As shown in Table 3-10, the combined amortized construction emissions and operational GHG emissions would be approximately 179 MT of CO2e per year. Project emissions would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e per year. Additionally, the City’s CAP Strategy E-1 recommends increasing the use of energy conservation features, renewable sources of energy, and lowemissions equipment in the new development project within the City. As described above, the Proposed Project would incorporate photovoltaic panels, energy efficient appliances and fixtures, and drought tolerant landscaping. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would not exceed numeric GHG thresholds and is consistent with applicable policies of the City’s CAP, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative effects associated with climate change is considered less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Under CEQA, GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts because no single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in climate (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b). Therefore, the evaluation of GHG impacts presented above evaluates whether the Proposed Project would make a considerable contribution to cumulative climate change effects.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-67Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-68Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Definition of Hazardous Material
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the CCR as:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed” (CCR, Title 22, Section 66260.10).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA administers numerous statutes pertaining to human health and the environment. The USEPA regulates toxic air contaminants through its implementation of the CAA. Although the CAA covers a range of air pollutants, Section 112(r) specifically covers “extremely hazardous materials” which include acutely toxic, extremely flammable, and highly explosive substances. Section 112(r) (referred to as the USEPA’s Risk Management Plan [RMP]) requires facilities involved in the use or storage of extremely hazardous materials to implement an RMP. An RMP requires a detailed analysis of potential accident factors present at a facility and requires the implementation of mitigation measures designed to reduce the identified accident potential.

The USEPA also regulates the land disposal of hazardous materials through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under RCRA, the USEPA regulates the activities of waste generators, transporters, and handlers (any individual who treats, stores, and/or disposes of a designated hazardous waste). RCRA further requires the tracking of hazardous waste from its generation to its final disposal through a process often referred to as the “cradle-to-grave” regulation. The “cradle-to-grave” regulation requires detailed documentation and record keeping for hazardous materials generators, transporters, and/or handlers in order to ensure proper accountability for violations.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provides a federal fund to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through various enforcement mechanisms, the USEPA obtains private party cleanup orders and recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. Uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste site identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated though the state environmental protection or waste management agencies.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-69Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates the preparation and enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations with the goal of providing employees a safe working environment. OSHA regulations apply to the work place and cover activities ranging from confined space entry to toxic chemical exposure. OSHA regulates workplace exposure to hazardous chemicals and activities through regulations governing work place procedures and equipment.

U.S. Department of Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates the interstate transport of hazardous materials and wastes through implementation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. This act specifies drivertraining requirements, load labeling procedures, and container design and safety specifications.

Transporters of hazardous wastes must also meet the requirements of additional statutes such as RCRA, discussed previously.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under the RCRA and the State Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose “cradle-to-grave” regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing state workplace safety regulations. Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, as detailed in Title 8 of the CCR, include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations that contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. The hazard communication program requires that Safety Data Sheets be available to employees and that employee information and training programs be documented.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB and RWQCBs also regulate hazardous substances, materials and wastes through a variety of state statutes including, for example, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Cal. Water Code § 13000 et seq., and the underground storage tank cleanup laws (Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 25280- 25299.8). RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. Any person proposing to discharge waste within any region must file a report of waste discharge with the appropriate regional board. The Proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the SFRWQCB.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-70Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Certified Unified Program Agency
Hazardous waste management in the City is administered through Contra Costa Health Services, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for all cities and unincorporated areas within Contra Costa County. A CUPA is a local agency certified by the California Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce state hazardous waste and materials regulatory management programs.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Contra Costa County has implemented a California Accidental Release Prevention Program in compliance with the CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5 (California Accidental Release Prevention), and OSHA Process Safety Management standards (Section 5189 of Title 8 of CCR, or CFR, Title 29, Section 1910.119). This program requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of a Regulated Substance to develop an RMP. The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off-site consequences.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

During construction, oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid hazardous materials could be used. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment or human health. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which addresses accidental spill prevention, would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction of the Proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and adherence to regulatory requirements, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant.

The design and construction of the Proposed Project would comply with the City’s Construction Standards (Title C of the City’s Municipal Code), which incorporates the CBC, as amended, and the 2016 California Fire Code, as amended. Other laws and regulations that govern the use and storage of hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (inventory and emergency response), Title 8 of the CCR (workplace safety), and Titles 22 and 26 of the CCR (hazardous waste). Delivery of hazardous materials to the Project Site and along public roadways would be required to comply with CFR Title 49, as monitored and enforced by the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Storage of all flammable materials at construction sites would be subject to the regulations of Title 19 of the CCR and the Uniform Fire Code.

