Agenda packet — San Ramon City Council, February 13, 2024

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 13, 2024

WE PROVIDE EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICES THAT ARE

ESSENTIAL TO THOSE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN SAN RAMON
David E. Hudson, Mayor • Scott Perkins, Vice Mayor
Mark Armstrong, Councilmember • Marisol Rubio, Councilmember • Sridhar Verose, Councilmember Council Chamber
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
Agenda Questions: Please contact the City Clerk (925) 973-2539 or [email protected] Please refer to the end of the agenda to review options for participation in the meeting.

Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

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.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience are encouraged to address the City Council on any non-agenda item relating to the business of the City Council. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes, or less time if a large number of speakers are anticipated. A speaker may not allocate their time to another speaker. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council.

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 during this Public Comment period. No Council action can be taken at this meeting on issues raised during public comment.

During public comment, members of the public are permitted to address the City Council only on the following:
 Any non-agenda item relating to the business of the City Council. 2 City Council Meeting – February 13, 2024
 Items that are on the Consent Calendar, including requests to pull an item from the consent calendar and the reason why you wish to pull the item or items. Please note that the decision to remove the item from the Consent Calendar is strictly at the discretion of the City Council.
 Requests for Future Agenda Items.
 Special Presentation Items under Section 6 of tonight’s Agenda.  Items that are not on the agenda and are within the City Council’s jurisdiction.

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.

5.1 Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting and Closed Session - Jan 23, 2024 Recommendation: Approve Minutes

5.2 Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting - Feb 3, 2024 Recommendation: Approve Minutes

5.3 Resolution No. 2024-012 - Approving the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 for the Trumark Townhomes Development Project (TH Deerwood, LLC), APN 208-640- 003
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-012

5.4 Resolution No. 2024-013 - Authorizing an Application Initiating Proceedings for Reorganization of Boundaries for a 0.13+ Acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-013

5.5 Resolution No. 2024-014 - Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Funding Agreement with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for Cost Sharing Commitments to Construct the Countywide SMART Signal Project, and Approve an Allocation in the Amount of $248,175 from the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Fund (214) to Cover Matching Fund Requirements for the One Bay Area, Cycle 3 Program Grant Award
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No, 2024-014

5.6 Resolution No. 2024-015 - Repealing Resolution No. 2019-016 and Amending the Parking Restrictions Master Street List Establishing Restricted Parking Zones in the City of San Ramon as Per Title B, Division B-8, Chapter I, Article 1, Section B8-1, Stopping, Standing, or Parking – Curb Marking/Signage Designations
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-015
3 City Council Meeting – February 13, 2024

5.7 Resolution No. 2024-016 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with G.N. Henley, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999
Resolution No. 2024-017 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with ETIC for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999
Resolution No. 2024-018 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Integra Construction Services, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999 Resolution No. 2024-019 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999 Recommendation: Approve Resolution Nos. 2024-016, 2024-017, 2024-018, and 2024-019.

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.1 Recognizing the San Ramon Police Department's 2023 Supervisor of the Year, Employee of the Year, and Officer of the Year

7. DEFERRED CONSENT ITEMS

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.1 Public Hearing: Resolution No. 2024-020 - Repealing and Replacing the Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees
Recommendation: Receive the Report, Open the Public Hearing, Take Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing, Deliberate, and Approve Resolution No. 2024-020
Staff Report by Deborah Fehr, Senior Civil Engineer

8.2 Public Meeting to Renew the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District Recommendation: Staff Recommends the City Council Open Public Testimony to Allow Members of the Public to Provide Comments on the Renewal of the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District (SRVTID).

Staff Report by Scott Koll, Deputy City Manager
4 City Council Meeting – February 13, 2024

9. NEW BUSINESS

9.1 Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report
Introduced by Adam Chow, Recreation Supervisor. Presented by Ranjini Venkatachari Committee Chair.

10. CITY MANAGER'S AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' COMMENTS /

MATTERS INITIATED

11. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify the agenda was posted 72 hours before the noted meeting. This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a).

Dated: February 9, 2024
5 City Council Meeting – February 13, 2024
HOW TO VIEW OR PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING:

The public is invited to participate in the meeting using any of the following methods:

IN-PERSON
San Ramon City Hall, Council Chamber, 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road. Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chambers. To make a request for disability-related accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BY EMAIL
Public comments may be submitted via e-mail to [email protected]. Any public comments received up until two (2) hours prior to the scheduled start time of the meeting will be distributed to the City Council via e-mail, provided at the meeting in the red binder, and posted online at https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/public_comment.

Written comments received after the cut-off time will be provided to the City Council the day following the meeting.

Please include “Public Comment” in the subject line. In the body of the email please include your name and the item you wish to comment on. Written public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

TO VIEW OR LISTEN ONLY
As a courtesy and technology permitting, the public will have the opportunity to view the meeting via one-way feed by the options below. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s remote access to any meeting will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. In those instances, so long as the public may still attend the meeting in person, the meeting will continue. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.
a. Zoom: https://cityofsanramon.zoom.us/j/97726370049
Webinar ID: 977 2637 0049
b. Zoom Phone Numbers: +1 (669) 900-6833
c. The City’s YouTube Channel: www.sanramon.ca.gov/YouTube 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).

ATTENDEE CONDUCT
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.

Specifically, it is important for all speakers to adhere to the following guidelines for participation in this meeting:
a. No profanity or obscenity.
b. Refrain from personal threats or attacks.
c. Refrain from hateful epithets and demeaning language based on any person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or disability.
d. Respect all people that are present or watching.

At the discretion of the Mayor, a speaker may forfeit speaking time for any of the following reasons:
a. Exceeding the allotted time to speak;
b. Yelling, screaming, or other behavior that renders this Council unable to continue the meeting; c. Excessive profanity or slander;
d. Specific threats or “fighting words” that incite violence; or e. Speech that is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council or the specific agenda item in which you are speaking.

While the City of San Ramon ensures the First Amendment rights of its citizens, we do not accept nor endorse any offensive or hateful comments made during our meetings. The City of San Ramon celebrates the diversity of our community, and we strive to be a welcoming and open community for all.

MINUTES OF THE

CITY OF SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 23, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Also in Attendance: City Manager Steven Spedowfski, City Attorney Martin Lysons, City Clerk Christina Franco, Community Development Director Debbie Chamberlain, and Assistant City Manager Scott Koll.

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.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Lynda Deschambault.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Cm. Rubio's motion to adopt consent calendar items 5.1 - 5.6 was seconded by Vice Mayor Perkins. The motion passed 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Marisol Rubio, Councilmember
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Perkins, Armstrong, Verose, Rubio

5.1 Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting and Closed Session - Jan 9, 2024 Recommendation: Accept Minutes

5.2 Register of Demands as Presented by the City Treasurer (Period Ending December 31, 2023)
Recommendation: Approve Register of Demands

5.3 City of San Ramon Quarterly Investment Report (Period Ending December 31, 2023) Recommendation: Accept Report
Attendee Name Title Status
Dave Hudson Mayor Present
Scott Perkins Vice Mayor Present
Mark Armstrong Councilmember Present
Sridhar Verose Councilmember Present
Marisol Rubio Councilmember Present

5.1 Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 City Council Meeting – January 23, 2024

5.4 Resolution No. 2024-008 - Authorizing the Appropriation of $54,593.63 from the General Fund for the Purchase of (1) Tesla Model Y for the Organized Retail Theft Suppression Team to be Reimbursed by the Board of State and Community Corrections, Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-008

5.5 Resolution No. 2024-009 - Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Funding Agreement Between the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the San Ramon Valley Street Smarts – Safe Routes to School Grant in the Amount of $820,674
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-009

5.6 Resolution No. 2024-010 - Determining that 2481 Deerwood Drive, Assessor’s Parcel Number 208-640-003 is Annexed to the City of San Ramon Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (Public Facilities and Services), and Directing the City Clerk to Record the Boundary Map and Notice of the Annexation Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-010

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7. DEFERRED CONSENT ITEMS

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

9. NEW BUSINESS

9.1 Resolution No. 2024-011 - Declaring the Intent of the San Ramon City Council to Renew the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District (SRVTID) and Fixing the Time and Place of a Public Meeting and a Public Hearing Thereon and Giving Notice Thereof
Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2024-011
Staff report by Scott Koll, Deputy City Manager.

The Mayor opened public comment. Public comment was received form Heidi Kenniston-Lee representing the Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor closed public comment.

Vice Mayor Perkins' motion to approve Resolution No. 2024-011declaring the Intent of the San Ramon City Council to Renew the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District (SRVTID) and setting Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 7:00 p.m at San Ramon City Hall, Council Chamber for a Public Meeting and a Public Hearing Thereon and Giving Notice Thereof was seconded by Cm. Verose. The motion passed 5-0-0-0.

5.1 Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 City Council Meeting – January 23, 2024
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sridhar Verose, Vice Mayor
AYES: Hudson, Perkins, Armstrong, Verose, Rubio

9.2 Discussion on the Formation of a Sustainability Commission, Committee, or Task Force
Staff report by Scott Koll, Deputy City Manager. Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director provided clarification to Council questions.

The Mayor opened public comment. Public comment was received from Wei-Tai Kwok, Larry Brickell, Luz Gomez, Jamin Pursell, Lynda Deschambault, Heidi Kenniston-Lee, Bob Peoples, Jan Liband. Written public comment was received from Fred Bialy, M.H., Herma Ven, Nicholas Harvey, Vi Lam West, Chirag, Councilmember Rubio. The Mayor closed public comment.

Cm. Verose's motion to form a sustainability committee was seconded by Cm. Rubio.

The motion failed 2-3-0-0.

RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 3]
MOVER: Sridhar Verose, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Marisol Rubio, Councilmember
AYES: Verose, Rubio
NAYS: Hudson, Perkins, Armstrong
Vice Mayor Perkins' motion to establish a working group/task force with two specific tasks: (1) to support the Planning Commission and work with staff to garner public input and update the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP); and (2) once the CAP is adopted, the working group/task force will draft a charge and/or charter for City Council consideration for a permanent environment committee, was seconded by Mayor Hudson. The motion passed 5-0-0-0.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
SECONDER: Dave Hudson, Mayor
AYES: Hudson, Perkins, Armstrong, Verose, Rubio
Cm. Rubio's motion of the composition of the working group/task force is to be the following, was seconded by Vice Mayor Perkins. The motion passed 5-0-0-0.

One (1) Chamber Representative/Business*
One (1) Youth (High School age, 10th - 11th grade)
One (1) Environment Climate Non-Profit
One (1) Energy Industry Representative*
One (1) Construction/Landscaping/Trades Representative
One (1) Educational or San Ramon Valley Unified School District Representative One (1) At-Large Member
Two (2) Alternates

5.1 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 City Council Meeting – January 23, 2024
Categories marked with an asterisk (*) may be filled with a non-resident, provided that the person has a stake in the San Ramon business or education community. If the City is unable to fill a position with a qualified candidate for any specific category, the Council may elect to appoint an at-large member instead.

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Marisol Rubio, Councilmember
SECONDER: Scott Perkins, Councilmember
AYES: Hudson, Perkins, Armstrong, Verose, Rubio

10. CITY MANAGER'S AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' COMMENTS /

MATTERS INITIATED

11. CLOSED SESSION

11.1 Convene to Closed Session pursuant to Govt. Code §54957.6 (Conference with Labor Negotiators) for City Council to meet with City Negotiators:

Steven Spedowfski, City Manager, and Kelly M. Tuffo, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, concerning Labor Negotiations with the San Ramon Police Officers’ Association and Unrepresented Employees: Police Chief, Police Captain, Police Lieutenant
The Mayor opened public comment. There was no public comment. The Mayor closed public comment.

The City Council convened to Closed Session at 9:26 p.m.

The City Council returned from Closed Session at 10:19pm

11.2 Report on Closed Session
The Mayor stated, the City Council met in closed session to discuss negotiations with the Police Officers' Association (POA) and unrepresented sworn employees and took no reportable action.

12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

5.1 Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jan 23, 2024 7:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

MINUTES OF THE

CITY OF SAN RAMON

CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
February 3, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Also in attendance: City Manager Steven Spedowfski, City Attorney Martin Lysons, City Clerk Christina Franco, Deputy City Manager Scott Koll, Executive Assistant Karen McHenry-Smith, Interim Public Works Director Maria Fierner, Police Chief Denton Carlson, Parks and Community Services Director Kathi Heimann, Planning Services Division Manager Lauren Barr, Chief Building Official Vance Phillips, Public Works Division Managers Jon Bell, Robin Bartlett, Brian Borenstein, Chris Weeks, Human Resources Division Manager Megan O’Donoghue, Parks and Community Services Division Manager Brad Morris, and Finance Program Manager Vivian Gong.

2. WORKSHOP

2.1 Development of Goals for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.

Introduction by City Manager Steven Spedowfski. The workshop was facilitated by Christine Butterfield and Magda Gonzales from BakerTilly.

The Mayor opened public comment. There was no public comment received. The Mayor closed public comment.

The City Council took a break at 9:53 a.m. and returned at 10:08 a.m.

The City Council took a break at 12:00 p.m. and returned at 1:00 p.m.

The City Council provided direction and feedback to staff.

3. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status
Dave Hudson Mayor Present
Scott Perkins Vice Mayor Present
Mark Armstrong Councilmember Present
Sridhar Verose Councilmember Present
Marisol Rubio Councilmember Present

5.2 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 3, 2024 9:00 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Rod Wui, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-012 - Approving the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 for the Trumark Townhomes Development Project (TH Deerwood, LLC), APN 208-640-003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Trumark Townhomes is a residential development located at 2481 Deerwood Road and approved for 61residential multi-family units. The Developer, TH Deerwood, LLC, has complied with the Project’s Conditions of Approval and the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution, approving the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 for the Trumark Townhomes Residential Development Project (TH Deerwood, LLC), APN 208- 640-003.

BACKGROUND
On November 19, 1985, the San Ramon Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 35-85 and conditionally approved the development of a 51,000 sq. ft. two-story office building with associated parking lot and landscape areas.

On February 15, 2022, Trumark Homes (Applicant) submitted a Development Plan application to demolish the 51,000 sq. ft. office building and construct a 61-unit townhome development on the existing 4.4-acre parcel. The proposal includes the consideration of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Rezone to change the existing Office Use to Residential and Open Space; a Major Subdivision; Architectural Review approval; Tree Removal Permit; and Environmental Review.

On May 12, 2022, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Project plans, provided feedback on the site plan, architecture, and Project design, requested that the item return to ARB with responses to the comments provided.

5.3 Packet Pg. 12
On June 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held its first of three public hearings required for the proposed General Plan Amendment under Measure G, at which time the Commission provided feedback on the proposed Project, General Plan Amendment, and Rezone.

On July 28, 2022, the Applicant submitted revised Project plans based on ARB recommendations.

On August 11, 2022, ARB reviewed the revised development plans and after providing additional feedback on the Project design, recommended final Architectural Review approval to the Planning Commission.

On November 1, 2022, the Planning Commission held its second Public Hearing required for the proposed General Plan Amendment under Measure G, received public feedback, provided comments on the Project, and continued the public hearing to December 6, 2022. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENRV 2022-0002) for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Townhome Project was prepared pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

On December 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held the third Public Hearing on the Project, received the staff report, Project plans, and other pertinent documents, and considered public testimony relating to the proposed Project. The Planning Commission has satisfied the requirements of Measure G and held three (3) duly noticed Public Hearings on June 7, 2022, November 1, 2022, and December 6, 2022 on the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and the Project, where the staff report, plans, other pertinent documents, staff’s presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony were heard. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 11-22 recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

On January 24. 2023, the City Council held the first of three Public Hearings required by Measure G for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the property. The second hearing was held on February 14, 2023. The City Council held the third public on February 28, 2023, and adopted Ordinance 517 rezoning the property at 2481 Deerwood Drive from Administrative Office (OA) to High Density Residential (RH) and Open Space 2 (OS-2).

On April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and approved Resolution No. 04-23 approving the proposed Project.

DISCUSSION
Subdivision 9602 encompasses an area of approximately 4.4 acres and is located on the south side of Deerwood Road, east of Bollinger Canyon Road. The Final Map will be for condominium purposes and will create 61 residential townhome units on 10 lots.

A copy of the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 is provided as Attachment A.

5.3 Packet Pg. 13
TH Deerwood, LLC Townhomes has made numerous dedications for various parcels located throughout Subdivision 9602. Parcels A, B, and C will be dedicated to the Homeowners Association subsequent to the filing of the Final Map for private ingress and egress, private streets, private utilities, private storm drains, overland drainage release, and landscaping purposes. Acceptance of these parcels is not required by the City. These parcels are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of Parcel Dedications in Subdivision 9602 Parcel Dedication Purpose
A, B, & C Homeowners Association Ingress, egress, private utilities, private storm drains, overland drainage release, and landscape
TH Deerwood, LLC has also made dedications for various easements located throughout Subdivision 9602. These easements have been dedicated to the City, or its designee, for purposes that include: storm drain, public utilities, and emergency vehicle access. Acceptance of these easements is required by the City to allow the City, or its designee, such as public utility providers or other public agencies, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for example, access for safety and maintenance purposes in the future. A summary of these easements is summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary of Easement Dedications in Subdivision 9602 Land Description Dedication Purpose
Public Utility Easement City or its designee Public utility use for construction and maintenance of utility structures
Storm Drain Easement City or its designee Public use for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities
Emergency Vehicle
Access Easement
City or its designee Public use for ingress and egress of emergency vehicles and equipment
The proposed storm drain easement is a result of a re-alignment and abandonment of an existing storm drain easement from the original development that runs along the western boundary of the project and also covers a significant portion of the southern property, that will coincide with a relocated storm drain pipe that carries public stormwater runoff from Deerwood Road. The remaining public easements are typically located on residential lots where utilities will be constructed, for additional pedestrian access, and for emergency vehicle access. No land title is being accepted by the City through the acceptance of these remaining easements.

The Final Map also includes sanitary sewer easements dedicated to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) for sanitary sewer purposes, perpetual easements dedicated to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for water utility purposes, and private access easements (PAE) dedicated to the Homeowners Association for private ingress and egress, private streets, private utilities, private storm drains, overland drainage release, and landscaping purposes. No action by the City is required for these easements.

5.3 Packet Pg. 14
Pursuant to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, a Final Map or phased Final Map may be filed on an approved Vesting Tentative Map. The approval by City Council of such a Map is deemed to be a ministerial act. All of the Conditions of Approval for the Development pertaining to the Final Map have been reviewed by various departments and agencies to ensure they have been met and the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map.

With all of the above conditions being met, staff recommends approval of this Final Map.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Fees in the amount of $12,724 were collected from the developer to review and process this Final Map. Bonds associated with the construction of the Trumark Townhomes Improvement Plans and associated improvements will be provided to the City as required prior to construction.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Once signed by the City, the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 will be recorded with the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s Office by the Title Company.

ATTACHMENT
A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602

5.3 Packet Pg. 15
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-012

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION 9602 FOR THE TRUMARK TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (TH DEERWOOD, LLC), APN 208-640- 003
WHEREAS, the Developer Trumark Townhomes (TH Deerwood, LLC) has submitted a Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (Trumark Townhomes), for the purpose of creating 61 condominium units on 10 lots; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 04- 23 approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, public dedications to the City, or its designee, on the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 include easements for public utilities, storm drain, and emergency vehicle access; and
WHEREAS, the Final Map for Subdivision 9602 has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer as being in compliance with the City of San Ramon’s subdivision requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon hereby approves the Final Map for Subdivision 9602.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon hereby:

1. Accepts the following easements as dedicated on the Final Map for Subdivision 9602:
a. Public Utility Easements
b. Storm Drain Easements
c. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements

2. Abandons and vacates the following:
a. Storm Drain Easements as dedicated on Parcel Map MS 67-81

3. Authorizes the following:
a. The City Engineer, Acting City Surveyor, Community Development Director, and City Clerk to execute their statements upon said Final Map.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

5.3 Packet Pg. 16
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Christina Franco, City Clerk

5.3 Packet Pg. 17
OWNER'S STATEMENT:

THE UNDERSIGNED, DOES HEREBY STATE THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER OF ALL THE LANDS DELINEATED AND EMBRACED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES UPON THE HEREIN EMBRACED FINAL MAP ENTITLED: "SUBDIVISION 9602”, CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS, THIS STATEMENT BEING ON SHEET ONE (1) THEREOF; THAT THEY HAVE CAUSED SAID MAP TO BE

PREPARED FOR RECORD AND DO CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDATION OF SAID MAP, THAT SAID MAP DOESPARTICULARLY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBE ALL PARCELS OF LAND SO RESERVED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BY THEIR BOUNDARY COURSES AND EXTENT.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:

1. THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT (EVAE) AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT.

2. THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE), AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP, ARE HEREBY DEDICATED AS

EASEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FOREVER, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF

CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING APPLICABLE UTILITY STRUCTURES, AND ALL APPURTENANCES THERETO, UNDER , UPON AND OVER SAID AREAS OR STRIPS OF LAND. SAID AREAS OR STRIPS OF LAND ARE TO BE KEPT OPEN AND FREE FROM BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND, EXCEPT APPLICABLE UTILITY STRUCTURES AND APPURTENANCES.

3. THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (SDE), AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP, ARE HEREBY DEDICATED AS

EASEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FOREVER, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF

THE AREA MARKED EBMUD WILL BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) AS A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, REPLACING, MAINTAINING, OPERATING AND

USING ANY FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF UTILITIES, AND ALL NECESSARY FIXTURES, INCLUDINGUNDERGROUND TELEMETRY AND ELECTRICAL CABLES OR APPURTENANCES THERETO, IN, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS SAID EASEMENT. TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM SAID EASEMENT AND THE RIGHT AT ALL TIMES TO ENTER IN, OVER AND UPON SAID EASEMENT AND EVERY PART THEREOF.THE EASEMENT AREA, MARKED EBMUD, MAY BE LANDSCAPED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT'S USE; HOWEVER, NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MAY BE PLACED ON SAID EASEMENT, NO TREES MAY BE PLANTED

WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA AND NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE TO THE EXISTING SURFACE ELEVATION (GRADE) OF THE EASEMENT AREA BY MORE THAN ONE (1) FOOT, NOR SHALL ANYTHING BE DONE THEREON WHICH MAY INTERFERE WITH EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT'S FULL ENJOYMENT OF SAID EASEMENT. EBMUD SHALL ACCEPT THIS EASEMENT BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.

THE AREA MARKED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, OR SSE, IS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA

SANITARY DISTRICT (CENTRAL SAN) OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS IN GROSS, AS AN EXCLUSIVE SUBSURFACE EASEMENT (OR AS NONEXCLUSIVE SUBSURFACE EASEMENT, WHERE INDICATED) AND NONEXCLUSIVE SURFACE EASEMENT FOR THE

RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, RENEW, ALTER, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, REPLACE (WITH THE INITIAL OR OTHER SIZE)

AND REPAIR SUCH SEWER LINE OR LINES AS CENTRAL SAN SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME ELECT FOR CONVEYING SEWAGE OR

RECYCLED WATER, AND ALL NECESSARY MAINTENANCE ACCESS STRUCTURES, LATERALS AND APPURTENANCES THERETO,

OVER AND WITHIN SUCH EASEMENT AREA, TOGETHER WITH THE FREE RIGHT OF INGRESS, EGRESS, AND EMERGENCY

ACCESS TO SAID EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE OWNER'S PROPERTY, PROVIDED THAT

SAID RIGHTS OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND EMERGENCY ACCESS SHALL BE LIMITED TO ESTABLISHED ROADWAYS, PATHWAYS,

AVENUES OR OTHER ROUTES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND AS REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. THIS OFFER OF DEDICATION ALSO INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CLEAR OBSTRUCTIONS AND VEGETATION FROM THE EASEMENT AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE OTHER RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.

THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO LANDSCAPE OR MAKE SUCH OTHER USE OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE EASEMENTS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH CENTRAL SAN'S USE; HOWEVER, SUCH USE BY THE OWNER SHALL NOT INCLUDE

THE PLANTING OF TREES OR CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOUSES,

GARAGES, OUTBUILDINGS, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, RETAINING WALLS, DECKS, PATIOS, ENGINEERED DRAINAGE

FACILITIES (BIO-SWALES) OR OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH MAY INTERFERE WITH CENTRAL SAN'S ENJOYMENT OF THE EASEMENT RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.

MAINTENANCE ACCESS STRUCTURES (MANHOLES, RODDING INLETS, ETC.) CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT SHALLNOT BE COVERED BY EARTH OR OTHER MATERIAL AND SHALL REMAIN IN AN EXPOSED AND ACCESSIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES FOR ROUTINE AND/OR EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE THAT MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY CENTRAL SAN FROM TIMETO TIME.

CENTRAL SAN, AND ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, SHALL INCUR NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OFFER OF

DEDICATION, AND SHALL NOT ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFERED EASEMENTS OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS

THEREON OR THEREIN, UNTIL SUCH OFFER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPROPRIATE ACTION OF CENTRAL SAN, OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS. FURTHER, THE OWNER SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, SAVE AND HOLD HARMLESS CENTRAL SAN

FROM ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE EASEMENTS, PRIOR TO THE FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF SAID EASEMENTS BY APPROPRIATE ACTION OF CENTRAL SAN.

AND THE UNDERSIGNED DOES HEREBY RESERVE TO ITSELF AND TO THE OWNERS, RESIDENTS, CUSTOMERS AND OTHERS DESIGNATED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OF SUBDIVISION 9602, THE PARCELS A, B, AND C, AND THE AREAS MARKED AS PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT (PAE) AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP. SAID AREAS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, PRIVATE INGRESS AND EGRESS, PRIVATE STREETS, PRIVATE UTILITIES, PRIVATE STORM DRAINS, OVERLAND DRAINAGE RELEASE, LANDSCAPING AND ALL APPURTENANCES. MAINTENANCE OF SAID PRIVATE ACCESS WAYS IS TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION GOVERNING SUBDIVISION 9602, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS GOVERNING SUBDIVISION 9602. SAID AREAS ARE NOT OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND ARE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION GOVERNING SUBDIVISION 9602 BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.

THIS MAP SHOWS OR NOTES ALL EASEMENTS, EXISTING OR OF RECORD, WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE HEREIN EMBODIED MAP.

OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF } SS
ON , 2024, BEFORE ME , A NOTARY PUBLIC,

PERSONALLY APPEARED

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE

SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND:

SIGNATURE:

PRINTED NAME, NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATEPRINCIPAL COUNTY OF BUSINESS:

COMMISSION EXPIRES: COMMISSION # OF NOTARY:

SUBDIVISION 9602
COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT:

THIS MAP, ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION 9602", IS HEREBY ACCEPTED FOR RECORDATION, SHOWING A CLEAR TITLE AS PER LETTER OF TITLE WRITTEN BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, DATED THE ________ DAY OF ______________, 2024, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, I DEEM THAT SAID MAP COMPLIES IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWAND LOCAL ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE FILING OF SUBDIVISION MAPS.

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY AT ________ A.M./P.M. ON THE _____ DAY OF , 2024, IN BOOK OF MAPS AT PAGE , IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

FEE: $_____________
KRISTIN B. CONNELLY

COUNTY CLERK RECORDERCONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BY:

DEPUTY COUNTY RECORDER
OWNER'S STATEMENT (CONTINUED):

IN WITNESS WHERE OF, THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE EXECUTED THIS STATEMENT ON THE ______ DAY OF _______________________, 2024.AS OWNERS: TH DEERWOOD LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: NAME:

TITLE:

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY }SS

I, CHRISTINA FRANCO, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING MAP ENTITLED “SUBDIVISION 9602”, WAS

PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE DAY OF , 2024, AND THAT SAID COUNCIL DID BY RESOLUTION, DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED AT SAID MEETING, (RESOLUTION NO. ) APPROVE SAID MAP AND ACCEPT SUBJECT

TO IMPROVEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE), AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

EASEMENT (EVAE), AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (SDE), OFFER SHOWN THEREON AS DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE AND DO HEREBY ABANDON AND VACATE THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT AS DEDICATED ON PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MS 67-81 IN CONFORMANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66434(g) AND 66499.20.2 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.

I ALSO HEREBY REJECT ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE OFFER EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) EASEMENT AND THE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SSE).

I ALSO HEREBY STATE THAT ALL AGREEMENTS AND SURETY AS REQUIRED BY LAW TO ACCOMPANY THE WITHIN MAP HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAMON AND ARE FILED IN MY OFFICE.

IN WITNESS, THEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 2024.

CHRISTINA FRANCOCITY CLERK

SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' STATEMENT:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY }SS
I CERTIFY AS CHECKED BELOW THAT:

Ƒ A TAX BOND ASSURING THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES WHICH ARE NOW A LIEN BUT NOT YET PAYABLE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Ƒ ALL TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID, AS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY REDEMPTION OFFICE.

DATE: JAMI MORRITT

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ANDCOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF CONTRA COSTACOUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY: NAME:

DEPUTY CLERK
PLANNING COMMISION STATEMENT:

I, DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON HEREBY STATE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APRIL 18TH, 2023, OF SUBDIVISION 9602, UPON WHICH THIS SUBDIVISION MAP IS BASED.

DATED: , 2024

DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCITY OF SAN RAMON,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT THE REQUEST OF SEIVA PROPERTY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, IN NOVEMBER OF 2022.

I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED HEREON OR

WILL BE SET WITHIN TWENTY FOUR MONTHS FROM RECORDATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAP, AND THAT THE MONUMENTS

ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED, AND THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN, AND THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, ANDTHAT THE GROSS AREA WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IS 4.43 ACRES MORE OR LESS.

DATED: , 2024

IAN BRUCE MACDONALD
P.L.S. NO. 8817
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT:

I, BRIAN R. BORNSTEIN, CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP ENTITLED “SUBDIVISION 9602”, THAT SAID SUBDIVISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY THESAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAN RAMON PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 18TH, 2023, THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW AND

LOCAL ORDINANCES APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

DATED: , 2024
BRIAN R. BORNSTEIN, R.C.E. 59402

CITY ENGINEERCITY OF SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:

I, JOHN T. MAY, ACTING CITY SURVEYOR FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAMON HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP ENTITLED “SUBDIVISION 9602” AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THE MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.

DATED: , 2024
JOHN T. MAY, L.S. 8570
EXPIRES: 3/31/2025

ACTING CITY SURVEYOR

CITY OF SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT:

A DESIGN-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, PREPARED BY ENGEO, DATED MAY 12, 2023, PROJECT NO. 19202.000.01,AND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER OF SAN RAMON, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602) SUBDIVISION 9602

5.3.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: A: Final Map for Subdivision 9602 (2024-012 : Approving Final Map for Subd. 9602)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director By: Ryan Driscoll, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-013 - Authorizing an Application Initiating Proceedings for Reorganization of Boundaries for a 0.13+ Acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In conjunction with a prior boundary reorganization in March 2009 (Faria Preserve), a small unincorporated island was created comprising a 0.13+ acre area located near Deerwood Road.

On September 12, 2023, the City Council adopted a Resolution committing to submittal of an application to initiate proceedings for reorganization of boundaries for the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island with the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) by March 15, 2024, based on an updated timeline to complete the required General Plan designation and prezone related to the General Plan 2040 Update and to continue the efficient allocation of limited staff time and resources.

Subsequently, on December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted a Resolution and Ordinance approving the San Ramon General Plan 2040 Project, including the establishment of the Open Space General Plan land use designation and the Open Space (OS-1) prezone district for the

0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island, which became effective January 12, 2024.

This Resolution will authorize an application to LAFCO requesting initiation of proceedings for reorganization of boundaries for the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island into the City of San Ramon and detachment from County Service Area (CSA) for Police (P-6). The principal reason for the application is to comply with a LAFCO island annexation policy. Upon LAFCO approval of the reorganization, the City will provide services, including police, consistent with the existing plan for services provided by the City to land around the unincorporated island, resulting in an efficient use of government resources and services to the area. The established Open Space (OS-1) prezone district is consistent with the City of San Ramon General Plan 2040 Open Space land use designation for the affected territory.

5.4 Packet Pg. 25

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt this Resolution authorizing staff to request the initiation of proceedings for reorganization through the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and authorizing the City Manager to execute the LAFCO Indemnification Agreement for the City.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Background
In conjunction with a prior boundary reorganization in March 2009 (Faria Preserve), a small unincorporated island was created comprising a 0.13+ acre area located near Deerwood Road (Figure 1).

5.4 Packet Pg. 26
Figure 1: Map of 0.13+ Acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island The 0.13+ acre unincorporated island is part of an existing parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number:
208-700-082) that is privately-owned by the California Sunridge Homeowners Association and is used as open space for the 120-condominium housing unit development.

City Staff has determined the 0.13+ acre unincorporated island was outside the original 1983 City of San Ramon incorporation boundary but is surrounded by the City of San Ramon and within the San Ramon Sphere of Influence.

On September 12, 2023, the City Council adopted a Resolution (No. 2023-094) committing to submittal of an application to initiate proceedings for reorganization of boundaries for the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island with LAFCO by March 15, 2024, based on an updated timeline to complete the required General Plan designation and prezone related to the General Plan 2040 Update and to continue the efficient allocation of limited staff time and resources.

On December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted a Resolution (No. 2023-133) approving the San Ramon General Plan 2040 Project, including approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-0002) and Prezone (PZ 2023-0001) applications related to the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island and establish the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island area within the Open Space General Plan land use designation.

On December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted an Ordinance (No. 524), based on the approval of the Prezone (PZ 2023-0001) application, to amend the City of San Ramon Zoning Map to designate the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island area within the Open Space (OS-1) prezone district, which became effective January 12, 2024.

Resolution of Application
This Resolution (Attachment A) will authorize City staff to process the necessary application and documentation through LAFCO to request initiation of proceedings for reorganization of boundaries for the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island into the City of San Ramon and detachment from County Service Area (CSA) for Police (P-6). The principal reason for the application is to comply with a LAFCO island annexation policy, which states, in pertinent part, as follows: In the interest of orderly growth and development, cities should annex urban unincorporated islands within their current Spheres of Influence before seeking to add new lands to their boundaries. Upon LAFCO approval of the reorganization, the City will provide services, including police, consistent with the existing plan for services provided by the City to land around the 0.13+ acre unincorporated island, resulting in an efficient use of government resources and services to the area.

The established Open Space (OS-1) prezone district is consistent with the City of San Ramon General Plan 2040 Open Space land use designation for the affected territory. City Staff will submit the application to LAFCO prior to the March 15, 2024 date, which the City Council committed to with Resolution No. 2023-094.

5.4 Packet Pg. 27
Indemnification Agreement
LAFCO requires Applicants to complete an Indemnification Agreement for all proposals. The Indemnification Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 to Attachment A and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. This Resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the Indemnification Agreement for the City.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Preparation of the LAFCO application materials includes a consultant cost (approx. $4,100) to create the required map and legal description. LAFCO application fees (approx. $6,300) are applicable at the time of the application submittal. City Staff has included both the consultant cost and the LAFCO application fees in the current fiscal year budget.

NEXT STEPS
City Staff will submit the necessary application and documentation to LAFCO prior to the March 15, 2024 date committed to by the City Council with Resolution No. 2023-094. Staff anticipates a LAFCO public hearing for the application in May or June 2024.

ATTACHMENT
Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description Exhibit 2: LAFCO Indemnification Agreement

5.4 Packet Pg. 28
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-013

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

AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR
REORGANIZATION OF BOUNDARIES FOR A 0.13+ ACRE DEERWOOD ROAD

UNINCORPORATED ISLAND
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023, the City of San Ramon City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-094 committing to submittal of an application to initiate proceedings to reorganization of the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island with LAFCO by March 15, 2024, based on an updated timeline to complete the required General Plan designation and prezone related to the General Plan 2040 Update and to continue the efficient allocation of limited staff time and resources; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the City of San Ramon City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-133 approving the San Ramon General Plan 2040 Project, including approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-0002) and Prezone (PZ 2023-0001) applications related to the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island and establish the

0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island area within the Open Space General Plan land use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the City of San Ramon City Council adopted Ordinance No. 524, based on the approval of the Prezone (PZ 2023-0001) application, to amend the City of San Ramon Zoning Map to designate the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island area within the Open Space (OS-1) prezone district; and WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon desires to initiate a proceeding for the reorganization of boundaries specified herein with the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is a reorganization and consists of the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island for the annexation to the City of San Ramon and detachment from County Service Area (CSA) for Police (P-6); and
WHEREAS, a map and description of the boundaries of the affected territory is set forth in Exhibit 1 (Map and Legal Description), attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional change; and
WHEREAS, it is desired that the proposal be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) continuation to levy special taxes and benefit assessments against the property to

5.4 Packet Pg. 29
be annexed and (ii) the County Service Area’s authority to continue to receive such taxes and assessments and provide services to such property, including operation and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure, and
WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposal is to comply with a LAFCO island annexation policy which states, in pertinent part, as follows: In the interest of orderly growth and development, cities should annex urban unincorporated islands within their current Spheres of Influence before seeking to add new lands to their boundaries; additionally, the proposal will provide City services, including police, consistent with the existing plan for services provided by the City to land around the 0.13+ acre unincorporated island; and WHEREAS, the affected territory shall be liable for any authorized or existing taxes, charges, and assessments comparable to properties within the annexing agency; and WHEREAS, the subject Reorganization application for the 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island does not include any proposal for a tract map, subdivision, or development; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the adopted City of San Ramon General Plan 2040 and Sphere of Influence of the City of San Ramon; and WHEREAS, consent is hereby given to the wavier of conducting authority proceedings as set forth in Government Code Section 56834(c); and
WHEREAS, the proposal includes submittal of an Agreement between LAFCO and the City regarding indemnification and is set forth in Exhibit 2 (LAFCO Indemnification Agreement), attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes staff, not by petition of registered voters or owners of land but by this Resolution, to request the initiation of proceedings for reorganization through the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Ramon authorizes the City Manager to execute the LAFCO Indemnification Agreement for the City.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

5.4 Packet Pg. 30
ABSTAIN:
_
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Christina Franco, City Clerk
ATTACHED:

Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description Exhibit 2: LAFCO Indemnification Agreement

5.4 Packet Pg. 31

Page 1 of 2 ends

LAFCO #_______
AnnexaƟon to the City of San Ramon
G:\Job2021\211093-001\Survey\DescripƟons\EXHIBIT A - LAFCO NO. ________.docx

EXHIBIT A
Real property situate in Rancho San Ramon, in the Unincorporated Territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and being a portion of Parcel F as said Parcel is shown on that certain Subdivision Map No. 7806, recorded on April 7, 1993 in Book 365 of Maps at Pages 31-35, Official Records of Contra Costa County, and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a northeasterly corner of said Parcel F, said corner being at the easterly terminus of a course shown as having a bearing of North 89° 19’ 08” East a distance of 738.78 feet, same corner being a point on the north line of the City of San Ramon Incorporation Boundary, Adopted on October 12, 1982 by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors under Resolution No. 82/1229 and recorded on June 22, 1983 in Book 11307 of Official Records at Page 112, Official Records of Contra Costa County, same corner being on the south boundary line of LAFCO Annexation No. 08-27 Adopted on February 11, 2009 under Resolution No. 08-27 and recorded on March 19, 2009 as Document No. 2009-0058435, Official Records of Contra Costa County; Thence along the south lines of LAFCO Annexation No. 08-27, the following three (3) courses:
1) North 00° 40’ 52” West - 58.00 feet;
2) North 89° 19’ 08” East - 100.00;
3) North 00° 40’ 52” West - 58.00 feet to a southerly corner of said Annexation No. 08-27 (LAFCO 08-37), same corner being the easterly terminus of a course described as having a bearing of North 87° 50’ East a distance of 838.36 feet in said City of San Ramon Incorporation Boundary (11307 OR 112); thence along the north line of said City of San Ramon Incorporation Boundary, South 89° 19’ 08” West - 100.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 5,800 square feet of land, more or less.

5.4.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description (2024-013 : Deerwood Road

Page 2 of 2 ends

LAFCO #_______
AnnexaƟon to the City of San Ramon
G:\Job2021\211093-001\Survey\DescripƟons\EXHIBIT A - LAFCO NO. ________.docx See Exhibit B - Plat to Accompany Legal Description which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

END OF DESCRIPTION
This description and its accompanying plat were prepared under the direction of:
_____________
Date
________________________
Scott A. Shortlidge

5.4.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description (2024-013 : Deerwood Road

LOCATION

PROJECT

5.4.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description (2024-013 : Deerwood Road

5.4.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description (2024-013 : Deerwood Road Lot Report Tue Oct 17 15:01:38 2023
Lot File: G:\Job2021\211093-001\Survey\CAD Files\Plats\Closures\211093-001 - LAFCO EXHIBIT-clo.lot
CRD File: G:\Job2021\211093-001\Survey\CAD Files\Plats\Closures\211093-001 - LAFCO EXHIBIT-clo.crd
Lot: LAFCO , Block: 3, Type: LOT
PNT# Bearing Distance Northing Easting
1 2637.5690 4428.7930
N 00°40'52" W 58.00
2 2695.5649 4428.1035
N 89°19'08" E 100.00
3 2696.7536 4528.0964
S 00°40'52" E 58.00
4 2638.7577 4528.7859
S 89°19'08" W 100.00
1 2637.5690 4428.7930
Closure Error Distance> 0.0000
Total Distance> 316.00
Area: 5800 Sq. Feet, 0.1331 Acres
Block 3 Total Area: 5800 Sq. Feet, 0.1331 Acres

5.4.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Exhibit 1: 0.13+ acre Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Map and Legal Description (2024-013 : Deerwood Road

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
AND [APPLICANT
REGARDING [
]
ACTION]
[
TO THE
AGENCY(IES)] (LAFCO [ NO. ]
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this _______ day of [Month, Year], is entered into by and between the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), a public agency, and the [Agency or Individual Name] (“Agency”), a [municipal corporation/political subdivision/special district] in the State of California.

Recitals

1. Agency submitted an application to LAFCO.

2. LAFCO’s review and/or approval is conditioned upon, among other things, Agency and LAFCO entering into an agreement to indemnify LAFCO against any expenses arising from any legal actions challenging the application and subsequent actions.

NOW, THEREFORE, LAFCO and Agency agree as follows:

Section 1. Indemnification. In the event any legal action or proceeding is instituted against LAFCO (or naming LAFCO as a real party in interest) challenging the review and/or approval of the application, or any of LAFCO's actions related thereto, Agency shall indemnify LAFCO from any costs or liabilities incurred by LAFCO as a result of any such action or proceeding, including any award to opposing counsel of attorney's fees or costs. Agency also agrees to reimburse LAFCO for the Commission’s reasonable expenses resulting from any such legal action or proceeding. Such expenses include LAFCO’s counsel’s charges for representing LAFCO in any such action, costs of preparing the administrative record in any such action (including LAFCO staff costs), and all other expenses incurred by LAFCO as a result of any such action or proceeding.

LAFCO intends to use its staff to represent it in this action. LAFCO will coordinate the defense of this action with the Agency. LAFCO retains the right to obtain outside counsel to represent it in litigation, if necessary. LAFCO will do so only after consultation with the Agency.

Section 2. Miscellaneous Provisions.

A. Successors and Assigns. This agreement shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of successors in interest of the parties hereto, including heirs, assigns, executors, administrators and all other parties, whether they succeed by operation of law or voluntary acts.

5.4.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Exhibit 2: LAFCO Indemnification Agreement (2024-013 : Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Resolution of Application) B. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This agreement is entered only for the benefit of the parties executing this agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person.