Once operational, the Proposed Project would utilize substances typical of residential care facilities.

These include household and/or commercial grade cleaning products, household goods, and other materials needed for maintenance of the property including chemicals required for landscaping and gardening purposes. All operation activities would be required to adhere to local standards set forth by the City, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize risk to

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-71Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the public from hazardous materials, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the California Health and Safety Code.

Compliance with these regulations in conjunction with the Mitigation Measures listed above, would reduce potential exposure of people or the environment to hazardous materials associated with the Proposed Project to a less than significant level.

Question B
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. During construction, oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid hazardous materials could be used. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment or human health. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which address accidental spill prevention, would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction of the Proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and adherence to regulatory requirements, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant.

A Phase I ESA was prepared to analyze the potential hazards created by potential hazardous material sites in the vicinity of the Project Site, and is included as Appendix F. The Phase I identified that, due to the age of the existing Harlan House, it is possible that the drywall and roof could contain asbestoscontaining material (ACM) and that the ceiling and radiators could contain lead-based paint (LBP).

Disruption of ACM or LBP during construction could lead to accidental releases of hazardous materials.

This is a potentially significant impact. Consistent with the recommendations in the Phase I, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires that the Harlan House be surveyed for ACM and LBP prior to implementation of the Proposed Project and, if ACM or LBP are found in the Harlan House, requires removal of the hazardous materials prior to relocation of the Harlan House. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 ensures that remediation would be conducted, which would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

The design and construction of the Proposed Project would comply with Title C of the San Ramon Municipal Code, which incorporates the CBC, as amended, and the 2016 California Fire Code, as amended. Other laws and regulations that govern the use and storage of hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (inventory and emergency response), Title 8 of the CCR (workplace safety), and Titles 22 and 26 of the CCR (hazardous waste).

Delivery of hazardous materials to the Project Site and along public roadways would be required to comply with CFR Title 49, as monitored and enforced by the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans.

Storage of all flammable materials at construction sites would be subject to the regulations of Title 19 of the CCR and the Uniform Fire Code.

Once operational, the Proposed Project would utilize substances typical of residential care facilities.

These include household and/or commercial grade cleaning products, household goods, and other materials needed for maintenance of the property including chemicals required for landscaping and

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-72Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
gardening purposes. All operation activities would be required to adhere to local standards set forth by the City, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize risk to the public from hazardous materials, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the California Health and Safety Code.

Question C
Would the project: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not omit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. No impact would occur.

Question D
Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant. No, the Project Site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, could not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning tool used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The Cortese list is prepared in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5. The List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC EnviroStor and the SWRCB GeoTracker databases were reviewed to locate "Cortese List" sites. These databases indicted that there are no Cortese sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the Project Site. This is a less than significant impact.

Question E
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.

No impact would occur.

Question F
Would the project: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-73Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction of the Proposed Project would occur within the boundary of the Project Site and would not result in lane closures and, thus, would not affect emergency access or evacuation. As described in Section 3.18.3, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in place through the State, County, or City. Operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation routes in the project vicinity, as no road construction is proposed. No impact would occur.

Question G
Would the project: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As explained in Section 3.21, the Proposed Project is located within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) classification of “Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned,” which indicates that the Project Site is located in an urbanized area that is not susceptible to wildland fire. Furthermore, the Project Site does not involve unique slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Hazard-related impacts are site specific (i.e., have the potential to affect only a limited area). Various existing and proposed development infrastructure, including residential, industrial, and public facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site, would involve the storage, use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials to varying degrees during construction and operations; hazardous materials utilized during construction and operations of the Proposed Project would be limited to the existing Project Site.

Construction of the Proposed Project could potentially have adverse impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which address accidental spill prevention and hazardous material upset, would mitigate potential impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Reduction of on-site hazard-related impacts, as discussed above, would ensure that construction activities would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable.

Operation of the Proposed Project and cumulative projects could result in a cumulative impact if these projects were to result in potential exposure of hazardous materials to sensitive individuals or the general public-at-large, or if additional projects in the vicinity were to include the use or storage of hazardous materials. Because any hazardous materials use would be properly contained on-site, operation of the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable hazardous impacts.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-74Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

MITIGATION MEASURES
HAZ-1 Accidental Spill Prevention and Response Plan
Prior to issuance of a building permit, an accidental spill prevention and response plan shall be developed and provided to the City for approval. The accidental spill prevention and response plan will include a list of all hazardous materials used and/or stored on the Project Site during construction activities, appropriate information about initial spill response, containment, and cleanup strategies, and a list of appropriate City contact information. The plan will require containment equipment and sufficient supplies to combat spills of oil or hazardous substances and will be onsite at all times during construction.