C. Amendments. This agreement may be amended in writing by the mutual agreement of the original parties or their successors in interest.

D. Applicable Law. This agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

E. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed and delivered in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written.

CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION
__________________________________
LAFCO Executive Officer
[AGENCY NAME]
__________________________________
Title: ______________________________________
Attest:
__________________________________
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
LAFCO Legal Counsel
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
Legal Counsel

5.4.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Exhibit 2: LAFCO Indemnification Agreement (2024-013 : Deerwood Road Unincorporated Island Resolution of Application)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Deborah Fehr, Senior Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-014 - Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Funding Agreement with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for Cost Sharing Commitments to Construct the Countywide SMART Signal Project, and Approve an Allocation in the Amount of $248,175 from the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Fund (214) to Cover Matching Fund Requirements for the One Bay Area, Cycle 3 Program Grant Award

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The SMART Signals Project in Contra Costa County is a Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) led Countywide Project to upgrade traffic signal systems and communication systems throughout its 19 cities/towns and unincorporated Contra Costa County. CCTA applied for and received One Bay Area, Cycle 3 (OBAG 3) federal funds for the Project. The City’s portion of the grant award is $2,163,683 and requires an 11.47% local match of $248,175. A proposed SMART Signals Funding Agreement between Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the City of San Ramon for cost sharing commitments to construct the Countywide SMART Signals Project is required. The local match can be funded by the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIF) Fund.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Funding Agreement with CCTA for cost sharing commitments to construct the Countywide SMART Signal Project and approve an allocation in the amount of $248,175 from the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Fund (214) to cover matching fund requirements for the One Bay Area, Cycle 3 Program Grant Award.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The SMART Signals Project in Contra Costa County is a CCTA-led Countywide Project to upgrade traffic signal systems and communication systems throughout its 19 cities/towns and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Ultimately, the Project will develop, manage, and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives such as upgrading the existing legacy systems, providing interconnectivity throughout Contra Costa County signal systems, and enhancing the sharing of real-time information and data between agencies.

5.5 Packet Pg. 39
In 2022, CCTA applied for and received a total of $26,555,000 in OBAG 3 federal funds for the Project. The Project framework was initially presented by CCTA in 2022 to a number of committees including SWAT TAC, SWAT, and Innovate 680 PAC. Comments and feedback from elected officials, stakeholders, and agency staff all agreed this Countywide Smart Signals Project would be a great start in conjunction with the Innovate 680 Advanced Technology goals to lay the foundation for connectivity of signals along key corridors such as I-680, and to link state and local traffic signals through a central data system. The total cost of the Project is $30,774,422, which includes a combination of local matching funds from each of the 19 cities/towns and unincorporated Contra Costa County, Local Partnership Program funds, and matching funds from CCTA. The City’s portion of the grant award is $2,163,683 and requires an

11.47% local match of $248,175.

As CCTA is the lead agency responsible for the administration, design, and construction of this Project, the City is required to enter into a Funding Agreement (Attachment A) that has been forwarded to the City by CCTA for execution. The City Attorney has reviewed the Funding Agreement and concluded that the updated terms and provisions are reasonable and acceptable to the City. As this Project consists of several elements including traffic signal vehicle/bicycle video detection, fiber optic interconnect, and video analytics, it is recommended that the funding match amount of $248,175 be allocated from the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIF) Fund by means of incorporating this Project into the existing Citywide Intelligent Transportation System Update Project (CIP 975594). The cost breakdown for San Ramon is shown in Attachment B.

CCTA will be the lead agency responsible for the administration, design, and construction to upgrade traffic signal communication systems at 328 intersections within Contra Costa County on behalf of all 19 cities/towns and unincorporated communities located along major arterials streets designated as Routes of Regional Significance. Many of the existing signal systems are using outdated technology that lacks interconnectivity without fiber optics and/or ethernet based communication making traffic signal synchronization and coordination nearly impossible. This SMART Signals Project will unify the major traffic corridors in an interconnected system with the ability to monitor traffic conditions in real-time and assist in managing traffic during major incidents that cause disruptions to the normal flow of traffic.

Specifically for San Ramon, the Project will provide traffic signal hardware and operational upgrades at 24 intersections along the San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Bollinger Canyon Road, and Crow Canyon Road corridors through implementation of video/radar vehicle and bicycle detection systems, fiber optic interconnect, CCTV cameras, traffic signal synchronization, and video analytics to improve signal timing and coordination.

CCTA will utilize local Measure J funding for the planning and environmental study phases of the Project. CCTA will also be the lead in design, bidding, construction, and inspection of the implementation of the SMART Signals Project. Each local agency needs to provide its local match contribution to CCTA; therefore, the City is required to enter into a Funding Agreement.

The focus of the Funding Agreement is to secure local match commitments from each city/town prior to starting design of the Project. A separate Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance

5.5 Packet Pg. 40
(OO&M) Agreement is required to detail when regional operation of the signals will be implemented and the level of maintenance to be performed by each city/town and/or CCTA to ensure proper connectivity and operation. The OO&M Agreement is still under review and will be presented to Council at a future meeting under a separate report for approval. The signal upgrades are expected to be designed in 2024 and constructed in 2025.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Five-Year 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Program authorized a Project budget of $2,278,800 for the Citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Upgrade Project (CIP 975594). The OBAG 3 Program’s grant award of $2,163,683 requires a total of $248,175 in local match, which is the 11.47% funding match requirement of the grant, for construction of the SMART Signal upgrades at 24 intersections within the City of San Ramon. It is recommended that the Citywide ITS Upgrade Project (CIP 975594) incorporate the City’s scope and financial portion of the Countywide SMART Signals Project, allocate $248,175 from the TIF Fund to cover the funding match requirement, and increase the total Project Budget authorization to $2,526,975. There is a sufficient balance in the TIF Fund to cover this amount.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. Allocate funding from the TIF Fund to the existing CIP 975594 Project.

2. Funding Agreement will be signed and returned to CCTA.

ATTACHMENT
A: DRAFT Funding Agreement
B: SMART Signals - San Ramon Cost Breakdown
C: SMART Signals Informational Flyer

5.5 Packet Pg. 41
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-014

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FUNDING AGREEMENT

WITH THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR COST

SHARING COMMITMENTS TO CONSTRUCT THE COUNTYWIDE SMART SIGNAL PROJECT, AND APPROVE AN ALLOCATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $248,175 FROM THE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE FUND (214) TO COVER MATCHING FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ONE BAY AREA, CYCLE 3 PROGRAM GRANT AWARD
WHEREAS, the SMART Signals Project in Contra Costa County is a Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) led Countywide Project to upgrade traffic signal systems and communication systems throughout its 19 cities/towns and unincorporated Contra Costa County; and
WHEREAS, the Project will develop, manage, and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, CCTA applied for and received a total of $26,555,000 in OBAG 3 federal funds for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City’s portion of the grant award is $2,163,683 and requires an 11.47% local match of $248,175; and
WHEREAS, CCTA is the lead agency responsible for the administration, design, and construction of this Project, and the City is required to enter into a Funding Agreement with CCTA; and
WHEREAS, the Project will provide traffic signal hardware and operational upgrades at 24 intersections along the San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Bollinger Canyon Road, and Crow Canyon Road corridors through implementation of video/radar vehicle and bicycle detection systems, fiber optic interconnect, CCTV cameras, traffic signal synchronization, and video analytics to improve signal timing and coordination; and WHEREAS, the Project consists of several ITS elements, it is requested that the funding match amount of $248,175 be allocated from the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIF) Fund by incorporating this Project into the existing Citywide ITS Update Project (CIP 975594) and increasing the Project Budget authorization to $2,526,975.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Funding Agreement with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for cost sharing commitments to construct the Countywide Smart Signal Project and approve an allocation of $248,175 from Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Fund

5.5 Packet Pg. 42
(214) to cover the matching fund requirements for the One Bay Area, Cycle 3 Program Grant award.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

5.5 Packet Pg. 43
FUNDING AGREEMENT xxxx
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 1 of 5 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005
FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. XXXX

BETWEEN

THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND

THE CITY OF SAN RAMON

FOR COST SHARING COMMITMENTS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE

COUNTYWIDE SMART SIGNALS PROJECT
This Agreement is made and entered into on ______________, 2023 by the CITY OF SAN RAMON, a Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as ("CITY") and the CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY hereinafter referred to as ("AUTHORITY"). CITY and AUTHORITY are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” and each individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS

1. AUTHORITY is the project sponsor and designated lead agency for implementing the Countywide Smart Signals Project within Contra Costa County, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, which is a program to install signal system and intelligent transportation system (ITS) equipment upgrades to key identified intersections within Contra Costa County cities with the objective to coordinate and synchronize the timing of the signals.

2. AUTHORITY is the recipient of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) One Bay Area Cycle 3 (OBAG 3) funds for design, construction, and deployment of the PROJECT.

3. CITY and AUTHORITY have identified 24 intersections to recommend for signal system and intelligent transportation system (ITS) equipment upgrades for inclusion in the PROJECT estimated at $2,163,683.00, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. CITY agrees to provide AUTHORITY with the minimum 11.47% local matching funds to the OBAG 3 funds in the amount of $248,174.44 11in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to pay for the design and installation of upgraded equipment located within CITY’s right-of-way and cost of construction as part of the PROJECT.

5. CITY and AUTHORITY agree that the final matching funds requirements may be adjusted accordingly based on the final actual design and construction costs incurred and will be reconciled at the completion of the PROJECT as defined in paragraph 6 below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the AUTHORITY and CITY do hereby agree as follows:

SECTION I
CITY AGREES:

1. To provide AUTHORITY matching funds for upgrading equipment and construction cost for the CITY’s portion of the PROJECT in an amount of $248,174.44, which represents 11.47% of the OBAG3 funds of $2,163,683.00, no later than 30 days from receiving an invoice from AUTHORITY.

ATTACHMENT A5.5.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) FUNDING AGREEMENT xxxx
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 2 of 5 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005

2. To work collaboratively with AUTHORITY to implement the PROJECT.

SECTION II
AUTHORITY AGREES:

1. To lead the development process including planning, design, construction, and deployment of the PROJECT, as described in Exhibit A and the Operations and Maintenance Agreement to be negotiated by the CITY and AUTHORITY following execution of this Agreement.

2. To submit an invoice to CITY for an amount of $248,174.44 prior to December 31, 2023.

3. To work collaboratively with CITY to implement the PROJECT.

SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:

1. (a) That the cost to complete PROJECT is only an estimate and may require adjustments depending on the final cost. At the completion of the PROJECT, and if AUTHORITY determines that the match amount provided by CITY is insufficient, it will notify and seek approval of CITY to provide additional matching funds. Completion of the Project is defined as when AUTHORITY accepts and certifies that all phases of the PROJECT construction–including but not limited to installation, deployment, and activation of equipment–are completed.
(b) If AUTHORITY determines that the match amount provided by CITY exceeded the amount needed to complete the PROJECT, then AUTHORITY will refund CITY the balance of the original match amount provided by CITY and indicated in paragraph 1 of Section I.

2. Term: This Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2028, or at the completion of the PROJECT, whichever occurs first, or until discharged as provided in Paragraph 3 below or as a result of paragraph 12 below.

3. Discharge: This Agreement shall be subject to discharge as follows:
(a) Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time until construction of the PROJECT begins, other than for breach. Either Party may terminate by giving written notice of termination to the other Party which shall specify both the cause and the effective date of termination. Notice of termination under this provision shall be given at least ninety (90) days before the effective date of such termination. Once construction of the PROJECT begins, neither party may terminate this Agreement unless there is a breach as addressed in paragraph 3(b) below. (b) This Agreement may be canceled by a Party for breach of any obligation, covenant, or condition hereof by the other Party, upon notice to the breaching Party. With respect to any breach that is reasonably capable of being cured, the breaching Party shall have 30 days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure. If the breaching party diligently pursues cure, such party shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure, not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of the initial notice, unless a further extension is granted by the non-breaching Party. On cancellation, the non-breaching party retains the same rights as a Party exercising its right to terminate under the provisions of paragraph

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) FUNDING AGREEMENT xxxx
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 3 of 5 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005
3(a), except that the canceling Party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.
(c) By mutual consent of both Parties, this Agreement may be terminated at any time. (d) In the event of termination, AUTHORITY shall reimburse CITY, if AUTHORITY deems necessary, for overpayment by CITY based on the difference between actual cost share and estimated cost share, which such difference shall be determined in AUTHORITY’s sole discretion. In no event shall the maximum expenditure allowed under this Agreement, as it may be adjusted by a written amendment signed by both Parties, be exceeded.

4. Indemnity: It is mutually understood and agreed, relative to the reciprocal indemnification of AUTHORITY and CITY:
(a) That neither AUTHORITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for, and CITY shall fully indemnify and hold harmless AUTHORITY against, any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction by CITY under the Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold the AUTHORITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code Section 810.8 occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
(b) That neither CITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for, and AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold harmless CITY against any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction by AUTHORITY under the Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury as defined by Government Code Section 810.8 occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY under this Agreement or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to AUTHORITY under this Agreement.

5. Notices: Any notice that may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses which may be specified in writing to the Parties hereto.

Steven Spedowfski
City Manager
City of San Ramon
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Timothy Haile
Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) FUNDING AGREEMENT xxxx
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 4 of 5 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005

6. Additional Acts and Documents: Each Party agrees to do all such things and take all such actions, and to make, execute and deliver such other documents and instruments, as shall be reasonably requested to carry out the provisions, intent and purpose of this Agreement.

7. Integration: This Agreement represents the entire Agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the Parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements.

8. Amendment: This Agreement may not be changed, modified or rescinded except in writing, signed by all Parties hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.

9. Independent Agency: AUTHORITY renders its services under this Agreement as an independent agency. None of the AUTHORITY’s agents or employees shall be agents or employees of the CITY.

10. Assignment: This Agreement may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated, or pledged by any Party without the express written consent of the other Party.

11. Binding on Successors, etc.: This Agreement shall be binding upon the successor(s), assignee(s) or transferee(s) of the AUTHORITY or CITY as the case may be. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign, transfer, hypothecate or pledge this Agreement other than as provided above.

12. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or beyond the authority of either Party to enter into or carry out, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and effect; provided that, the remainder of this Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the Parties.

13. Limitation: All obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this Agreement are expressly subject to the AUTHORITY's continued authorization to collect and expend the sales tax proceeds provided by MEASURE C and MEASURE J. If for any reason the AUTHORITY's right to collect or expend such sales tax proceeds is terminated or suspended in whole or part, the AUTHORITY shall promptly notify CITY, and the Parties shall consult on a course of action to determine how to accomplish the PROJECT or if this Agreement should be terminated. If, after sixty (60) working days of the termination or suspension of sales tax proceeds authority, a course of action is not agreed upon by the Parties, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated by mutual or joint consent; provided, that any obligation to fund from the date of the notice shall be expressly limited by and subject to (i) the lawful ability of the AUTHORITY to expend sales tax proceeds for the purposes of the Agreement; and (ii) the availability, taking into consideration all the obligations of the AUTHORITY under all outstanding contracts, agreements to other obligations of the AUTHORITY, of funds for such purposes.

14. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: This Agreement is not for the benefit of any person or entity other than the Parties.

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) FUNDING AGREEMENT xxxx
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 5 of 5 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005

15. Dispute Resolution: The Parties shall work together in the spirit of good faith and cooperation to successfully implement this Agreement. Should a substantive disagreement arise between the Parties, the disagreement shall immediately be raised between the Parties. Prior to initiating any legal action, the Parties agree to meet in good faith to attempt to resolve any dispute, including but limited to meetings between executive management and participating in mediation. The Parties shall jointly select and engage the effort of a mediator to help resolve the dispute. The Parties shall equally share the costs of the mediator. If the issue is still unresolved, either Party may bring a legal action seeking resolution of the disagreement. However, any and all legal actions may only be brought if the preceding dispute resolution process has been satisfied.

16. Venue: This Agreement and all work performed thereunder shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree that the jurisdiction and venue of any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.

17. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of original counterpart signature pages, and each counterpart signature page shall be attached to and incorporated into this original Agreement.

City of San Ramon
“CITY”
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
“AUTHORITY”
By: By:

Steven Spedowfski, City Manager Federal Glover, Chair
ATTEST:

By: By:

Christina Franco, City Clerk Tarienne Glover, Clerk of the Board APPROVED as to form:

By: By:

Martin Lysons, City Attorney Fennemore Wendel, Legal Counsel

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) 29611360.1/060323.0005
FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. XXXX
between
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
and
The City of San Ramon

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

BACKGROUND
The Smart Signals project in Contra Costa County is a CCTA led countywide project to upgrade traffic signal system and communication systems throughout its 19 cities and unincorporated communities.

Contra Costa County is home to 19 cities/towns and the County, which includes numerous unincorporated communities. There are approximately 1400 traffic signals within the County, Caltrans-owned and various city-owned. Most of these traffic signals are located either along major arterials, including State Routes, identified as Routes of Regional Significance (RSS) or other major and minor arterials in the cities/towns.

The project will develop, manage, and implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives such as upgrading the existing legacy systems, providing interconnectivity throughout Contra Costa County signal systems and enhance the sharing of real-time information between agencies and the public.

The existing traffic signal systems in most jurisdictions located within Contra Costa County are legacy systems and are outdated or antiquated compared to newer traffic signal systems. These signal systems currently lack the communication infrastructure such as fiber and cellular/wireless-based communication, which makes it difficult to implement traffic signal synchronization and coordination between traffic signals along an arterial. Most corridors do not currently include Signal Control and Prioritization (SCP) technologies to promote transit usage to reduce delay and travel times for transit vehicles and reduce response time for emergency vehicles.

These deficiencies result in severe traffic congestion within the cities/towns and may result in spillover onto freeways and cause a chain reaction of congestion along local arterials. The current system contributes to overall commuter travel times and delays, increases greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption, as well as incidents and collisions. These deficiencies were documented following extensive discussions with the cities and towns regarding traffic signal operation within the Contra Costa County.

CCTA and the project Stakeholders have initially identified these deficiencies, which are translated as the following project goals: 1) Improve safety and minimize crashes, injuries, and fatalities between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; 2) Optimize mobility along major corridors and RRS; and 3) Advance to Smart City and Internet of Things (IOT) solutions.

PROJECT ELEMENTS
The Smart Signals project will develop, manage, and implement ITS initiatives that improve the safety and efficiency of multimodal mobility, maximize highway and arterial system throughput, and improve operational efficiency, safety, and reduce environmental impact throughout the county. By upgrading the existing legacy systems and providing interconnectivity throughout Contra Costa County signal systems,

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement)

RESPONSIBILITY

PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE AUTHORITY
CITY
DRAFT 2-08-06 FUNDING AGREEMENT No. XX.XX.XX
Exhibit C City of San Ramon

Page 2 of 3 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005
the county’s traffic signal systems can be prepared for future emerging technologies including connected and/or autonomous vehicles, big data, integrated corridor management (ICM), enable implementation of incident management strategies and Smart Cities initiatives. This solution can enhance the sharing of realtime information between agencies and the public using existing and next generation ITS technologies.

The upgraded traffic signal systems and signal interconnect will help smooth traffic flow and ease recurring traffic congestion by expanding mode choice options and reducing travel time on local streets and roads. Upgraded traffic signals will benefit pedestrians and transit commuters by reducing wait times at intersections, improving total travel time for all modes while making transit and pedestrian more viable transportation options. The Smart Signal systems would also improve the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, vulnerable road users, and people with disabilities by deployment of detection systems.

To accomplish these goals, CCTA is applying a Smart Signal approach that will include the implementation of ITS equipment including upgraded traffic signal controllers and cabinets, upgraded Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) for each agency to provide remote command and control from a centralized Traffic Management Center (TMC) or Traffic Operations Center (TOC) location, Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) cameras, SCP for transit and emergency vehicles, and vehicle detection systems deployed on predefined designated arterials and state routes. These improvements will provide local cities and Caltrans day-to-day county-wide traffic management capabilities in addressing recurrent traffic congestion as well as provide CCTA capabilities for managing the system during non-recurring traffic congestion caused by diverted traffic due to major incidents on the freeway or during any evacuation efforts.

The PROJECT’s key features and benefits include but are not limited to some of the following:
• Providing infrastructure for a countywide traffic management system • Upgrading local signal controllers and signal system hardware, software, and firmware • Deploying bicycle and pedestrian detection software for vulnerable road user protection • Providing SCP, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) capabilities
• Enabling local event management signal timing options • Taking a proactive approach to safety by identifying “near miss” situations for analysis • Enabling cities and CCTA to proactively manage day-to-day traffic • Enabling cities to proactively manage traffic on local streets that has diverted off the freeway due to a major freeway incident
• Identifying alternative routes with timing optimized for incident management • Allowing shared control and operation, improving cross jurisdictional traffic management • Allowing cities/CCTA access to monitor all CCTV cameras and traffic signals for the purpose of optimizing day-to-day operations
Deployment of the Smart Signals Project is expected to result in operational and safety improvements for all modes of transportation, such as:

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement)

RESPONSIBILITY

PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE AUTHORITY
CITY
DRAFT 2-08-06 FUNDING AGREEMENT No. XX.XX.XX
Exhibit C City of San Ramon

Page 3 of 3 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005
• Decrease in travel time,
• Decrease in total delay,
• Reduction in number of stops
• Reduction in secondary accidents
• Decrease in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions • Promotion of transit ridership
• Reduction of response time for emergency vehicles
When operating together, these enhancements increase safety and reliability, and support environmental sustainability, economic development, and equitable access for all travelers.

CITY OF SAN RAMON ELEMENTS
The signals located at the following intersection are included in the Project and are proposed to receive Smart Signal upgrades. (See Table 1 and Figure 1 below) Table 1: City of San Ramon PROJECT Intersections

LIST OF INTERSECTIONS
Signal No. Primary Street Secondary Street
1 Bollinger Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd
2 Bollinger Canyon Rd Civic Center/Marker Place
3 Bollinger Canyon Rd Bishop Ranch 1 East
4 Bollinger Canyon Rd Camino Ramon / Bishop Ranch 1
5 Bollinger Canyon Rd Sunset Dr/Chevron Dr
6 Crow Canyon Rd Bollinger Canyon Rd
7 Crow Canyon Rd Park PI /Porter Dr
8 Crow Canyon Rd Park PI/Deerwood Rd
9 Crow Canyon Rd Old Mill Rd
10 Crow Canyon Rd Old Crow Canyon Rd
11 Crow Canyon Rd Twin Creeks Dr
12 Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon PI
13 Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon
14 Crow Canyon Rd Iron Horse Trail
15 Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd
16 San Ramon Valley Blvd Pine Valley Rd
17 San Ramon Valley Blvd Montevideo Dr
18 San Ramon Valley Blvd Harness Dr
19 San Ramon Valley Blvd Bollinger Canyon Rd
20 San Ramon Valley Blvd Norris Canyon Rd

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement)

RESPONSIBILITY

PROJECT ACTIVITY STATE AUTHORITY
CITY
DRAFT 2-08-06 FUNDING AGREEMENT No. XX.XX.XX
Exhibit C City of San Ramon

Page 4 of 3 ends

29611360.1/060323.0005
21 San Ramon Valley Blvd Parking Lot
22 San Ramon Valley Blvd Crow Canyon Rd
23 San Ramon Valley Blvd Fostoria Way
24 San Ramon Valley Blvd Alcosta Blvd
The recommended upgrades for signals located in San Ramon include:
• Signal controller firmware updates
• Video/Radar detection
• Install fiber through existing SIC conduit
• Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) cameras
• An Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS)
• Traffic signal synchronization, and
• Video Analytics.

Based on preliminary estimates, the upgraded equipment, including cost of construction, is shown below.

The City is responsible to provide the minimum 11.47% match. • Total Number of Signals – 24
• Total funding – $2,163,683.00
Local match required – $248,174.44 (11.47%)

5.5.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: A: DRAFT Funding Agreement (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) SMART Signals - San Ramon Cost Breakdown
Equipment # Unit Cost Total
Firmware 24 $ 2,800 $ 67,200
Video Detection 5 $ 39,200 $ 196,000
Fiber Pull 10 $ 59,136 $ 591,360
ATMS-S 1 $ 56,000 $ 56,000
Synchronization 24 $ 3,920 $ 94,080
Premption 24 $ 5,600 $ 134,400
TSP 24 $ 5,600 $ 134,400
Video Analytics 24 $ 13,440 $ 322,560
$ 1,596,000
$ 166,467
$ 101,243
$ 46,593
$ 401,213
$ 2,163,681
Total Construction Cost
Planning/Design/PS&E
Contingency
Total Cost for San Ramon
Management/Admin
Workshop/Training/Data Center

ATTACHMENT B

5.5.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: B: SMART Signals - San Ramon Cost Breakdown (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement)

CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE SMART SIGNALS
Contra Costa Transporta�on Authority (CCTA) is leading a Countywide Smart Signals Project (Project) to upgrade traffic signal and communica�on systems at 328 intersec�ons within Contra Costa County throughout the 19 ci�es/towns and unincorporated communi�es located along major arterial streets and roads designated as Routes of Regional Significance.

PURPOSE + NEED | Exis�ng traffic
signal systems in most ci�es within Contra
Costa County consist of outdated legacy
systems that lack fiber and/or ethernet
base communica�on making traffic signal
synchroniza�on and coordina�on
between traffic signals difficult.

Addi�onally, most corridors need Signal
Control and Priori�za�on (SCP)
technologies that can promote transit
usage and mode shi�. These opera�onal
deficiencies result in severe traffic
conges�on within the ci�es which can
also lead to spillover on the freeways;
increasing commuter travel �mes,
greenhouse gas emissions, fuel
consump�on, and accidents.

SOLUTION | Implementa�on of the planned Intelligent Transporta�on System (ITS) elements will unify Contra Costa County’s signal technology and communica�on systems to op�mize traffic flow. It will provide an interconnected Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) with the ability to monitor traffic condi�ons in real-�me, safely, and efficiently manage incidents, and share informa�on between agencies and the public.

BENEFITS
SAFETY
Upgrading traffic signal equipment
and applying smart control
systems at intersec�ons will:
► Improve emergency service
response �me;
► Help first responders and law
enforcement manage traffic or
crime incidents; and
► Implement Video analy�cs
that can iden�fy near miss
situa�ons, prevent future
occurrences, and reduce
secondary accidents.

OPERATIONAL

IMPROVEMENTS
Signal synchroniza�on and
implementa�on of SCP
technologies will:
► Smooth traffic flow and
reduce idling;
► Increase average speed;
► Decrease travel �me and total
delay;
► Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; and
► Increase transit reliability by
improving on-�me service.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

ENHANCEMENTS
Shared control and improved cross
jurisdic�onal traffic management will:
► Provide ci�es and Caltrans access to
monitor all videos and signals in
real-�me;
► Op�mize day-to-day traffic
opera�ons and manage local events
through signal �ming op�ons;
► Effec�vely manage arterial traffic
during major incidents on the
freeway, evacua�ons, or major
events; and
► Enable ci�es to priori�ze transit and
emergency vehicles.

The goals of the project are to improve safety, optimize mobility, prepare for emerging transportation technologies, and advance Smart Cities.

ATTACHMENT C

5.5.c
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: C: SMART Signals Informational Flyer (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement) CONTACT | John Hoang, Director, Planning - CCTA
Phone: 925.256.4729 I E-mail: [email protected]

KEY PROJECT FEATURES
►Traffic signal system upgrades
►ATMS upgrades for each agency to provide
remote command and control at a centralized
Traffic Management Center (TMC) loca�on
►Close Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras
►Pedestrian and bicycle detec�on system
►Shared control and opera�on to allow cross
jurisdic�onal traffic management
►Automated data collec�on
►SCP for transit and emergency vehicles
►Vehicle detec�on system on designated
arterials and state routes
FUNDING + SCHEDULE
Project Phase Total Cost Fund Source Start Date
Planning/ Conceptual $250,000 Measure J Jul-22
Environmental Studies (PA&ED) $440,280 Measure J Mar-23 Design Engineering (PS&E) $1,651,050 Local Match, OBAG 3* Sep-24 Construc�on $28,433,092 Local Match, OBAG 3, LPP-F** Sep-25 Total $ 30,774,422
*One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) 3 federal funding provided by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). ** Local Partnership Program – Formulaic (LPP-F) state funding provided by California Transportation Commission (CTC).

STAKEHOLDERS
An�och Brentwood Clayton Concord Danville
El Cerrito Hercules Lafayete Mar�nez Moraga
Oakley Orinda Pinole Pitsburg Pleasant Hill
Richmond San Pablo San Ramon Walnut Creek Contra Costa County The project is being implemented in collaboration with Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection), Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit), Western Contra Costa County Transit (WestCAT), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and MTC.

5.5.c
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: C: SMART Signals Informational Flyer (2024-014 : SMART Signals Agreement)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Prabhjot Dhoot, Transportation Specialist
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-015 - Repealing Resolution No. 2019-016 and Amending the Parking Restrictions Master Street List Establishing Restricted Parking Zones in the City of San Ramon as Per Title B, Division B-8, Chapter I, Article 1, Section B8-1, Stopping, Standing, or Parking – Curb Marking/Signage Designations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When requests are received from the community to install parking restrictions along public roadways, staff analyzes each request from a safety standpoint. Based on field observations, locations are identified and recommended for enhancement with either red curb or “No Parking” signage. The accompanying Master Street List details those locations where staff has identified a need for mitigation and installed the subsequent red curb or signage between 2019 and 2023. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires cities to keep a Master Street List of parking restrictions in order to provide Police enforcement.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approves this Resolution repealing Resolution No. 2019-016 and amend the Parking Restrictions Master Street List establishing restricted parking zones in the City of San Ramon as per Title B, Division B-8, Chapter I, Article 1, Section B8-1, Stopping, Standing, or Parking – Curb Marking/Signage Designations.

BACKGROUND
The City of San Ramon’s Parking Restriction Program is designed to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety by enhancing visibility throughout the City’s transportation network. Staff receives requests for parking restrictions from residents, local businesses, and schools in order to improve visibility at particular locations. Once requests are received, staff will perform observations, determine the feasibility of parking restriction installation, and present the information to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).

5.6 Packet Pg. 56

DISCUSSION
The criteria for the installation of parking restrictions are based on a sight distance analysis, traffic collision history, and the California Vehicle Code (CVC). Thus, portions of street curbs are restricted for parking to address pedestrian and vehicle safety through improved visibility.

Restrictions are identified by painting the curb red and/or installing “No Parking” signage. Section 22507 of the CVC requires cities and municipalities to keep a master list of parking restrictions in order to provide Police enforcement. The parking restrictions recently installed are denoted in the Parking Restrictions Master Street List with an asterisk.

Staff has determined that the installation of parking restrictions is classified as a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. As amended, the parking restrictions consist of minor alterations to existing public streets. A public hearing is not necessary as these are minor improvements to enhance public safety.

This Resolution repeals Resolution No. 2019-016 and amends Parking Restrictions Master Street List by the addition of the following parking restrictions:

Alcosta Boulevard at 9180 Alcosta
Boulevard Driveway:

Installed 35 feet of red curb on the southwest side of the driveway and 10 feet of red curb on the southeast side of the driveway to improve visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway.

Alpine Blue Drive at Ivy Leaf
Springs Road:

Installed 100 feet of red curb along Alpine Blue Drive on the southeast curb as there was insufficient width for on-street parking and travel lane.

Bayberry View Lane at Main
Branch Road:

Installed 20 feet of red curb on all three sides of the intersection of Bayberry View Lane at Main Branch Road to improve visibility for pedestrians entering the marked crosswalk.

Bent Creek Drive at Hat Creek
Court:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along Bent Creek Drive on the northwest corner to improve visibility for drivers.

Broadmoor Drive at Hillsboro
Avenue:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along Broadmoor Drive at the northwest corner of Hillsboro Avenue to improve visibility for drivers.

Broadmoor Drive at Pine Valley
Road:

Installed 10 feet of red curb along Broadmoor Drive on the northeast corner of Pine Valley Road to enhance turning radius for County Connection and TRAFFIX buses.

Calais Drive at Gorham Place: Installed 15 feet of red curb on the southeast corner of Calais Drive and 25 feet on the northeast corner of Calais Drive to improve visibility for pedestrians using the marked school crosswalk near Neil Armstrong Elementary School.

Camassia Way at Belladona Drive: Installed 25 feet of red curb along Camassia Way at both the southwest and southeast corners to improve visibility for drivers.

5.6 Packet Pg. 57
Deerwood Drive at Deerhill Drive: Installed 25 feet of red curb on all four sides of the intersection of Deerwood Drive and Deerhill Drive to enhance visibility for pedestrians.

Fircrest Lane at Wisteria Street: Installed 25 feet of red curb along Fircrest Lane at both the northeast and southeast corners to enhance visibility for drivers.

Goldfield Place at Bella Vista
Elementary School Maintenance
Driveway:

Installed five feet of red curb on both sides of the maintenance driveway to allow access for landscape contractors.

Gorham Place at Calais Drive: Installed 10 feet of red curb along Gorham Place on the northeast corner of Calais Drive to improve visibility for pedestrians using the marked school crosswalk near Neil Armstrong Elementary School.

Kimball Avenue at Elmwood
Drive:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along Kimball Drive at the northeast corner and installed 15 feet of red curb along the northwest corner to improve visibility for drivers exiting Elmwood Drive.

Mangos Drive at California High
School Walkway:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along the westside of Mangos Drive in front of the California High School pedestrian walkway to enhance visibility.

Milo Way at Dexter Place: Installed 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the northwest and northeast corners to improve visibility for vehicles exiting Dexter Place.

Milo Way at Milo Place: Installed 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the southeast and southwest corners to improve visibility for vehicles exiting Milo Place.

Montevideo Drive at Foxboro
Way:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along Montevideo Drive at the northeast and northwest corners to improve visibility for drivers.

North Gale Ridge Road at Cattleya
Drive:

Installed 25 feet of red curb along North Gale Ridge Road at the northwest corner to improve visibility for vehicles exiting Cattleya Drive.

South Chanterella Drive at Alisma
Court:

Installed 25 feet of red curb on the westside of South Chanterella Drive and on both the north and south sides of Alisma Court to enhance visibility for drivers exiting Alisma Court.

South Monarch Road at Bayleaf
Drive:

Installed 30 feet of red curb along South Monarch Road at the southwest corner to improve visibility for pedestrians entering the yellow school crosswalk near Gale Ranch Middle School.

Tahiti Drive at Bermuda Court: Installed 20 feet of red curb along the west side of Tahiti Drive to enhance visibility for drivers exiting Bermuda Court.

Woodcrest Drive and Deerhill Installed 20 feet of red curb along Woodcrest Drive on the southeast

5.6 Packet Pg. 58
Drive: corner of Deerhill Drive as there was insufficient width for on-street parking and travel lane.

A total of 852 linear feet of red curb has been installed.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Funding for the installation of curb markings were included in the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 through 2023/2024 Public Works Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, and Public Services operating budgets. The total cost for the installation of the red curb markings at these locations was approximately $4,260.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Forward Parking Restrictions Master Street List to the Police Department for enforcement and to the Public Works – Public Services Division for maintenance.

ATTACHMENT
Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List

5.6 Packet Pg. 59
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-015

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-016 AND AMENDING THE PARKING

RESTRICTIONS MASTER STREET LIST ESTABLISHING RESTRICTED PARKING ZONES IN THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AS PER TITLE B, DIVISION B-8, CHAPTER I, ARTICLE 1, SECTION B8-1, STOPPING, STANDING, OR PARKING – CURB

MARKING/SIGNAGE DESIGNATIONS
WHEREAS, Section 22507 of the CVC requires cities and municipalities to keep a master list of parking restrictions in order to provide Police enforcement; and WHEREAS, the criteria for the installation of parking restrictions are based on a sight distance analysis, traffic collision history, and the California Vehicle Code (CVC); and WHEREAS, portions of street curbs are restricted for parking to address pedestrian and vehicle safety through improved visibility; and
WHEREAS, restrictions are identified by painting the curb red and/or installing “No Parking” signage; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that the installation of parking restrictions is classified as a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not necessary as these are minor improvements to enhance public safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:

1. That the City Council of the City of San Ramon hereby repeals Resolution No. 2019-016;

2. That the City Council hereby approves Resolution No. 2024-XX, Amending the Parking Restrictions Master Street List establishing restricted parking zones in the City of San Ramon;

3. That, under Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code, parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at various locations within the City of San Ramon as described in Exhibit 1, with new locations marked with an asterisk; and

4. The City Council hereby directs staff to identify the restricted parking zones listed in Exhibit 1 by curb markings or signage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, at the meeting of February 13, 2024 by the following votes:

AYES:

5.6 Packet Pg. 60
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Christina Franco, City Clerk
Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List

5.6 Packet Pg. 61

PARKING RESTRICTIONS MASTER STREET LIST
EXHIBIT 1
*Asterisk designates newly installed parking restriction as of February 13, 2024

STREET DESCRIPTION
Abrigo Court From the intersection of Abrigo Court and Dos Rios Drive, extending north 25 feet along the westerly curb.

Albion Road From the northeast curb return at Glenmark Way, 25 feet east on Albion Way. From the southeast curb return at Glenmark Way, 25 feet east on Albion Road.

Alcosta Boulevard From the most westerly curb return of the southwest corner of the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard and Belle Meade Drive, west 104+ feet (to the joint) on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the north curb return of the most northerly driveway to the Country Faire Shopping Center north approximately 24.4 feet on the west side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the fire hydrant west of the Davona Drive intersection, west 50 feet on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the westerly crosswalk line at Kimball Avenue crosswalk westerly 40 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the easterly crosswalk line at Kimball Avenue crosswalk easterly 36 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the northerly curb return at Overlook Drive, 25 feet north on the east side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the southerly curb return at Overlook Drive, 25 feet south on the east side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the northerly curb return of the main entrance driveway to Central Park, 25 feet north on the west side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the southerly curb return of the main entrance driveway to Central Park, 25 feet south on the west side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the west curb return of the westerly driveway to the Alcosta Mall, 25 feet west on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the east curb return of the westerly driveway to the Alcosta Mall, 25 feet east on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the west curb return of the easterly driveway to the Alcosta Mall, 25 feet west on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the east curb return of the easterly driveway to the Alcosta Mall, 25 feet east on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the south curb return of the driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet south on the east side of Alcosta
Boulevard.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 2 STREET DESCRIPTION
Alcosta Boulevard From the north curb return of the driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet north on the east side of Alcosta
Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the west curb return at the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 50 feet west on the south side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From Crow Canyon Road to Norris Canyon Road on the west side of Alcosta Boulevard. (Signage)
Alcosta Boulevard From Crow Canyon Road to Norris Canyon Road on the east side of Alcosta Boulevard. (Signage)
Alcosta Boulevard From the intersection with Norris Canyon Road south to the intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road on the west side of Alcosta Boulevard. (Signage)
Alcosta Boulevard From the intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road north to the intersection with Norris Canyon Road on the east side of Alcosta Boulevard. (Signage)
Alcosta Boulevard From the west curb return at the intersection of Belle Meade Avenue, west 86 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the east curb return at the intersection of Brockton Avenue, east 50 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the west line of the crosswalk on Alcosta Boulevard at Brockton Avenue, west 25 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the east line of the east crosswalk on Alcosta Boulevard at Davona Drive, east 65 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard From the west line of the west crosswalk on Alcosta Boulevard at Davona Drive, west 40 feet on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard.

Alcosta Boulevard 300 feet of parking restriction through signage along the San Ramon Golf Club, near the intersection of Fircrest Lane. *Alcosta Boulevard 35 feet of red curb on the southwest side of the driveway at 9180 Alcosta Boulevard beginning at the curb return.
*Alcosta Boulevard 10 feet of red curb on the southeast side of the driveway at 9180 Alcosta Boulevard beginning at the curb return.
*Alpine Blue Drive 100 feet of red curb along Alpine Blue Drive on the southeast curb beginning at Ivy Leaf Springs Way.

Applewood Drive 25 feet of parking restriction beginning at the intersection of Goldenbay Avenue.

Ascot Drive From the northwest curb return of the intersection of Ascot Drive and Broadmoor Drive, west 25 feet on the north side of Ascot Drive.

Ascot Drive From the southwest curb return of the intersection of Ascot Drive and Broadmoor Drive, west 25 feet on the south side of Ascot Drive.

Bayberry View Lane 25 feet of parking restriction beginning at the intersection of Goldenbay Avenue.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 3 STREET DESCRIPTION
*Bayberry View Lane 20 feet of red curb beginning on the northwest corner of Bayberry View Lane at Main Branch Road beginning at the curb return.
*Bayberry View Lane 20 feet of red curb along Bayberry View Lane on the southwest side of the intersection beginning at the marked crosswalk.
*Bayberry View Lane 20 feet of red curb along Bayberry View Lane on the southeast side of the intersection beginning at the marked crosswalk.

Beaver Creek Court Along the Alamo Creek frontage from Bent Creek Drive south to the end of the Cul-de-sac. (Signage)
Belle Meade Drive From the most northerly curb return of the driveway to the parking lot of the San Ramon Gardens condominiums, north 15 feet on the west side of Belle Meade Drive.

Belle Meade Drive From the northeast curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 148 feet on the east side of Belle Meade Drive.

Belle Meade Drive From the northwest curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 152 feet on the west side of Belle Meade Drive.

Bellingham Square Four segments totaling 85 feet – 30 feet along the northeast curb return at Bandol Way; 20 feet along the southeast curb return at Bandol Way; 20 feet along the northwest curb return at Blakesley Drive; and 15 feet along the southwest curb return at Blakesley Drive.

Bent Creek Drive Along the Alamo Creek frontage from the north intersection with Stoney Creek Drive north to Old Ranch Road. (Signage) *Bent Creek Drive 25 feet of red curb along Bent Creek Drive on the northwest corner of Hat Creek Court.

Beta Court From the west curb return of the driveway to 23/25 Beta Court, west 25 feet on the south side of Beta Court.

Beta Court From the east curb return of the driveway to 23/25 Beta Court, east 25 feet on the south side of Beta Court.

Beta Court From the east curb return of the driveway to 22 Beta Court, east 20 feet on the north side of Beta Court.

Beta Court From the west curb return of the driveway to 22 Beta Court, west 20 feet on the north side of Beta Court.

Blue Fox Way From the easterly curb return of the most westerly driveway exit to the Country Club School Parking Lot, east 10 feet on the north side of Blue Fox Way.

Blue Fox Way From the intersection of Davona Drive on the northerly side for a distance of 130 feet. (Signage)
Blue Fox Way From the school driveway entrance, east 125 feet along the school frontage. The parking restriction is implemented through “No Parking” signage restricting parking Monday through Friday from 7AM – 4PM.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 4 STREET DESCRIPTION
Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard westerly and northerly to the intersection of Ascension Drive on the northeast side of Bollinger Canyon Road. (Signage) Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of Ascension Drive southerly and easterly to the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the southwest side of Bollinger Canyon Road. (Signage)
Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard westerly to the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the northerly side of Bollinger Canyon Road. (Signage)
Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard westerly to the Canyon Road intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the southerly side of Bollinger Canyon Road. (Signage)
Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard easterly 470 feet on the southerly side of Bollinger Canyon Road.

Bollinger Canyon Road From the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard easterly 430 feet on the northerly side of Bollinger Canyon Road.

Bollinger Canyon Road At the bus pullout northeast of the intersection of East Branch Parkway, 90 feet of red curb beginning at the south end of the bus pullout.