HAZ-2 Hazardous Materials Remediation
Per the recommendation in the Phase I ESA (Appendix F), prior to relocation of the Harlan House, an ACM/LBP survey will be prepared including sampling and analysis of suspect building materials (drywall, ceiling, radiator paint) for the possible presence of ACM or LBP.

Should ACM or LBP be found in the suspect building materials, the City shall be notified within 24 hours, and appropriately licensed and certified specialty contractors will develop work plans for properly controlling the hazards associated with removal of ACM/LBP prior to relocation of the historical structure present at the site.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-75Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.11 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-76Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

SETTING
Regulatory Context
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 USC §§ 1251-1376), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important sections of the Act are as follows:
Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the USEPA publishes a list every two years of impaired bodies of water for which water quality objectives are not attained. Total Maximum Daily Loads are established for contaminants of concern in order to ensure contamination levels decrease over time.
Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the Act. Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the SWRCB and is discussed in detail below. Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. This permit program is jointly administered by USACE and the USEPA.

Federal Anti-Degradation Policy
The federal Anti-Degradation Policy is part of the CWA (Section 303(d)) and is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions: (1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected; (2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development; and (3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.

Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Public Law 93-523), passed in 1974, USEPA regulates contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Contaminants of concern relevant to domestic water supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are regulated by USEPA primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). MCLs and the process for setting these standards are reviewed triennially.

Amendments to the SDWA enacted in 1986 established an accelerated schedule for setting drinking water MCLs.

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-77Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Under Section 402(p) of the CWA, the USEPA established the NPDES to enforce discharge standards from a variety of sources. Both point source and non-point-source pollution is covered under the NPDES.

Dischargers in both categories can apply for individual discharge permits, or apply for coverage under the General Permits that cover certain qualified dischargers. Point source discharges come from “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,” including municipal and industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and municipal separated storm sewer systems. NPDES permits impose limits on the pollutants discharged based on minimum performance standards or the quality of the receiving water, whichever type is more stringent in a given situation.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The Act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the State. The RWQCB implements waste discharge requirements identified in the Report.

State Non-Degradation Policy
In 1968, as required under the federal Anti-Degradation Policy, the SWRCB adopted a Non-degradation Policy aimed at maintaining high quality for waters in California. The Non-degradation Policy states that the disposal of wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and to promote the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. The policy provides as follows:

1. Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained until it has been demonstrated that any change would be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.

2. Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet WDRs that would ensure (1) pollution or nuisance would not occur and (2) the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state would be maintained.

City of San Ramon General Plan
The City’s General Plan identifies the Project Site as being within the UGB. The General Plan supports water conservation measures, preservation of groundwater recharge areas such as floodplains, and preservation of surface and groundwater quality.

City of San Ramon Municipal Code
Title B, Division B6, Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code identifies water conservation, landscaping, water recycling, and other water-related standards for new construction. Additionally, Title C, Chapter

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-78Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Division C7, Chapter 2 of the City’s Municipal Code identifies regulations and requirements to prevent, control, and reduce stormwater pollution for new development and redevelopment.

Regional Hydrology
Watershed
The Project Site is within the Arroyo de la Laguna watershed and the South San Ramon Creek subwatershed (Caltrans, 2021b). There are no surface waterbodies on the Project Site or immediate vicinity. The stormwater treatment system in the City captures and treats runoff from impervious areas before eventually discharging the treated runoff into the Bay (City of San Ramon, 2021c). New development and significant redevelopment Project Site designs are encouraged by the City to minimize the area of new roofs, pavement, and other impervious surfaces, and, where feasible, implement pervious surfaces so that stormwater runoff can percolate to the underlying soil.

Floodplain
FEMA oversees the delineation of flood zones and the provision of federal disaster assistance. FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program and publishes the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, that show the expected frequency and severity of flooding by area, typically for the existing land use and type of drainage/flood control facilities present. The majority of Contra Costa County’s creeks and shoreline lie within the 100-year flood plain (City of San Ramon, 2015). The potential for a 100-year flood, which represents a one percent chance each year, exists along small segments of San Ramon Creek, Alamo Creek, San Catanio Creek, Bollinger Creek, and South San Ramon Creek. Developments adjacent to these creek areas could be vulnerable to flooding. Flood plain areas are generally not suitable for residential development. The Project Site is located outside the 100-year floodplain and is in an area classified as “Zone X.” Zone X in an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2009).