Broadmoor Drive From the most southerly curb return of the north driveway to the California High School parking lot, south 76 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most southerly southwest curb return at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive and St. Denis Drive, south 85 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most northerly curb return of the driveway to 9863 Broadmoor Drive, north 70 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most northerly line of the crosswalk at Ascot Drive, north 25 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the southeast curb return of the intersection of Ascot Drive and Broadmoor Drive south 25 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south curb return of the intersection with Newport Avenue, 25 feet south on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the north curb return of the intersection with Newport Avenue, 25 feet north on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the north curb return of the intersection with St. Denis Drive, 39 feet north on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the north curb return of the intersection with Weymouth Court, 25 feet north on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south curb return of the intersection with Weymouth Court, 25 feet south on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the Montevideo School crosswalk at Ascot Drive, north 30 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the Montevideo School crosswalk at Ascot Drive, north 30 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 5 STREET DESCRIPTION
Broadmoor Drive From the north crosswalk line at the intersection of Dunbarton Circle, north 25 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south crosswalk line at the intersection of Dunbarton Circle, south 25 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south crosswalk line at the intersection of Dunbarton Circle, south 25 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the existing red curb marking south of the exit driveway from the front parking lot to California High School, south approximately 140 feet to the existing red curb marking, north of the most northerly entrance driveway to the front parking lot on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the existing red curb markings north of the exit driveway to the front parking lot to California High School, north 25 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south line of the crosswalk at the intersection with Millbridge Drive south 8 feet to the existing red curb on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the north line of the crosswalk at the intersection with Millbridge Drive, north 25 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most northerly line of the crosswalk across Broadmoor Drive at the southernmost intersection with Ascot Drive, north to the existing red curb marking 15 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most southerly line of the crosswalk across Broadmoor Drive at the southernmost intersection with Ascot Drive, south 45 feet on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the most northerly end of the existing red curb north of Ascot Drive on Broadmoor Drive, north 15 feet on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south end of the existing red curb marking on the south curb return of the mostly northerly driveway to the north parking lot for California High School, south 58 feet to the joint line south of the bus stop on the east side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the south end of the existing red curb marking south of St. Denis Drive, south 55 feet to the score line south of the bus stop on the west side of Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the northeastern curb return at the intersection of Christopher Way and Broadmoor Drive, 15 feet to the
residential driveway.

Broadmoor Drive Installation of 150 feet of parking restriction during the hours of 7AM to 4PM, Monday through Friday year-round. Parking restriction implemented through signage beginning at the intersection of Montevideo Drive extending north along the westerly curb.

Broadmoor Drive From the southeast end of the curb return at the intersection of Todd Way, extending 15 feet south along Broadmoor Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 6 STREET DESCRIPTION
Broadmoor Drive From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Newport Avenue, extending 25 feet south along Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the southeast curb return at Kittery Avenue, extending 120 feet south along Broadmoor Drive.

Broadmoor Drive From the northeast curb return at Sedgefield Avenue, extending 25 feet south along Broadmoor Drive.
*Broadmoor Drive 25 feet of red curb along Broadmoor Drive at the northwest corner of Hillsboro Avenue beginning at the curb return. *Broadmoor Drive 10 feet of red curb along Broadmoor Drive on the northeast corner of Pine Valley Road beginning at the curb return.

Brockton Avenue From the most westerly curb return of the driveway to The Vintner’s condominiums, west 20 feet on the south side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the most easterly curb return of the driveway to The Vintner’s condominiums, east 20 feet on the south side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the north east curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 38 feet on the east side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the most southerly driveway return of south driveway to the San Ramon Garden condominiums, south 20 feet on the east side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the most northerly driveway return of the south driveway to the San Ramon Garden condominiums, north to the
driveway return of the north driveway to the San Ramon
Garden condominiums on the east side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the northwest curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 38 feet on the west side of Brockton Avenue.

Brockton Avenue From the intersection of Interlachen Avenue, 50 feet of red curb on the northeast curb. From the intersection of Interlachen Avenue, 40 feet of red curb on the northwest curb. From the intersection of Interlachen Avenue, 70 feet of red curb on the southeast curb. From the intersection of Interlachen Avenue, 40 feet of red curb on the southwest curb.

Calais Drive Beginning at the Neil Armstrong Elementary School driveway exit, extending 25 feet south along the eastern curb.

Calais Drive From the intersection of Gorham Place, 20 feet of red curb on the northeast curb.
*Calais Drive 15 feet of red curb on the southeast corner of Calais Drive beginning at Gorham Place.
*Calais Drive 25 feet on the northeast corner of Calais Drive beginning at Gorham Place.

Camino Ramon From the southerly curb return on the southwest corner of the intersection of Fostoria Way and Camino Ramon, south 90 feet to the score line south of the County Connection bus stop on the west side of Camino Ramon.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 7 STREET DESCRIPTION
*Camassia Way 25 feet of red curb along Camassia Way at the southwest corner at Belladonna Drive beginning at the curb return. *Camassia Way 25 feet of red curb along Camassia Way at the southeast corner at Belladonna Drive beginning at the curb return.

Camino Ramon From the most southerly southeast curb return at the intersection of Camino Ramon and the driveway to the San Ramon Unified School District property, south 92 feet to the most northerly northeast curb return of the shopping center driveway on the east side of Camino Ramon. (Signage)
Camino Ramon From the intersection of Crow Canyon Road to the intersection of Bollinger Canyon Road on the easterly side of Camino Ramon. (Signage)
Camino Ramon From the intersection of Crow Canyon Road to the intersection of Bollinger Canyon Road on the westerly side of Camino Ramon. (Signage)
Canyon Crest Drive From the most northerly line of the crosswalk at the intersection of Canyon Crest Drive, northeasterly 25 feet on the northwest (school) side of Canyon Crest Circle.

Canyon Crest Drive From the most northerly line of the crosswalk at the intersection of Canyon Crest Drive, northeasterly 15 feet on the southwest side of Canyon Crest Circle.

Canyon Crest Drive From the south curb return at the main entrance to the Golden View School, south 30 feet on the west side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the south curb return of the intersection with Canyon Crest Avenue, south 40 feet on the east side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the east line of the school crossing at the most easterly driveway entrance to Golden View School, east 20 feet on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the west curb return of the most easterly driveway entrance to Golden View School, west 20 feet on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the east line of the school crossing at the intersection of Quarter Master Canyon Road, east 20 feet on the south side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the west curb return at the intersection of Quarter Master Canyon Road, west 20 feet on the south side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the east ramp return at the most easterly driveway exit to Golden View School, east 30 feet on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the west ramp return at the most easterly driveway exit to Golden View School, then west 24 feet on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 8 STREET DESCRIPTION
Canyon Crest Drive From the west curb return of the most westerly driveway entrance to Golden View School, west to the ramp return at the most westerly driveway exit to Golden View School (70 feet +/) on the north side of Canyon Crest Drive.

Canyon Crest Drive From the north curb return at the intersection of Crow Canyon Road, east 25 feet.

Canyon Crest Road East 25 feet of red curb at the intersection of Canyon Crest Road east and Hidden Canyon Court.

Canyon Lakes Drive From the intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road, north to the limit of the public right-of-way on the east and west side of Canyon Lakes Drive. (Signage)
Castleton Court From the westerly curb return of the most westerly driveway to the St. Joan of Arc Church, west 25 feet on the south side of Castleton Court.

Castleton Court From the easterly curb return of the most westerly driveway to the St. Joan of Arc Church, east 25 feet on the south side of Castleton Court.

Castleton Court From the westerly curb return of the most easterly driveway to the St. Joan of Arc Church, west 6.5 feet on the south side of Castleton Court.

Castleton Court From the easterly curb return of the most easterly driveway to the St. Joan of Arc Church, east 115 feet to the west curb return at the intersection with San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the south side of Castleton Court.

Central Park From the westerly curb return of the easterly driveway onto Bollinger Canyon Road on the north side of the driveway between the two south parking lots, approximately 85 feet on the north side of the connecting driveway.

Central Park From the easterly line of the western brick crosswalk, east approximately 56 feet to the westerly line of the eastern brick crosswalk on the south side of the driveway between the two south parking lots to Central Park accessed from Bollinger Canyon Road.

Central Park From the easterly line of the eastern brick crosswalk, east approximately 169 feet to the northwest curb return of the easterly driveway intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road on the south side of the driveway between the two south parking lots accessed from Bollinger Canyon Road.

Central Park From the easterly line of the eastern brick crosswalk, east approximately 34 feet on the north side of the driveway between the two south parking lots accessed from Bollinger Canyon Road.

Central Park All of the non-green curbing of the circular drive for the dropoff zone to Central Park.

Central Park From the most easterly curb return of the southern driveway to Central Park on Alcosta Boulevard, west to the end of the curb on the north side of the driveway.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 9 STREET DESCRIPTION
Central Park All of the curbing on the north side of the main entrance accessing Central Park from Bollinger Canyon Road.

Central Park From the westerly curb return of the main entrance accessing Central Park from Bollinger Canyon Road, west on the south side of the west parking lot.

Central Park From the northeast curb return of the most westerly driveway accessing Central Park from Bollinger Canyon Road north and east to the most easterly curb return on the southwest side of the west parking lot.

Cinnamon Ridge Road 25 feet of red curb parking restriction beginning at the intersection of Goldenbay Avenue.

Cobblestone Drive Restrict parking along the interior of the roundabout on Cobblestone Drive. The streets that will be affected are Pradera Way, Cascadas Court, Cobblestone Drive, and Cobblestone Court. Restriction via double-sided signage at each leg of intersection.

Crow Canyon Court From west curb return of the intersection of Crow Canyon Court and Old Crow Canyon Road, west 18 feet to the east curb return of the parking lot driveway for Building 5 on the north side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the west curb return of the Building 5 parking lot, west 29 feet to the most westerly curb return of the parking turnout on the north side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the west end of the parking turnout, west 13 feet on the north side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the northerly curb return of the most northern driveway at the end of the Court, east 15 feet on the north side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the southerly curb return of the most northern driveway at the end of the Court, south 16 feet on the west end of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the westerly curb return of the most westerly parking turnout, west 20 feet on the south side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the easterly curb return of the most western parking turnout, east 45 feet on the south side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Court From the easterly curb return of the most eastern parking turnout, east 15 feet on the south side of Crow Canyon Court.

Crow Canyon Place From the most southerly driveway return to the Commons Shopping Center, southeasterly 40 feet to the most northerly driveway return to the Commons Office Park on the east side of the Crow Canyon Place cul-de-sac.

Crow Canyon Place From the northerly northeast curb return of the intersection with Crow Canyon Road to the southerly southeast curb return of the intersection with Fostoria Way on the east side of Crow Canyon Place. (Signage)

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 10 STREET DESCRIPTION
Crow Canyon Place From the northerly northwest curb return of the intersection with Crow Canyon Road to the southerly southwest curb return of the intersection of with Fostoria Way on the west side of Crow Canyon Place. (Signage)
Crow Canyon Place From the south curb return of the most southerly driveway to Magnolia Square, south 25 feet on the east side of Crow Canyon Place.

Crow Canyon Place From the north curb return of the most southerly driveway to Magnolia Square, north 25 feet on the east side of Crow Canyon Place.

Crow Canyon Place From the existing 18 feet of red curb east of the driveway to the Bank of America on the north side of Crow Canyon Place 32 feet east.

Crow Canyon Place From the south curb return of the south driveway to the parking lot of the Bank of Walnut Creek (3130 Crow Canyon Place), south 25 feet on the west side of Crow Canyon Place.

Crow Canyon Place From the north curb return of the south driveway to the parking lot of the Bank of Walnut Creek (3130 Crow Canyon Place), north 20 feet on the west side of Crow Canyon Place.

Crow Canyon Road From the easterly curb return on the southeast corner of the intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon, east 56 feet on the south side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the east ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, east 84 feet to the west curb return of the driveway to the Sunset Business Park on the south side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the westerly curb return of the westerly driveway to 3280 E Crow Canyon Road, 25 feet west on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the east crosswalk line at the intersection with Camino Ramon, east 72 feet on the south side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the easterly curb return of the westerly driveway to 3280 E Crow Canyon Road, 25 feet east on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the westerly curb return of the easterly driveway to 3280 E Crow Canyon Road, 25 feet west on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From the easterly curb return of the easterly driveway to 3280 E Crow Canyon Road, 25 feet east on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

Crow Canyon Road From San Ramon Valley Boulevard east to Camino Ramon on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. (Signage)
Crow Canyon Road From San Ramon Valley Boulevard west to Camino Ramon on the south side of Crow Canyon Road. (Signage)
Crow Canyon Road From Alcosta Boulevard to the east City Limit on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. (Signage)
Crow Canyon Road From Alcosta Boulevard to the east City Limit on the south side of Crow Canyon Road. (Signage)

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 11 STREET DESCRIPTION
Crow Canyon Road From the easterly curb return of the driveway entrance to 3400 Crow Canyon Road east to the westerly curb return of the driveway exit from 3400 Crow Canyon Road on the south side of Crow Canyon Road.

Davona Drive From the most southerly curb return to The Vintner condominiums, south 40 feet on the east side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the most northerly curb return to The Vintner condominiums, north 25 feet on the east side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the curb return at the intersection of Montevideo Drive, south 20 feet on the east side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the curb return at the intersection of Montevideo Drive, south 20 feet on the west side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the north curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 38 feet on the east side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the north curb return at the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard, north 45 feet to the south driveway return of 9503 Davona Drive on the west side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive From the north curb return of the driveway to 9503 Davona Drive, north 5 feet on the west side of Davona Drive.

Davona Drive 20 feet of red curb along the northwest side of the intersection at Calais Drive. Red curb begins at the marked crosswalk and extends 20 feet north.

Deerhill Drive Along Deerhill Drive extending 18 feet between the marked crosswalk and 407 Deerhill Drive at the intersection of Deer Terrace Court.

Deerwood Drive From the east and west access intersection of Old Mill Road residential development (a.k.a. “A” Street) along the southerly curb.

Deerwood Drive A total of 1,215 feet of red curb and parking restriction through signage at the driveways along both sides of the roadway. *Deerwood Drive 25 feet of red curb on all four sides of the intersection of Deerwood Drive and Deerhill Drive, beginning at the curb return.

Del Mar Drive From the northwest curb return at the intersection of Del Mar Drive and Pine Valley Road, 25 feet north along curbside restricted through signage.

Durango Lane From the west curb return on the northwest corner of the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive and Durango Lane, west 25 feet on the north side of Durango Lane.

Durango Lane From the west curb return on the southwest corner of the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive and Durango Lane, west 13 feet to the driveway return on the south side of Durango Lane.

Durango Lane At the intersection of Alora Court, 25 feet of red curb on both sides of the intersection.

East Branch Parkway From the intersection of East Branch Parkway and the Windemere Ranch Middle School driveway exit, extending 25 feet east and 25 feet of red curb beginning at the curb return.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 12 STREET DESCRIPTION
El Dorado Drive From the northwest curb return at the intersection of Ensenada Drive and 25 feet north along El Dorado Drive, 25 feet of red curb.

Enfield Street From the northeast curb return at Paige Way, extending south 50 feet along Enfield Street.

Fallen Leaf Circle From the marked school crosswalk on both corners of the intersection of Fallen Leaf Circle and Fallview Street, 25 feet of red curb.

Fircrest Lane From the most northerly curb return of the north driveway to Villa San Ramon, north 15 feet on the west side of Fircrest Lane.

Fircrest Lane From the intersection of Winterhaven Court, north 15 feet on the westerly curb.
*Fircrest Lane 25 feet of red curb along Fircrest Lane beginning at the northeast corner of Wisteria Lane.
*Fircrest Lane 25 feet of red curb along Fircrest Lane beginning at the southeast corner of Wisteria Lane.

Fostoria Way From the most easterly curb return of the driveway to the Fostoria Terrace condominiums, east 25 feet on the north side of Fostoria Way.

Fostoria Way From the most westerly curb return of the driveway to the Fostoria Terrace condominiums, west 15 feet on the north side of Fostoria Way.

Fostoria Way From the intersection of Crow Canyon Place to the intersection of Camino Ramon on the north side of Fostoria Way.
(Signage)
Fostoria Way From the intersection of Crow Canyon Place to the intersection of Camino Ramon on the south side of Fostoria Way.
(Signage)
Foxboro Circle From the curb return of the driveway to 10129 Foxboro Circle, east approximately 16 feet to the curb return of the driveway to 10001 Foxboro Circle on the north side of the south leg of Foxboro Circle.

Foxboro Circle 25 feet on the southwest corner of the intersection of Foxboro Circle and Foxboro Way, and 20 feet on the southeast corner of the intersection of Foxboro Circle and Foxboro Way.

Fountainhead Drive From the westerly line of the crosswalk, west 25 feet on the north side of Fountainhead Drive.

Fountainhead Drive From the easterly line of the crosswalk, east 25 feet on the north side of Fountainhead Drive.

Fountainhead Drive From the westerly line of the crosswalk, west 25 feet on the south side of Fountainhead Drive.

Fountainhead Drive From the easterly line of the crosswalk, east 25 feet on the south side of Fountainhead Drive.

Glenmark Way From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Albion Road, 15 feet south along Glenmark Way.

Golden Bay Avenue 25 feet of red curb along the main driveway exit and 25 feet of red curb along the Kid’s Country driveway exit.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 13 STREET DESCRIPTION
Golden Bay Avenue 200 feet of red curb between the Quail Run Elementary School main driveway exit and the Kid’s Country driveway entrance.

Golden Bay Avenue 25 feet of red curb at the southwest corner of the intersection of Applewood Drive, beginning at the crosswalk extending west.

Golden Bay Avenue 100 feet of red curb between the Quail Run Elementary School main driveway exit and Kindergarten driveway entrance.

Goldenbay Avenue From the curb return at the intersection of Cinnamon Ridge Road, extending 50 feet north along Goldenbay Avenue.
*Goldfield Place Five (5) feet of red curb on both sides of the maintenance driveway entrance to Bella Vista Elementary School field.

Gorham Place 20 feet of red curb on the northwest corner at the intersection of Calais Drive.
*Gorham Place 10 feet of red curb along Gorham Place on the northeast corner of Calais Drive.

Guaymas Court From the northeast curb return of the driveway to 618 Guaymas Court, easterly 27 feet along the curb on the
northerly end of the Guaymas Court cul-de-sac.

Harcourt Way 25 feet of red curb along Harcourt Way at the intersection of Bandol Way along both the east and west curb.

Harcourt Way 230 feet of parking restriction from 7:00AM – 4:00PM, Monday through Friday on school days. The signage will be installed along northbound Harcourt Way beginning at the crosswalk at Craiglee Way extending south 230 feet.

Hibiscus Road 50 feet of red curb at the northeast corner of the Dougherty Road intersection, and 37 feet at the northwest corner of the Trumpet Vine intersection.

Hooper Drive From the east curb return of the back parking lot driveway for 1975 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 32 feet east to the existing red curb on the north side of Hooper Drive.

Hooper Drive From the west curb return of the back parking lot driveway for 1975 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 25 feet west on the north side of Hooper Drive.

Ivy Leaf Springs Road 25 feet of red curb adjacent to the marked pedestrian crosswalks along Ivy Leaf Springs Road at Golden Bay
Avenue, for a total of 200 feet of red curb surrounding the intersections.

Ivy Leaf Springs Road 25 feet of red curb at the intersection of Goldenbay Avenue along the southeast curb.

Kimball Avenue From the west curb return of the driveway to the Alcosta Mall, 25 feet west on the north side of Kimball Avenue.

Kimball Avenue From the west curb return of the westerly driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet west on the north side of Kimball Avenue.

Kimball Avenue From the east curb return of the westerly driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet east on the north side of Kimball Avenue.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 14 STREET DESCRIPTION
Kimball Avenue From the west curb return of the easterly driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet west on the north side of Kimball Avenue.

Kimball Avenue From the east curb return of the easterly driveway to the Cedar Point Apartments, 25 feet east on the north side of Kimball Avenue.

Kimball Avenue From the east curb return of the driveway to the Elmwood Drive (Easthampton Development), 10 feet on the north side of Kimball Avenue.
*Kimball Avenue 25 feet of red curb along Kimball Drive at the northeast corner beginning at the curb return for Elmwood Drive.
*Kimball Drive 15 feet of red curb along Kimball Avenue at the northwest corner beginning at the curb return for Elmwood Drive.

Lilac Ridge Road From the northeast and northwest curb at the intersection of North Gale Ridge Road, extending 25 feet north.

Mangos Drive From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Ensenada Drive, north 15 feet
Mangos Drive From the northeast curb return at the intersection of Munras Place, north 50 feet along side yard restricted through red curb marking.

Mangos Drive From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Munras Place, south 50 feet along side yard restricted through red curb marking.

Mangos Drive 40 feet of red curb on either side of the intersection of Mangos Drive and Vallejo Place, for a total of 80 feet of red curb. Red curb begins at the northeast curb and extends north 40 feet on one side of the intersection; red curb begins at the southeast curb and extends 40 feet south in other direction.

Mangos Drive 40 feet of red curb on either side of the intersection of Mangos Drive and Deanza Place, for a total of 80 feet of red curb. Red curb begins at the northeast curb and extends north 40 feet on one side of the intersection; red curb begins at the southeast curb and extends 40 feet south in the other direction.

Mangos Drive 40 feet of red curb at the northeast curb beginning at El Suyo Drive and 55 feet of red curb on the southeast curb beginning at El Suyo Drive.
*Mangos Drive 25 feet of red curb along the westside of Mangos Drive in front of the California High School pedestrian walkway.

Marblehead Drive From the east property line of 4024 Marblehead Drive, east approximately 35 feet to the west property line of 4032 Marblehead Drive on the south side of Marblehead Drive.

Marlboro Way From the most northerly curb return at the intersection with Lira Court, north 20 feet on the east side of Marlboro Way.

Marlboro Way From the most southerly curb at the intersection with Lira Court, south 20 feet on the east side of Marlboro Way.

Marsh Drive From the west curb return of the westerly driveway to the Twin Creeks Elementary School, 15 feet west on the north side of Marsh Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 15 STREET DESCRIPTION
Marsh Drive From the crosswalk to Twin Creeks Elementary School, 25 feet east on the north side of Marsh Drive.

May Way 10 feet of red curb between 7507 and 7511 May Way. *Milo Way 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the northeast corner of Dexter Place beginning at the curb return.
*Milo Way 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the northwest corner of Dexter Place beginning at the curb return.
*Milo Way 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the southeast corner of Milo Place beginning at the curb return.
*Milo Way 25 feet of red curb along Milo Way at the southwest corner of Milo Place beginning at the curb return.

Montevideo Drive Red curb 25 feet from the northeast curb return on the northerly curb of Montevideo Drive at Veracruz Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most easterly line of the crosswalk at the intersection of Davona Drive, east 15 feet on the south side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most easterly line of the crosswalk at the intersection of Davona Drive, east 20 feet on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most westerly line of the crosswalk at the intersection of Davona Drive, west 70 feet on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most westerly curb return at the intersection of Davona Drive, west 15 feet on the south side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the easterly curb return of the easterly driveway to the Athan Downs Park parking lot, 25 feet east on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the westerly curb return of the easterly driveway to the Athan Downs Park parking lot, 25 feet west on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the easterly curb return of the westerly driveway to the Athan Downs Park parking lot, 25 feet east on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the westerly curb return of the westerly driveway to the Athan Downs Park parking lot, 25 feet west on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most easterly line of the crosswalk at the intersection with Tareyton Drive, east 20 feet on the north side of
Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most westerly line of the crosswalk at the intersection with Tareyton Drive, west 20 feet on the north side of
Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most easterly ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, east approximately 28 feet on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 16 STREET DESCRIPTION
Montevideo Drive From the most westerly ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, west approximately 41 feet on the north side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most easterly ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, east approximately 26 feet on the south side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive From the most westerly ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, west approximately 24 feet on the south side of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive Red curb 40 feet east and west from the bus stop located 50 feet east from the intersection of Montevideo Drive and San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the northerly curb of Montevideo Drive.

Montevideo Drive Red curb on Montevideo Drive at the intersection of Broadmoor Drive, from the northeast curb return and 50 feet east along Montevideo Drive.
*Montevideo Drive 25 feet of red curb along Montevideo Drive beginning at the northeast corner of Foxboro Way.
*Montevideo Drive 25 feet of red curb along Montevideo Drive beginning at the northwest corner of Foxboro Way.

Norris Canyon Road From the joint on the easterly side of the driveway, east 20+ feet to the second joint on the north side of Norris Canyon Road.

Norris Canyon Road From the top of the curb on the westerly side of the driveway, west 8 feet to the joint on the east side of the handicap ramp on the north side of Norris Canyon Road.

Norris Canyon Road From the joint on the west side of the handicap ramp, west 13 feet to the joint on the north side of Norris Canyon Road.

Norris Canyon Road From the intersection of Camino Ramon to the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the northerly side of Norris Canyon Road. (Signage)
Norris Canyon Road From the intersection of Camino Ramon to the intersection of San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the southerly side of Norris Canyon Road. (Signage)
Norris Canyon Road From Alcosta Boulevard to Camino Ramon on the south side of Norris Canyon Road. (Signage)
Norris Canyon Road From Alcosta Boulevard to Camino Ramon on the north side of Norris Canyon Road. (Signage)
Norris Canyon Road From the northeast curb return at the intersection of Sherbear Drive, 25 feet east along Norris Canyon Road.

Norris Canyon Road From the northwest curb return at the intersection of Sherbear Drive, 25 feet west along Norris Canyon Road.

North Gale Ridge Road 25 feet of red curb along both sides of the Coyote Creek Elementary School driveway entrance and exit.

North Gale Ridge Road At the intersection of North Gale Ridge Road and Lilac Ridge Road, extending 25 feet in both directions along the northern curb.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 17 STREET DESCRIPTION
North Gale Ridge Road Beginning at the northeast curb return at North Gale Ridge Road and Lilac Ridge Road and extending east by 100 feet parking restriction through red curb in front of Coyote Creek Elementary School.

North Gale Ridge Road Beginning at the northeast curb return at North Gale Ridge Road and Lantana Way and extending east by 200 feet parking restriction through signage from 7:00AM – 4:00PM on school days in front of Coyote Creek Elementary School.

North Gale Ridge Road Beginning on North Gale Ridge Road 200 feet west of Lantana Way and extending east by 200 feet parking restriction through signage from 7:00AM – 4:00PM on school days in front of Coyote Creek Elementary School.

North Gale Ridge Road 25 feet of red curb on both sides of the intersection of Lantana Way.
*North Gale Ridge Road 25 feet of red curb along North Gale Ridge Road at the northwest corner curb return for Cattleya Drive.

Northland Avenue 20 feet of red curb along on either side of the marked crosswalk at the intersection of Blue Fox Way, totaling 40 feet.

Northland Avenue 20 feet of red curb adjacent to marked crosswalk along northbound Northland Avenue.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the existing red curb at the fire hydrant in front of 2400 Old Crow Canyon Road, southerly 55 feet on the easterly side of Old Crow Canyon Road.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the north curb return of the southerly driveway to 2460 Old Crow Canyon Road, 25 feet north on the east side of Old Crow Canyon Road.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the northerly curb return of the exit driveway to 2701 Old Crow Canyon Road, north 15 feet on the west side of Old Crow Canyon Road.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the southerly curb return of the exit driveway to 2701 Old Crow Canyon Road, south 15 feet on the west side of Old Crow Canyon Road. From the northerly crosswalk line at Ryan Industrial Court, north 15 feet on the east side of Old Crow Canyon Road.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the southerly crosswalk line at Ryan Industrial Court, south 15 feet on the east side of Old Crow Canyon Road.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the northerly crosswalk line at Ryan Industrial Court, north to the existing red curb marking.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the driveway exit at 2500 Old Crow Canyon Road, extending 15 feet east.

Old Crow Canyon Road From the intersection of Crow Canyon Court, extending 50 feet north along the northwest curb and extending 50 feet south along the southwest curb.

Old Mill Road North and south of access intersection of Old Mill residential development (a.k.a. “B” Street) along westerly curb 25 feet.

Old Mill Road From north of Crow Canyon Road intersection along west curb of Old Mill Road 100 feet.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 18 STREET DESCRIPTION
Old Mill Road From the Skyline Drive driveway exit onto Old Mill Road, 25 feet of red curb extending both west and south along the curb to the marked crosswalk. An additional 25 feet along Old Mill Road, beginning at crosswalk markings and extending 25 feet south.

Old Ranch Estates Drive From all four curb returns at the intersection of Old Ranch Estates Drive and Hawthorne Court/Royal Coach Court,
extending 25 feet with parking restriction through signage.

Parking restriction from 7:00AM – 4:00PM, Monday through Friday on school days only. (Signage)
Omega Road From the northerly curb return of the driveway to the Recycling Center, north 30 feet on the west side of Omega Road.

Omega Road From the southerly curb return of the driveway to the Recycling Center, south to the north curb return of the most northerly driveway to 2239 Omega Road on the west side of Omega Road.

Omega Road From the intersection of Omega Road and Deerwood Drive, north to the widened section of Omega Road on the east side of Omega Road. (Signage)
Omega Road From the north curb return of the intersection with Beta Court, 25 feet north on the west side of Omega.

Omega Road From the south curb return of the intersection with Beta Court, 25 feet south on the west side of Omega.

Omega Road From the north curb return of the driveway to 2092 Omega, 25 feet north on the east side of Omega.

Omega Road From the tangent point on the curb of the curve to the northeast then northeast 105 feet to the tangent point on the curb on the southeast side of Omega Drive/Hooper Drive.

Omega Road From the southerly curb return of the driveway to 2001 Omega Road, south 20 feet on the west side of Omega Road.

Omega Road From the northerly curb return of the driveway to 2001 Omega Road, north of 20 feet on the west side of Omega Road.

Omega Road From the most southeasterly curb return of the south driveway to the San Ramon Square parking lot, south 45 feet on the east side of Omega Road.

Overlook Drive From the east curb return of the intersection with Alcosta Boulevard, approximately 60 feet east on the south side of Overlook Drive.

Overlook Drive From the east edge of the existing red curb, 31 feet east on the north side of Overlook Drive.

Overlook Drive From the existing red curb on the south side extending 50 feet to Woodview Circle.

Peace Valley Drive Along the Alamo Creek frontage from Summit View Drive (south intersection) northerly to lot 32, Tract 7750. (Signage) Pine Valley Road From the east curb return of the intersection with Tareyton Avenue, east 20 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 19 STREET DESCRIPTION
Pine Valley Road From the east curb return of the exit driveway to Pine Valley Intermediate School, east 120 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road. (Signage)
Pine Valley Road From the stop bar at the intersection of Del Mar Drive, approximately 40 feet to the crosswalk on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the west curb return of the visitor parking lot exit driveway, 25 feet west on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the westerly existing red curb at the west parking lot of Walt Disney School, west 18 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the east curb return of the circular drive entrance, east 25 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the most easterly ramp return of the Iron Horse Trail, east 25 feet on the north side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the most westerly ramp return, west approximately 42 feet to the fire hydrant on the north side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the most easterly ramp return, east approximately 25 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the most westerly ramp return, west approximately 33 feet on the south side of Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the southwest curb return at the intersection of Thunderbird Drive, 25 feet west along Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the northeast curb return at the intersection of Tom Court, 25 feet east along Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Boxford Place, 65 feet of red curb east along Pine Valley Road.

Pine Valley Road 225 feet of parking restriction through “No Parking” signs along eastbound Pine Valley Road beginning at the
intersection of Del Mar Drive and extending east to Walt Disney Elementary School driveway entrance.

Portillo Valley Drive Along the Alamo Creek frontage from lot 7, Tract 7414 north to Wildflower Valley Court. (Signage)
Portillo Valley Drive Parking restriction along the open space at the intersection of Portillo Valley Drive and Wildflower Valley Court, extending 50 feet. The parking restriction will be implemented through signage, from 7:00AM – 4:00PM, Monday through Friday on school days only. (Signage)
Red Willow Road Red curb parking restriction on the northeast curb extending 25 feet east.

Reedland Circle Parking restriction on one side of roadway along the northerly curb from Crow Canyon Road to a point 500 LF east of the Bluegrass Way intersection. (Signage)
Rosario Court From 15 feet south of the most northerly fire hydrant on the east side of Rosario Court then north west to the east curb return of the driveway to 116 Rosario Court.

Rosario Court From the curb return of the driveway to 121 Rosario Court southeast 80 feet on the west side of Rosario Court.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 20 STREET DESCRIPTION
Rosario Court From the beginning of the cul-de-sac bulb to the end of bulb. (Signage)
Ryan Industrial Court From the westerly curb return of the front parking lot to 2701 Old Crow Canyon Road, west 5 feet on the north side of Ryan Industrial Court.

Ryan Industrial Court From the easterly curb return of the east driveway to the back parking lot for 2701 Old Crow Canyon Road, east 5 feet on the north side of Ryan Industrial Court.

Ryan Industrial Court From the westerly curb return of the east driveway to the back parking lot for 2701 Old Crow Canyon Road, west 5 feet on the north side of Ryan Industrial Court.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return at the intersection with Fostoria Way, north 60 feet on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. (Signage)
San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return at the intersection with Fostoria Way, south 125 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. (Signage)
San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the most northerly driveway return of the north driveway to 2085 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, north 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the most southerly driveway return of the north driveway to 2085 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the most northerly driveway return of the south driveway to 2085 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, north 35 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the most southerly driveway return of the south driveway to 2085 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south to the most
northerly driveway return of the driveway to 2095 San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the west side of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return at the intersection of Old Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south 40 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the most southerly driveway to 1931 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Kobold's Nursery), north 20 feet to the south curb return of the most northerly driveway to Kobold's Nursery on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the score line north of luminaire #7887, south approximately 93.4 feet to the joint line south of the existing red curb on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the driveway to 2166-2184 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 20 feet north on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the driveway to 2166-2184 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, 20 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 21 STREET DESCRIPTION
San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the driveway to 2210 San Ramon Valley Boulevard 15 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the intersection with Purdue Road, 40 feet north on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the intersection with Purdue Road, 20 feet south on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the driveway to San Ramon Square, 20 feet north on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the driveway to the Brass Door, 25 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the exit driveway to Kentucky Fried Chicken, 25 feet north on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the exit driveway to Kentucky Fried Chicken, 25 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the northerly driveway to Ace Hardware, 20 feet north on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the northerly driveway to Ace Hardware, 30 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the southerly driveway to Ace Hardware, approximately 28 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the northerly curb return of the driveway to 1901 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (St. Mathias Church), north 25 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the southerly curb return of the driveway to 1901 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (St. Mathias Church), south 25 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From Montevideo Drive north to the most northerly property line of 2323 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (The Rusty Pelican) on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. (Signage) San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the most northeasterly driveway of 2330 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south to the most southerly driveway to 2610 San Ramon Valley Boulevard on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From Montevideo Drive, north 388 feet on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. (Signage)
San Ramon Valley Boulevard From Bollinger Canyon Road, north 1,580 feet on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. (Signage)

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 22 STREET DESCRIPTION
San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the driveway between 2070 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Pittsburg Plumbing &
Manufacturing Co.) and 2100 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
(Ambrit Travel), north 15 feet on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the driveway to 2100 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Ambrit Travel), 15 feet south on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the existing 10 feet of red curb south of the driveway between 2070 and 2100 San Ramon Valley Boulevard to the existing 5 feet of red curb north of the driveway to 2100 San Ramon Valley Boulevard (Ambrit Travel) on the east side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return at the intersection of Hooper Drive and San Ramon Valley Boulevard, north 40 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the most northerly driveway to 2233 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, north 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the most northerly driveway to 2233 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the north curb return of the most southerly driveway to 2233 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, north 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From the south curb return of the most southerly driveway to 2233 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, south 20 feet on the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard From south of existing 25 feet red curb area south of Brass Door driveway along east curb of San Ramon Valley
Boulevard 15 feet.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard 25 feet of red curb on both sides of the driveway exit at 2033 San Ramon Valley Boulevard for 50 feet; the red curb begins at the driveway in front of 2033 San Ramon Valley Boulevard and extends 25 feet north and south on either side of driveway.

San Ramon Valley Boulevard 120 feet of red curb in front of 2023 San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

Shadow Mountain Drive From the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive along the south curb return, extending 25 feet. The parking restriction will be designated through red curb.
*South Chanterella Drive 25 feet of red curb on the westside of South Chanterella Drive beginning on the north side of Alisma Court.
*South Chanterella Drive 25 feet of red curb on the westside of South Chanterella Drive beginning on the south side of Alisma Court.

South Monarch Road 40 feet and 25 feet on either side of the driveway exit, for a total of 65 feet of red curb for the Valencia Apartments along South Monarch Road.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 23 STREET DESCRIPTION
South Monarch Road 150 feet of parking restriction through the installation of “No Parking” signs along eastbound South Monarch Road,
beginning at the southwest curb return at Applewood Drive and extending west 150 feet.

South Monarch Road From the southeast curb return at Applewood Drive, extending 60 feet east along South Monarch Road.
*South Monarch Road 30 feet of red curb along South Monarch Road at the southwest corner from the curb return at Bayleaf Drive.

St. Denis Drive 150 feet of parking restriction through signage beginning at the intersection of Brunswick Court and extending 150 feet west.

St. Michael Court From the west curb return at the intersection of Tareyton Avenue and extending 25 feet east in front of 12 St. Michael Court.

Stoneleaf Road From the intersection of Astor Hollow Drive, 60 feet west “No Stopping Anytime” signage.

Stoneleaf Road From the intersection of Cornflower Drive, 60 feet east “No Stopping Anytime” signage.

Stoneleaf Road From the intersection of Irisview Place, 60 feet on both sides of intersection with “No Stopping Anytime” signage.

Stoneleaf Road From the intersection of Wedgewood Drive 100’ south on the east side of the intersection, through no parking signage.

Stoney Creek Drive Along the Alamo Creek frontage from Old Ranch Road south to the south intersection with Bent Creek Drive. (Signage) Summit View Drive Along the Alamo Creek frontage from Old Ranch Road north to the south intersection with Peaceful Valley Drive. (Signage) Tahiti Drive From the Java Drive intersection 25 feet north on the westerly side of Tahiti Drive.

Tahiti Drive From the northwest corner of the intersection of Andros Drive and extending 25 feet north on the westerly side of Tahiti Drive.
*Tahiti Drive 20 feet of red curb along the west side of Tahiti Drive beginning at Bermuda Court.

Talavera Drive From the north curb return of the main driveway to the Bollinger Canyon Elementary School, north 25 feet on the west side of Talavera Drive.

Talavera Drive From the south curb return of the main driveway to the Bollinger Canyon Elementary School, south 25 feet on the west side of Talavera Drive.

Talavera Drive From the northwest curb return of the main driveway entrance to Bollinger Canyon Elementary School, north 250 feet
towards Cardona Circle.

Talavera Drive From the southwest curb return at the intersection of Santander Drive, south 300 feet along the curb to the Bollinger Canyon School driveway entrance. No Parking from 7:00AM –
4:00PM school days implemented through signage.

Terra Alta Drive From the north property line of 4151 Terra Alta Drive, north 20 feet to the south property line of 110 Radford Court on the east side of Terra Alta Drive.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 24 STREET DESCRIPTION
Terra Alta Drive From the north property line of 4057 Terra Alta Drive, north 20 feet to the south property line of 160 Berkshire Court on the east side of Terra Alta Drive.

Trumpet Vine Lane Along southbound Trumpet Vine Lane, 25 feet along the south side curb return of the school driveway entrance. Along southbound Trumpet Vine Lane, 25 feet on both sides of the school driveway exit. Along southbound Trumpet Vine Lane, 25 feet at northwest corner of the intersection of Hibiscus Road. Along southbound Trumpet Vine Lane, 25 feet at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hibiscus Road. Along northbound Trumpet Vine Lane, 20 feet at the east curb in the intersection of Hibiscus Road.

Twin Creeks Drive From the southerly curb return of the intersection with Canyon Village Circle, 25 feet south on the east side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the northerly curb return of the intersection with Canyon Village Circle, 25 feet north on the east side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the crosswalk at Canyon Creek Drive to Diablo Plaza, 60 feet south on the east side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the crosswalk at Canyon Creek Drive to Diablo Plaza, 60 feet south on the west side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the north curb return of the intersection with Meadow Glen Drive, 25 feet north on the west side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the south curb return of the intersection with Meadow Glen Drive, 25 feet south on the west side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the north curb return on the northwest corner of the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive and Durango Lane, north 21 feet to the driveway return on the west side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the south curb return on the southwest corner of the intersection of Twin Creeks Drive and Durango Lane, south 25 feet on the west side of Twin Creeks Drive.

Twin Creeks Drive From the southeast curb return at the intersection of Compton Circle and extending 25 feet east from the curb return.

Twin Creeks Drive From the intersection of Shadow Mountain Drive, extending 25 feet from both curb returns. Parking restriction designated by red curb.

Village Parkway From Alcosta Boulevard to the south City Limits on the east side of Village Parkway. (Signage)
Village Parkway From Alcosta Boulevard to the south City Limits on the west side of Village Parkway. (Signage)
Vista Monte Drive 50 feet of parking restriction through red curb beginning at the intersection of Old Ranch Road and extending south along the curb.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List) 25 STREET DESCRIPTION
Watermill Road 25 feet of parking restriction at each driveway accessing Watermill Road, for a total of 150 feet of parking restriction through signage stating “No Parking Here to Corner.”
Watermill Road 25 feet of red curb on all four sides of each crosswalk traversing Watermill Road, between Watermill Road at
Dougherty Station to Albion Road, for a total of 12 locations.

Westchester Drive Red curb 10 feet from the southeast curb return on the southerly curb of Westchester Drive.

Westchester Drive 15 feet of red curb both east and west of the intersection of Biddleford Drive on the northerly side of Westchester Drive.

Westchester Drive 15 feet of red curb both east and west of the intersection of Calais Drive on the southern side of Westchester Drive.

Westside Drive 325 feet of signage restricting parking along both north and south curbs along Westside Drive between Southwick Drive (Dublin) and San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Westwood Avenue 500 feet of red curb along the Boone Acres Park frontage, beginning at the curb return along Davona Drive and east to the cul-de-sac.

Woodcrest Drive* 20 feet of red curb along Woodcrest Drive on the southeast corner of Deerhill Drive.

Woodland Drive Extend existing 40 feet of red curb from the northerly curb return on Woodland Drive at the Alcosta Boulevard
intersection, east 55 feet on the north side of Woodland Drive for a total of 95 feet of red curb.

5.6.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Exhibit 1: Parking Restrictions Master Street List (2024-015 : Red Curb List)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Public Works Director
By: Chen Hsieh, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-016 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with G.N. Henley, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-017 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with ETIC for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-018 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Integra Construction Services, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. for AsNeeded Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a Term Ending December 31, 2027, with the Option to Renew the Agreement for Up to Two Succeeding One-Year Terms, and in an Amount Not to Exceed $499,999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 30, 2023, staff advertised the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for various services including earthwork, general contracting (for projects such as soundwalls and small structures) and emergency services (for response to landslides, flooding, and similar events). On December 31, 2023, seven (7) contractors submitted proposals. Staff reviewed all proposals and selected four firms to provide these services. Staff proposes to have four (4) As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services contracts, each for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreements for up to

5.7 Packet Pg. 87
two succeeding one-year terms, and each in an amount not to exceed $499,999. The contractors were selected based on their qualifications and the ability to provide a range of services that are most aligned with the anticipated needs of the City.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends adoption of these Resolutions, authorizing the Mayor to execute Agreements with G.N. Henley, Inc., ETIC, Integra Construction Services, Inc., and Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for terms ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreements for up to two succeeding one-year terms, and in an amount not to exceed $499,999 each.