Groundwater
The City is located in the Livermore Valley groundwater basin, Livermore Valley groundwater sub-basin. (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2021). This groundwater basin drains an area of 109 square miles, and the quality of groundwater within this sub-basin is generally good to excellent (DWR, 2006).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Question A
Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Construction of the Proposed Project could potentially violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, as construction equipment and materials have the potential to result in accidental discharge of pollutants into water resources. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Potential pollutants include particulate matter, sediment, oils and greases, concrete, and adhesives.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require the implementation of erosion control

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-79Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
measures and would ensure adherence with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements and would ensure that the Proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Operation of the Proposed Project could potentially introduce contaminants into water resources from stormwater runoff, as parking lots often contain contaminants such as vehicle oil and gasoline. However, the Proposed Project has been designed to reduce potential runoff. Bio-retention areas and other landscaping would be installed throughout the Project Site and would provide preliminary filtration of contaminated stormwater runoff before stormwater reaches the water table. Furthermore, all roof drains would be connected to downspouts that would either drain into the bio-retention areas or onto the curbs on the Project Site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 and the incorporation of bioretention areas and landscaping, impacts related to water quality standards would be less than significant.

Question B
Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The Project Site is within an area of dense urban development and is adjacent two major roadways: San Ramon Valley Boulevard and I-680. The 0.7-acre Proposed Project would generate an insignificant increase in impervious surfaces in the region. Furthermore, the Proposed Project includes stormwater bio-retention basins and landscaping that would allow percolation.

Both of these features would allow the recharge of groundwater supplies. Therefore, interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

As described in Section 3.20, according to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, DSRSD’s groundwater supplies are adequate to meet projected demands during normal years, single dry years, and five-year droughts through year 2040 (DSRSD, 2021). The Project Site is located within the City’s UGB and is anticipated for development, and was, therefore, accounted for in the City’s groundwater supply calculations. Therefore, the Project Site is accounted for in City water planning projections and is not expected to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or use an excessive amount of groundwater over current projections in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (City of San Ramon, 2020). Due to the minimal amount of introduced impervious surfaces and the projected availability of groundwater supplies, impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant.

Question C
Would the project: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-80Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No, the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. No surface water resources occur on the Project Site.

However, the Project Site would be subject to new impervious surfaces. Grading, cut and fill activities, impervious surfaces, and earth-moving activities associated with construction of the Proposed Project have the potential to result in erosion, siltation, temporary changes to drainage patterns, and contamination of stormwater. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 consists of the implementation of BMPs during construction to reduce the potential for impacts associated with erosion and exceeding water quality thresholds. Implementation of such BMPs would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes stormwater bio-retention basins and connections to the City’s storm drain system that would filter potentially polluted runoff and control stormwater so as to not result in flooding on- or off-site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, impacts related to alterations in drainage patterns and impervious surfaces would be less than significant.

Question D
Would the project: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant. No, the Proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. As described above, the Project Site is located outside the 100-year floodplain and has a very minimal chance of flooding. Furthermore, the proposed grading associated with the Proposed Project would not significantly re-direct the flow of stormwater runoff or generate a significant risk of flooding on- or offsite. Runoff would be collected by the City’s stormwater drainage system, which collects and drains the larger urbanized area of the City. Discharges of urban runoff in Contra Costa County are regulated under the NPDES Phase II General Permit (Water Quality Order No. R2-2015-0049). The Project Site is within an area identified in the City’s General Plan for development and would not generate unplanned impervious surfaces at a level that would overwhelm the City’s stormwater infrastructure. The Project Site is relatively flat and is not within a tsunami zone (DOC, 2021b). As discussed in Section 3.8, the Project Site does not contain soils that would increase the risk of seiche. Impacts would be less than significant.

Question E
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. No, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The City of San Ramon does not have a Water Quality Control Plan and there are no other Water Quality Control Plans that cover the Project Site.

The Zone 7 Water Agency is in the process of preparing a draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan that would cover the Project Site; however, a draft has not yet been released. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan aims to maintain a high quality, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the citizens of San Ramon through managing groundwater conjunctively with its surface water resources (City of San

10.3.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: B: IS/MND Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living, February 2022 (without appendix). IS/MND (with 3 Environmental Analysis
February 2022 3-81Westside Specific Plan Amendment and El Nido Assisted Living Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ramon, 2020). The City’s Urban Water Management Plan notes that the City has sufficient water supply to meet existing and projected water demand through year 2040. The Project Site is located within the City’s defined UGB and is expected to experience growth as stated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project Site is accounted for in City water planning projections and would not conflict with any existing water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

San Ramon City CouncilApril 12, 2022

San Ramon City Council
April 12, 2022