BACKGROUND
As in previous years, the Public Works - Engineering Services Division has had as-needed services agreements for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects, earthwork, maintenance, and general contracting services that are required on a periodic, recurring, or emergency basis.

These specialty services include: erosion control and repair; landslide winterization; stabilization and repair; sediment removal; drainage facility cleaning; repair and replacement; minor structures; and debris removal. Staff has found that by procuring these services on an as-needed basis for various projects, the City has been able to obtain these services efficiently and economically. The City has procured these services through similar procurement procedures and similar contracts over the last 10 years. Currently the City has four contracts in place for these services, which expire on December 31, 2024. However, three of the four are at or near the contract limits due to heavy demand for their services.

DISCUSSION
On November 30, 2023, staff advertised on the City’s website the Request for Qualifications and Proposals to provide As-needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services. As a result, the following seven (7) firms submitted proposals:

1. Brannon Corporation

2. Dover Construction

3. ETIC

4. G.N. Henley, Inc.

5. Goodfellow Bros. California, LLC.

6. Integra Construction Services, Inc. (Integra)

7. Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. (Yerba Buena) A selection panel consisting of three City staff members evaluated the proposals based on performance and experience on the areas of expertise that were included in their proposals, staffing and hourly rates, and the best fit with the City’s anticipated needs. As a result of the selection process, the panel selected four firms that best match the City’s need to provide AsNeeded Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services:

5.7 Packet Pg. 88

1. G.N. Henley, Inc.

2. ETIC

3. Integra

4. Yerba Buena
G.N. Henley, Inc. and ETIC had similar contracts with the City for a long period of time, and each firm is capable of providing earthwork, grading, landslide winterization and repair, sediment removal, drainage facility repair and cleaning, other general contracting work, and emergency responses. Integra has also been on a similar contract since 2021 and had provided needed services in soundwall and retaining wall repairs, and small structure construction. Yerba Buena is willing and able to perform similar types of work as the other three firms, as well as minor structure repairs and construction, and has excellent references from previous projects for other public agencies, including Caltrans, National Park Service, and San Francisco Public Works.

In order to promote higher competition, manage the contracts more efficiently and costeffectively, and select the right contractor for each project, staff proposes to have four (4) AsNeeded Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services contracts. Each contract will be for a term through December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreements for up to two succeeding one-year terms. With four (4) as-needed contractors on board with the City, staff will have more flexibility to meet the City’s strict deadlines for delivery of work and emergency response needs. Additionally, since CIP projects tend to span more than one year from start to completion, multi-year contracts help reduce disruptions to projects. The not-to-exceed amount of $499,999 each is an estimate of the services that may be required during the term of the contracts. The services will be on an as-needed basis and the scope of services will be determined when such services are requested on a task-by-task basis. A separate fee proposal will be required for each task requested.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
These Agreements will be funded from individual CIP project budgets or operating budgets that already have approval by the City Council.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The City Attorney’s Office will forward the Contract Agreements to G.N. Henley, Inc., ETIC, Integra Construction Services, Inc., and Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. for execution. Upon receipt of the executed Agreements, certificates of insurance, and copies of a current City business license, the City Attorney’s Office will send a copy of the executed Contract Agreements and all attachments to the Public Works – Engineering Services Division.

A task letter will be issued when services are required.

5.7 Packet Pg. 89
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH G.N.

HENLEY, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED EARTHWORK, MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

CONTRACTING, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES FOR A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR UP

TO TWO SUCCEEDING ONE-YEAR TERMS, AND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $499,999
WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, the City advertised the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) Proposals were received and opened on December 21, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City completed the contractor selection process to determine the most qualified firm(s) to perform said services; and
WHEREAS, G.N. Henley, Inc. is qualified and able to perform such services, has been recommended by staff, and has submitted to the City a proposal setting forth the terms and conditions under which the firm is willing to perform such services.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with G.N. Henley, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms, and in an amount not to exceed $499,999.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

5.7 Packet Pg. 90
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-017

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ETIC FOR

AS-NEEDED EARTHWORK, MAINTENANCE, GENERAL CONTRACTING, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES FOR A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027,

WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR UP TO TWO

SUCCEEDING ONE-YEAR TERMS, AND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $499,999
WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, the City advertised the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) Proposals were received and opened on December 21, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City completed the contractor selection process to determine the most qualified firm(s) to perform said services; and
WHEREAS, ETIC is qualified and able to perform such services, has been recommended by staff, and has submitted to the City a proposal setting forth the terms and conditions under which the firm is willing to perform such services.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with ETIC for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms, and in an amount not to exceed $499,999.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

5.7 Packet Pg. 91
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-018

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
INTEGRA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED EARTHWORK,

MAINTENANCE, GENERAL CONTRACTING, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES FOR A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027, WITH THE OPTION TO

RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR UP TO TWO SUCCEEDING ONE-YEAR TERMS, AND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $499,999
WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, the City advertised the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) Proposals were received and opened on December 21, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City completed the contractor selection process to determine the most qualified firm(s) to perform said services; and
WHEREAS, Integra Construction Services, Inc. is qualified and able to perform such services, has been recommended by staff, and has submitted to the City a proposal setting forth the terms and conditions under which the firm is willing to perform such services.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Integra Construction Services, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms, and in an amount not to exceed $499,999.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

5.7 Packet Pg. 92
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
YERBA BUENA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED

EARTHWORK, MAINTENANCE, GENERAL CONTRACTING, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES FOR A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027,

WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT FOR UP TO TWO SUCCEEDING ONE-YEAR TERMS, AND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $499,999 WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, the City advertised the Request for Qualifications and Proposals for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) Proposals were received and opened on December 21, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City completed the contractor selection process to determine the most qualified firm(s) to perform said services; and
WHEREAS, Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. is qualified and able to perform such services, has been recommended by staff, and has submitted to the City a proposal setting forth the terms and conditions under which the firm is willing to perform such services.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Yerba Buena Engineering & Construction, Inc. for As-Needed Earthwork, Maintenance, General Contracting, and Emergency Response Services for a term ending December 31, 2027, with the option to renew the Agreement for up to two succeeding one-year terms, and in an amount not to exceed $499,999.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

5.7 Packet Pg. 93

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of San Ramon Ordinance No. 135 establishes a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIF) to defray the actual costs of constructing roadway improvements that are needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic impacts caused by all new development. The Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees have been updated twice, in 1997 and 2016, in addition to the nominal annual adjustments for construction cost inflation. The Ordinance requires the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees be reviewed every five years. A Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Update Study was prepared to incorporate current construction costs, land use assumptions, and future City Transportation needs. The resulting proposed fees are presented below in Table 1. The proposed fees are the maximum fees that can be assessed based on the current Capital Improvement Program. The fees provide most of the funding needed to complete the listed eligible Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects; however, most of the projects will also require supplemental funding.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council open the Public Hearing to consider the proposed Resolution, receive public testimony, close the Public Hearing, deliberate and, if appropriate, adopt Resolution No. 2024-(next in line), repealing and replacing the Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees.

BACKGROUND
City of San Ramon Ordinance No. 135, adopted June 28, 1988, establishes a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee to defray the actual costs of constructing roadway improvements that are needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic impacts caused by all new development. This Ordinance was subsequently codified into the Municipal Code. In 1997, the City Council approved Resolution No. 97-60, modifying the Citywide TIF fees in recognition of the effects of the Southern Contra Costa Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement fees that were enacted in December of 1996. In 2016, the City prepared a Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study Update that was adopted by the City Council on September 13, 2016, with Resolution No. 2016-089. On September 27, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance 469 amending Title C, Division C4 (Land

8.1 Packet Pg. 94
Development), Chapter II (Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees), Sections C4-12, C4-16, and C4-17 of the San Ramon Municipal Code relating to Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee definitions, calculation, and review. The Ordinance amendment reflects the five-year requirements for updating and reporting required by the Government Code. TIF fees have not been adjusted since 2016 except for nominal annual adjustments for construction cost inflation. The Citywide TIF fees are updated annually to reflect changes in the San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the Engineering News Record. The most recent of these adjustments was approved by the City Council at the April 25, 2023 meeting with Resolution No. 2023-046 that updated the City’s fees and charges for various municipal services.

The proposed TIF update was reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Committee on November 16, 2023 and the Finance Committee on December 11, 2023. On January 9, 2024, the City Council voted to set a Public Hearing to consider the update of the new fees.

DISCUSSION
The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Codes 66000-66025), requires local agencies to make certain findings when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval for a development project. The findings must demonstrate a reasonable relationship (nexus) between the new development, the needed transportation facilities to serve the new development, and the amount of the fees before adopting any new fees or increasing existing fees.

The Citywide TIF fees are updated annually to reflect changes in the San Francisco Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI); typically, the CCI increase averages between 2% - 4% per year.

Significant factors affecting the Citywide TIF fees have changed over the past seven years, including:
• Increases in construction costs of transportation improvements • Changes in the number and type of building units
• Changes in the roadway network
• Changes in the scope of projects and priorities of the City’s Capital Improvement Program
• Changes in land use designations
A copy of the Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (Study) is provided as Attachment A.

The methodology used for the Study is consistent with Title C, Division C4, Chapter II, Section C4-16 of the Municipal Code. A simplified description of the Study methodology is as follows:

1. Using a computer model to estimate travel demand generated by future development on the City’s transportation network, estimate the total number of new trips expected to impact the network.

2. Determine eligibility for TIF financing of the City projects planned to be needed as a result of future development.

3. Prepare new cost estimates for all eligible projects or validate existing estimates.

Determine the cost percentage for each project that is eligible for TIF financing. Add the costs of these projects to determine the total cost of required improvements.

8.1 Packet Pg. 95

4. Compute the impact fee by dividing the total cost of the improvements by the number of new trips generated by the planned development.

Assembly Bill (AB) 602 was approved on September 28, 2021, and went into effect on January 1, 2022. This Bill requires that impact fee nexus studies adopted on and after January 1, 2022, include a Level of Service Analysis and a Housing Fee Stratification Analysis.

The result is a revised TIF fee that reflects current construction costs, land use assumptions, and future City transportation infrastructure needs. The resulting proposed TIF fees are presented in Table 1 below, with a comparison to the current TIF fees.

Table 1: Fee per Land Use Category
Land Use Category Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee Percent Change
Residential
Single Family < 1,000 SF DU $2,918 $3,438 18%
Single Family 1,000-1,499 SF DU $2,918 $3,728 28%
Single Family 1,500-1,999 SF DU $2,918 $3,893 33%
Single Family 2,000-2,499 SF DU $2,918 $4,018 38%
Single Family 2,500-2,999 SF DU $2,918 $4,142 42%
Single Family 3,000-3,999 SF DU $2,918 $4,266 46%
Single Family >4,000 SF DU $2,918 $4,308 48%
Multi-family DU $1,809 $2,247 24%
Other PM Peak
Hour Trip $2,766 $4,726 71%
Nonresidential
Retail KSF $6,090 $8,132 34%
Office KSF $7,070 $10,205 68%
Service Commercial1 KSF $3,290 $4,745 44%
Other PM Peak
Hour Trip $2,766 $4,726 71%
1The Service Commercial Raw Fee per Unit was calculated to maintain the same relationship between the Office fee and the Service Commercial fee that is contained in the City’s current fee schedule.

Source: Fehr & Peers, Nexus Study 2021 and Kimley-Horn, Nexus Study 2023. Fee per Single Family DUs developed based AB 602 Housing Analysis.

Although the proposed fee schedule will increase revenues for all new development in San Ramon compared with current City fees, the new schedule of fees proposed are less than the traffic fees of other agencies in most categories, and generally compares favorably with other fees imposed by other area agencies. An excerpt from the comparison with other agencies’ fees

8.1 Packet Pg. 96
provided in the Citywide TIF Update Study is reproduced as Table 2 below. The complete table with references is provided in the Study.

Table 2: Comparison of Impact Fees with Other Local Agencies Municipality / Authority Single-Family
(Per Unit)
Multifamily
(Per Unit)
Retail (Per
KSF)
Office (Per
KSF)
San Ramon (Current) $2,918 $1,809 $6,090 $7,070
San Ramon (Proposed) $4,142* $2,247 $8,132 $10,205
Average of Nearby Jurisdictions $9,510 $6,255 $12,462 $12,134 Brentwood $14,567 $9,031 $5,428 $6,511
Concord $3,251 $2,624 $8,810 $7,040
Dublin (West Dublin) $7,681 $3,994 $7,681 $7,681
Oakley $14,587 $8,898 $2,567 $8,893
Livermore (Downtown) N/A $4,913 $14,595 N/A
Livermore (All other areas) $11,869 $8,002 $32,235 $20,636 Martinez $2,221 $1,528 $2,230 $1,810
Pleasant Hill $3,879 $3,110 $10,030 $8,527
Pleasanton $11,392 $7,005 $26,130 $17,780
Alamo (Unincorporated Contra
Costa County) $16,142 $13,446 $14,910 $14,910
Regional Fees
Contra Costa Sub-Regional Fees $5,178 $5,178 $5,000 $7,970 Southern Contra Costa Regional
Fees $1,853 $1,853 $1,810 $2,910
Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fees $6,946 $4,095 $5,920 $9,280
Note: N/A - Not Applicable or Not Available, KSF = 1,000 Square Feet. * Fee reported for the middle group of dwelling unit sizes.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
This action will repeal only the Citywide TIF fees shown on Page 27 of Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2023-046, the City’s most recent fee update for various municipal services. All other fees will remain unaffected by this action. The revenues collected from TIF fees for new development will increase in proportion to the increased fee amounts for all new development. The cost of the Citywide TIF Update Study is included with the costs of the capital improvements used as a basis for the calculation of the proposed fees. The fees presented here provide the majority of the funding needed to complete the listed eligible CIP projects; however, most of the projects will also require supplemental funding. Staff will pursue grant funding opportunities and other

8.1 Packet Pg. 97
sources to balance the project needs.

NEXT STEPS
The steps for adopting revised mitigation fees are prescribed by Government Code Sections 66016-66019.

Although the new Fee Resolution will be adopted following the Public Hearing, the updated fees will not take effect until mid-April to satisfy the 60-day waiting period requirement to provide adequate time for public response.

ATTACHMENT
A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update
EXHIBIT 1: Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees

8.1 Packet Pg. 98
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020

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

REPEALING AND REPLACING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to revise the fees that assist in defraying the costs of the improvements in the City’s Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (TIF) require updating to reflect changes in the Capital Improvement Program, changes in the General Plan, and changes in traffic volume projections; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fees have been updated twice, in 1997 and 2016, in addition to the nominal annual adjustments for construction cost inflation; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (AB) 602 went into effect on January 1, 2022, and required all traffic impact fee nexus studies to include a Level of Service Analysis and Housing Fee Stratification Analysis; and
WHEREAS, Fehr and Peers and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., under contract with the City of San Ramon, have completed a Traffic Impact Fee Study (“Study”) to determine a reasonable relationship between future needed transportation improvements identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee adjustments to fund said improvements for the list of 24 projects developed for inclusion in the updated TIF and ensure compliance with AB 602 required methodology; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been determined as part of the Study to be reasonably related to needed future improvement costs as identified in the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, and are reasonable; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the modification of the Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees was held on February 13, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Ramon approves as follows:

1. The Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees shown in Exhibit 1, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference shall be in force and effective April 15, 2024.

2. The existing Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees in Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2023-046 are hereby repealed and replaced at the time the new fees become in force and effective on April 15, 2024.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 13, 2024, by the following votes:

8.1 Packet Pg. 99
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
David E. Hudson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Christina Franco, City Clerk
EXHIBIT 1: Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees

8.1 Packet Pg. 100
Final Report
San Ramon Traffic
Impact Fee Update
Prepared for:

City of San Ramon
October 2023
WC21-3819

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Background and Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Project List ............................................................................................................................... 3

3. Growth Projections ................................................................................................................. 7 Projections by Land Use Category ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Trip Generation by Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 7

4. AB 602 Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 10 Level of Service Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................11 Level of Service Results ............................................................................................................................................................15 Housing Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................21

5. Nexus Allocation and Fee Calculations ............................................................................... 26 Allocation to Users ....................................................................................................................................................................26 Fee Calculations ..........................................................................................................................................................................28

6. Summary of Required Program Elements .......................................................................... 30 Appendices................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Traffic Impact Fees in San Ramon and Nearby Jurisdictions ..........................................................31 Appendix B: Level of Service Analysis Outputs ..............................................................................................................32

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) List of Figures
Figure 1: San Ramon TIF Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables
Table 1: Current San Ramon TIF Fee Amounts ........................................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Proposed San Ramon TIF Projects .............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3: Citywide Growth Projections ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Trip Demand Factors ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 5: Growth Converted to Adjusted PM Peak Trips ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: Projects Analyzed in AB 602 Analysis...................................................................................................................... 10 Table 7: Methodology and Measure of Effectiveness........................................................................................................ 11 Table 8: Intersection Level of Service Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Roadway Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 10: Safety Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 11: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) categories ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 12: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria – Ped/Bike Overcrossing ................................................................................ 14 Table 13: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria – Roadway Improvements for Ped/Bike .................................................. 15 Table 14: Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................................................................................................ 16 Table 15: Roadway Capacity Level of Service Summary – Project 3 ............................................................................ 17 Table 16: Safety Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 17: Safety Analysis Summary – Project 21 ................................................................................................................. 18 Table 18: Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Level of Traffic Stress Summary ................................................... 20 Table 19: Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Level of Traffic Stress Summary ................................................... 20 Table 20: City of San Ramon Trip Generation Data – Replica 2019 ............................................................................. 22 Table 21: No. of Single-Family Unit Detached Structures by AHS Square Foot Category .................................. 23 Table 22: Peak Vehicle Trips for All Households in Each AHS Square Foot Category .......................................... 24 Table 23: Single-Family Units Built in San Ramon’s Surrounding Region ................................................................. 24 Table 24: Estimated EDUs for Single-Family Units by Square Foot Groupings ....................................................... 25 Table 25: Project Costs Eligible for TIF ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 26: Calculation of Fee per Adjusted PM Peak Trip ................................................................................................. 28 Table 27: Fee per Land Use Category ...................................................................................................................................... 29

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
1 1. Introduction
Background and Purpose
Impact fees are established under the California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025, also sometimes known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act. Fees charged pursuant to this legislation are used to build capital facilities needed to offset the impacts generated by new development.

It is common practice throughout California for local jurisdictions to establish impact fee programs to fund the construction of several types of public infrastructure and facilities; one common type of fee program is a traffic impact fee, which generates funds that are used to construct infrastructure and provide facilities that support the transportation needs of new residents and businesses.

Per the requirements of the Government Code, each impact fee program must be supported by a “nexus” analysis, which is a rational and documented set of procedures by which the agency establishes that there is a reasonable relationship (or “nexus”) between anticipated future development in the jurisdiction, the need for new infrastructure to support that development, and the fees that will be charged to help fund that infrastructure. Thus, the technical reports (such as this report) that are prepared to support a fee program are commonly called nexus studies.

The City of San Ramon currently maintains a citywide Traffic Impact Fee (referred to in this report as the San Ramon TIF or SRTIF) program, which was established in 1988 and has been continuously maintained since that time, as a mechanism for funding a portion of the costs of needed transportation improvements within the City. As required by State law, City staff includes the SRTIF program in the City’s annual financial reports, and every five years staff reviews the capital improvement costs, updates the land use inventory, and determines whether any adjustment to the fee may be needed. The most recent annual financial report was approved by the City Council on April 25, 2023, and became effective on July 1, 2023, while the most recent comprehensive review was presented to the City Council on August 9, 2016.

The most recent comprehensive nexus update conducted for the SRTIF program was documented in San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated February 24, 2016 (referred to in this document as the 2016 TIF Update). As a result of that nexus update, the fee amounts for all land use categories underwent substantial adjustments per the City Council Action Item 2016-59; for example, the fee per single family dwelling unit was adjusted from $828 per unit to $2,174 per unit. Since 2016, the fee amounts have been indexed annually for inflation. The current fee amounts are shown in Table 1.

The City of San Ramon is now updating the SRTIF program to adjust the list of capital improvement projects, update the cost estimates for those projects, and reflect the most recent projections of population and employment growth in the City. The fees will continue to be charged on new development that occurs anywhere in the City of San Ramon. The purpose of this report is to serve as the necessary documentation to allow the City to adjust the SRTIF program.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
2 Table 1: Current San Ramon TIF Fee Amounts
Fee Category Unit Current Traffic Impact Fee
(as of July 1, 2023)
Residential
Single Family Dwelling Unit $2,918
Multifamily Dwelling Unit $1,809
Other PM Peak Hour Trip $2,766
Nonresidential
Retail Thousand Square
Feet (KSF)
$6,090
Office KSF $7,070
Service Commercial KSF $3,290
Other PM Peak Hour Trip $2,766
Organization of the Report
After this introductory section, the report contains four additional sections:
• Section 2 – Project List, describes the list of capital improvement projects that would be included in the program.
• Section 3 – Growth Projections, documents the amount of growth anticipated over the next twenty years in the City of San Ramon.
• Section 4 – Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations, describes the results of the nexus analysis and calculates the fee amounts using the information presented in the report. • Section 5 – Summary of Required Program Elements, summarizes how the information in this report satisfies the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000-66025).

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
3 2. Project List
The current SRTIF program contains 33 transportation improvement projects, listed on pages 14-15 of the 2016 TIF Update. Over the past several years, the City of San Ramon has completed construction of several of the projects and has conducted additional planning and engineering work on several other projects, allowing for more refined project descriptions and cost estimates to be prepared. In addition, through recent planning studies and environmental review procedures, the City has identified several new capital improvement projects that have been deemed to be needed to support the City’s future growth.

The City regularly updates its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), most recently in May 2023, as one of the key methods of implementing the City’s General Plan in order to maintain operational standards for the City’s transportation system. For the purposes of this SRTIF update, City staff undertook a thorough review of transportation improvement projects identified in the CIP and developed a list of 24 projects for inclusion in the updated SRTIF. Of these projects, 13 are being carried over from the current SRTIF program and 11 new projects have been added. The area covered by the SRTIF and the location of projects proposed for inclusion in the fee program are shown on Figure 1.

Cost estimates for all projects have been drawn from the most recent CIP, supplemented with cost information supplied by City staff. The updated project list, including the cost estimates, is shown in Table 2.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) * Projects #11 and #16-22 are either citywide projects or in multiple locations and are not displayed on the map. 24 12 Montevideo Dr. / Broadmoor Dr. Traffic
Signal
13 Pine Valley Road / Broadmoor Drive
Traffic Signal
14 Old Crow Canyon Rd. Corridor
Improvement
15 Crow Canyon Rd. / Iron Horse Trail
Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing
16 Citywide Bicycle Network
Improvements & Enhancements*
17 Radar Speed Display SIgn*
18 Citywide Intelligent Transportation
System Upgrades*
19 Bike Master Plan Update*
20 ITS Master Plan Update*
21 Local Roadway Safety Plan Projects*
22 Future Nexus Study Update*
23 Smart Signals Project*
24 Bollinger Canyon Rd. Improvement
1 Camino Ramon Shopping Center
Intersection Improvements
2 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Crow Canyon Rd.

Intersection
3 Fostoria Way Widening
4 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Norris Canyon Rd.

Traffic Signal
5 Crow Canyon Rd. / Service Center Traffic
Signal
6 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Westside Dr.

Traffic Signal
7 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Curb Installation
8 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Hooper Dr.

Traffic Signal
9 Camino Ramon Office Park Intersection
Improvements
10 Crow Canyon Rd. / Shoreline Dr.

Intersection
11 Pedestrian Enhancements*
(N)

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
5 Table 2: Proposed San Ramon TIF Projects
Number1 Project Name Description
Total
Estimated
Cost (2023 $)
1 CIP 5303 Camino Ramon Shopping
Center Intersection Improvements
Widen the driveway from the Commons Shopping
Center onto Camino Ramon to provide an
exclusive right turn lane, and a shared left and
through lane.
$568,700
2 CIP 5311 Bollinger Canyon Rd. /
Crow Canyon Rd. Intersection
Accommodate a right turn lane from southbound
Bollinger Canyon Road to westbound Crow
Canyon Road.
$763,500
3 CIP 5313 Fostoria Way Widening Add one lane in each direction. $3,685,500 4 CIP 5335 Bollinger Canyon Rd. /
Norris Canyon Rd. Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect. $578,400
5 CIP 5337 Crow Canyon Rd. / Service
Center Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect. $557,100
6 CIP 5338 San Ramon Valley Blvd. /
Westside Dr. (N) Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect. $476,000
7 CIP 5363 San Ramon Valley Blvd.

Curb Installation
Install a concrete curb and gutter along the east
side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard. $340,000
8 CIP 5364 San Ramon Valley Blvd. /
Hooper Dr. Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect when
warranted. $608,700
9 CIP 5365 Camino Ramon Office Park
Intersection Improvements
Widen the driveway at the intersection to provide
a single entrance lane, a left/through exit lane,
and a right turn only exit lane from the Commons
Office Park Center.
$625,500
10 CIP 905412 Crow Canyon Rd. /
Shoreline Dr. Intersection
Widen the southerly side of Crow Canyon Road
west of Shoreline Drive to accommodate
eastbound right turn traffic.
$250,200
11 CIP 975413 Pedestrian
Enhancements3
Install devices to increase awareness of pedestrian
activity as warranted. $0
12 CIP 5459 Montevideo Dr. /
Broadmoor Dr. Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect. $518,100
13 CIP 5460 Pine Valley Road /
Broadmoor Drive Traffic Signal
Install a traffic signal and interconnect.
$658,200
14 CIP 5506 Old Crow Canyon Rd.

Corridor Improvement
Widen the roadway to provide a minimum 60-
foot right of way complete with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk.
$6,739,200
15 CIP 905531 Crow Canyon Rd. / Iron
Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian
Overcrossing
Construct a bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing on
the Iron Horse Trail over Crow Canyon Road. $20,700,000

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
6 Notes:
1: Project numbers 1-9 and 12-15 are part of the current SRTIF program; project numbers 10, 11, and 16-24 are shaded in gray and are proposed to be added to the program as a result of this nexus update. 2: Citywide or multi-location projects.

Sources: City of San Ramon, 2022.
3: Ped Enhancement projects are Citywide project that are typically included on an as needed basis. The project was included in the list and the percent of trips was calculated as part of the analysis to be considered for future fee calculations. 4: Smart Signals project is a Countywide project that the City is part of. The portion of this project that includes City’s intersections was included in the list and the percent of trips was calculated as part of the analysis to be considered for future fee calculations. 16 CIP 905613 Citywide Bicycle Network
Improvements & Enhancements2
Improve and upgrade the City’s Bicycle Network
as outlined in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. $50,443,500 17 CIP 975481 Radar Speed Display
Sign2
Install speed display signs. $52,650
18 CIP 975594 Citywide Intelligent
Transportation System Upgrade2
Plan and upgrade necessary intelligent
transportation system components. $41,852,900
19 CIP 000010 Bike Master Plan Update2 Future update of the citywide Bicycle Master Plan. $176,000 20 CIP 000012 ITS Master Plan Update2 Future update of the citywide ITS Master Plan. $110,000 21 CIP 000011 Local Roadway Safety
Plan Projects2
Implementation of recommended projects from
the LRSP. $2,086,900
22 CIP 000007 Future Nexus Study
Update2
Future update of the SRTIF Nexus Study. $80,000
23 CIP ###### Smart Signals Project2,4 Upgrade countywide traffic signal system and communication system. $248,175
24 CIP 905625 Bollinger Canyon Rd
Sidewalk Improvement
Widen sidewalk on Bollinger Canyon Rd from
Alcosta Blvd to Canyon Lakes Dr to improve the
Class III pedestrian and bicyclist route and
construct a northbound right turn lane on Alcosta
Blvd.
$891,955
TOTAL $133,011,180

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
7 3. Growth Projections
An important element of every fee calculation is the estimate of future growth in the fee area.

Projections by Land Use Category
This nexus update uses growth projections that were recently prepared for the purposes of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Fee update. While the TVTC Update used a base year of 2018, this TIF update uses 2023 as its base year for the purposes of land use growth and ultimately, the fee calculations. However, both the TVTC Update, and this nexus study, use a horizon year of 2040.

To establish the 2023 base year, the TVTC land use projections were interpolated between the base year (2018) and the horizon year (2040). The land use information was summarized at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) geographic level, the geographic unit used in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) countywide travel demand model. For summary purposes, the total growth projected in the City of San Ramon is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Citywide Growth Projections
Category 2018 Base Year for
TVTC Update
2023 Base Year for
SRTIF Update 2040 Projection 2023-2040 Growth
Population 79,931 85,005 102,258 22%
Dwelling Units 27,739 29,885 37,180 26%
Jobs 50,539 52,468 59,027 13%
Source: TVTC Nexus Update Technical Memorandum #1 –Tri-Valley Growth Forecast, Kimley-Horn and Associates, February 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Trip Generation by Land Use
This study establishes a common basis for assessing fees across different land use categories by calculating a Trip Demand Factor (TDF), which reflects the trip generation characteristics of each land use that produces new vehicle trips on the roadway system in San Ramon. The characteristics of each land use category used in the TDF calculation include the trip generation rate, the proportion of new and pass-by trips, and average trip lengths. This process is the same as the process used in the 2016 TIF Update, though the values for each variable have been updated as more recent information was available at the time this nexus study was conducted.

For the purposes of this study, PM peak-hour trip generation rates have been drawn from the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The percentages of new and pass-by trips are used as-is from the 2016 TIF Update, because the source of the

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
8 data referenced in that study remains the industry standard. Trip lengths have been updated by referencing the 2012 California Household Travel Survey data, which presents observed trip lengths for each city and county in the state. The variables used in the calculations are shown on Table 4.

Table 4: Trip Demand Factors
Fee Category Unit ITE Code Peak Hour
Trip Rate1
New Trip
Percentage2
Average Trip
Length3
Adjusted PM
Peak Trip
Demand
Factor4
Residential
Single Family Unit 210 0.94 97% 7.50 0.88
Multi-family Unit 220 0.51 97% 7.50 0.48
Nonresidential
Retail KSF 820 3.4 78% 5.06 1.72
Office KSF 710 1.44 96% 12.18 2.16

1. Reflects average number of trips at peak hour of day for the unit type indicated based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition).

2. This factor accounts for the fact that some trips generated by the land uses will be pass-by or otherwise pre-existing trips.

Source is Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, SANDAG, April 2002.

3. Average trip length in miles based on the California Household Travel Survey, 2012, for the City of San Ramon. Residential land use category uses total average of all trips, Retail uses “Home-Based Other” average, and the Office and Other non-residential categories are based on “Home-Based Work” trip lengths.

4. The calculation of the Adjusted PM Peak Trip Demand Factor is the peak hour trip rate multiplied by the new trip percentage, then multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the county-wide average trip length of 7.80 miles.

Source: San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., February 2016; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Once the adjusted PM Peak-hour Trip Demand Factors are determined, they are then used to calculate the total growth in Adjusted PM Peak-hour Trips. The level of growth projected to occur in the City of San Ramon was taken from the Tri-Valley Transportation Fee land use growth updates calculated previously, and Table 5 displays how that growth was multiplied by the Trip Demand factors to derive total growth expressed in units of Adjusted PM Peak Trips. Overall, these calculations result in an estimated 14.5-percent increase in Adjusted PM Peak Trips citywide between 2023 and 2040.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
9 Table 5: Growth Converted to Adjusted PM Peak Trips
Land Use Type # of Dwelling Units
or # of Employees
KSF (for nonresidential
categories)
Adjusted PM Peak
Trip Demand
Factor
Adjusted PM Peak
Trips
Existing (2023)
Single Family 22,449 0.88 19,674
Multi-family 7,436 0.48 3,536
Retail Employment 7,722 3,012 1.72 5,182
Non-Retail Employment 44,746 20,807 2.16 44,927
Total 73,319
Future (2040)
Single Family 24,974 0.88 21,887
Multi-family 12,206 0.48 5,804
Retail Employment 9,126 3,559 1.72 6,124
Non-Retail Employment 49,901 23,204 2.16 50,102
Total 83,917
Growth (2023 - 2040)
Single Family 2,525 0.88 2,213
Multi-family 4,770 0.48 2,268
Retail Employment 1,404 548 1.72 942
Non-Retail Employment 5,155 2,397 2.16 5,176
Total # 10,599
Total % 14.5%
Source: TVTC Nexus Update Technical Memorandum #1 –Tri-Valley Growth Forecast, Kimley-Horn and Associates, February 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
10 4. AB 602 Analysis
Assembly Bill (AB) 602 was approved on September 28, 2021 and went into effect on January 1, 2022.

Among other things, this bill requires that impact fee nexus studies adopted on and after January 1, 2022, must, as appropriate, identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the new level of service for the public facility once an improvement (project) is constructed, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is necessary. It should be noted that the basis for the required level of service analyses is not specifically defined in AB 602 and that as a practical matter, level of service methods applied to various public facilities need to vary depending on the type of facility being analyzed and the information available.

AB 602 also requires that studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must calculate fees levied or imposed on a housing development projects proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fee. Simply, development impact fees must be stratified by the size of the housing unit or provide findings that support not stratifying the fees. Therefore, an AB 602 deficiency analysis and fee stratification analysis were conducted as part of the SRTIF Nexus Study.

The AB 602 analysis evaluated 17 projects, summarized in Table 6, which involved improvements to public facilities. The projects identified for the required level of service (LOS) analysis per AB 602 were categorized as either an intersection, pedestrian/bicycle, or safety improvement. The remaining projects are either Citywide studies or require identification of technology-based solutions. As these are not specific public facilities, no Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) or thresholds were established at this time. AB 602 acknowledges that level of service analysis is not possible for certain types of projects.

Table 6: Projects Analyzed in AB 602 Analysis
Number Project Improvement Type
1 Camino Ramon Shopping Center Intersection Improvements Intersection 2 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Crow Canyon Rd. Intersection
3 Fostoria Way Widening Roadway Capacity
4 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Norris Canyon Rd. Traffic Signal Intersection 5 Crow Canyon Rd. / Service Center Traffic Signal Intersection 6 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Westside Dr. (N) Traffic Signal Intersection 7 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Curb Installation Safety
8 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Hooper Dr. Traffic Signal Intersection 9 Camino Ramon Office Park Intersection Improvements Intersection 10 Crow Canyon Rd. / Shoreline Dr. Intersection Intersection 12 Montevideo Dr. / Broadmoor Dr. Traffic Signal Intersection

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
11 Table 6: Projects Analyzed in AB 602 Analysis
Number Project Improvement Type
13 Pine Valley Road / Broadmoor Drive Traffic Signal Intersection 14 Old Crow Canyon Rd. Corridor Improvement Safety
15 Crow Canyon Rd. / Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing Pedestrian / Bicycle
16 Citywide Bicycle Network Improvements & Enhancements Pedestrian / Bicycle 21 Local Roadway Safety Plan Projects Safety
24 Bollinger Canyon Rd. Sidewalk Improvement Safety
Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Table 7 summarizes the methodology and MOE that was used to determine existing and future conditions depending on the type of improvement.

Table 7: Methodology and Measure of Effectiveness
Improvement Type Methodology Measure of Effectiveness
Intersection HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Roadway Capacity Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) V/C
Safety
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM)
Federal Highway Authority’s (FHWA)
Clearing House guide
Crash Rate
Pedestrian/Bicycle Montgomery County Level of Traffic
Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Note: HCM = Highway Capacity Manual, LOS = Level of Service As the TIF Nexus is based on the PM peak-hour trip demand in the future, the LOS analysis for AB 602 was conducted for the PM peak-hour.

Intersection
Analysis of intersection level of service (LOS) is based on the Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM) concept of LOS. The HCM defines the LOS of a facility as a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions.

LOS ranges from A (free flow traffic with minimal delay) to F (heavy congestion operating near or over capacity). LOS was determined using methodologies defined in HCM 6th Edition, the current edition at the time of the analysis. The LOS criteria is summarized in Table 8.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
12 Existing condition traffic counts during the PM peak period (4 PM – 6 PM) were collected in August 2022.

Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build volumes were developed by adding travel demand model growth to existing counts. The travel demand model maintained by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA model) was used to determine future traffic growth.

Table 8: Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service
(LOS)
Signalized
Delay (sec/veh)
Unsignalized
Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10.0 – 20.0 > 10.0 – 15.0
C > 20.0 – 35.0 > 15.0 – 25.0
D > 35.0 – 55.0 > 25.0 – 35.0
E > 55.0 – 80.0 > 35.0 – 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Note: For All-way stop-control intersection (AWSC), LOS is defined based on average intersection delay. For two-way stop-controlled intersections (TWSC), LOS is defined based on the worst movement delay.

According to the San Ramon General Plan 2035, the City aims to maintain LOS C or better as the standard at all intersections, with a threshold of LOS D during AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak-hours. Therefore, for this analysis intersections calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F were determined to be deficient.

Roadway Capacity
Roadway capacity improvements were evaluated based on the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C). To determine the V/C ratio for the projects, the project’s volume was divided by the roadway capacity obtained from the CCTA model. For the purposes of this study, and based on observed data, Table 9 shows the LOS designations based on whether the V/C ratio is greater or less than 1.0. Note that while the City aims to maintain a LOS D or better on its roadways, for the purposes of this analysis a deficient roadway is one that operates with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0.

Existing condition volumes for the study roadway segments were collected from the Replica Big Data platform. Replica provides travel data by mode as well as by roadway segments. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build volumes were developed by adding model growth to existing volumes.

Table 9: Roadway Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service
(LOS) Volume-to Capacity Ratio
≤ E ≤ 1.0
F > 1.0

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
13 Safety
The number of crashes per million vehicle miles travelled (crash/M-VMT) was calculated for the project segments based on the observed number of crashes within 5 years (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021). The reduction in crashes in the Future 2040 Build scenario was calculated by applying Crash Modification Factors (CMF) based on proposed safety improvements for each project. As mentioned in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), roadway safety performance can be measured based on the threshold performance value that is determined subjectively for a given roadway conditions.

As recommended in the HSM, the safety of infrastructure should be measured by the number of crashes per million-VMT (crash/M-VMT). For the purposes of this study, and based on industry standard practices, the safety threshold value was determined to be crash per million-VMT (crash/M-VMT) greater than 1.0.

Table 10 summarizes the LOS designations for safety that were used for this study.

Table 10: Safety Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service
(LOS) Crash / MVMT
≤ E ≤ 1.0
F > 1.0
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements were evaluated using the modified level of traffic stress (LTS) methodology used in the Montgomery County, Maryland Bicycle Master Plan1. This methodology is based on the original LTS methodology developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and San Jose State University2, but revised to better capture stress levels. Both methodologies assign a traffic stress level based on street/traffic attributes (e.g., traffic speed, traffic volume, number of lanes, etc.). As shown in Table 11, the original LTS has four stress levels, while the Montgomery County methodology provides three additional stress levels. The Montgomery County methodology also revised criteria for separated bikeways, two-lane roads, and industrial streets. For the purposes of this analysis, a threshold of LTS 4 was used to determine whether a project was deficient prior to the improvement being constructed. 1 Montgomery County, MD The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018 2 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
14 Table 11: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) categories
Level of Service
(LOS) Crash / MVMT
LTS 1 – Very Low
LTS 0 – None
LTS 1 – Very Low
LTS 2 –Low LTS 2 – Low
LTS 3 – Moderate
LTS 2.5 – Moderate Low
LTS 3 – Moderate High
LTS 4 - High
LTS 4 – High
LTS 5 – Very High
Pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings were evaluated based on criteria summarized in Table 12, which is based on posted speed limit, median refuge, and number of lanes being traversed. Improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists along roadways were evaluated based on criteria summarized in Table 13, which are based on the posted speed limit and the type of buffer between the shared path and adjacent roadways.

Table 12: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria – Ped/Bike Overcrossing Posted Speed Limit on
Street Being Crossed
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
No Median Refuge Median Refuge (≥ 6 ft wide)
2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2.5
35 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2.5 LTS 3
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4
Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
15 Table 13: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria – Roadway Improvements for Ped/Bike Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
Mixed Traffic, No Parking Mixed Traffic, Parking
2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 4
30 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
35 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
40 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
Bike Lanes (< 5.5 ft), No Parking Bike Lanes (≥ 6 ft), No Parking Bike Lanes, Parking 2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 (2)ALTS 3 LTS 1 LTS 2.5 (2)ALTS 3 LTS 2.5 (2)ALTS 3 LTS 3 30 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 (2)ALTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 (2)ALTS 3 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 3 35 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 40 LTS 3 LTS 4(3)ALTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4(3)ALTS 3 N/A N/A N/A Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
Separated Bike Lanes, < 5ft Separated Bike Lanes, ≥ 5ft Shared Use, Independent ROW 2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 0 LTS 0 LTS 0 30 LTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 0 LTS 0 LTS 0 35 LTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 2 (1)BLTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 0 LTS 0 LTS 0 40 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 (1)CLTS 2 (1)CLTS 2 (1)CLTS 0 LTS 0 LTS 0 Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018.

Note: A=LTS if there is a raised median, B=LTS if a road is residential, and buffer is at least 5 feet, C=LTS if buffer is wide.

Level of Service Results
This section presents a summary of results for each project. Detailed analysis tables and outputs are included in Appendix B.

Intersection
Intersection LOS analysis was completed for Projects 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13. Table 14 presents a summary of the intersection LOS. Note that as discussed previously, LOS is presented in terms of the PM Peak-hour.

Project 1 evaluated the Camino Ramon intersection with Shopping Plaza Driveway. This intersection operates at LOS F in existing and future conditions, which would be considered an existing deficiency.

Project 1 will improve operations by decreasing the delay for the worst movement by 60-percent.

Project 2 evaluated the Bollinger Canyon Road intersection with Crow Canyon Road. Future development will increase congestion and deteriorate the existing LOS from B to C. Project 2 will slightly improve operations by decreasing the overall delay for the intersection, although the LOS will remain the same.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
16 Project 4 evaluated the Bollinger Canyon Road intersection with Norris Canyon Road. It is estimated that future development will deteriorate the existing LOS from C to D. Project 4 will signalize the intersection and improve operations to LOS B.

Project 5 evaluated the Crow Canyon Road intersection with Service Center. This intersection operates at LOS C in existing and future conditions. Future development will slightly increase delay at this intersection.

Project 5 will signalize the intersection and improve operations to LOS A.

Project 6 evaluated the San Ramon Boulevard intersection with Westside Drive (N). It is estimated that future development will deteriorate the existing LOS from C to D. Project 6 will signalize the intersection and improve operations to LOS A.

Project 8 evaluated the San Ramon Valley Boulevard intersection with Hooper Drive. It is estimated that future development will deteriorate the existing LOS from C to D. Project 8 will signalize the intersection and improve operations to LOS A.

Project 9 evaluated the Camino Ramon intersection with Office Park Drive. This intersection operates at LOS F in existing and future conditions, which would be considered as an existing deficiency. Project 9 will improve operations by decreasing the delay for the worst movement by 60-percent.

Project 10 evaluated the Crow Canyon Road intersection with Shoreline Drive. This intersection currently operates at LOS A. It is expected that future development will slightly increase the delay at this intersection while it continues to operate at LOS A. Project 10 will decrease intersection delay.

Project 12 evaluated the Broadmoor Drive intersection with Montevideo Drive. This intersection operates at LOS B in existing and future conditions. Future development will slightly increase congestion at this intersection. Project 12 will signalize the intersection and decrease intersection delay.

Project 13 evaluated the Broadmoor Drive intersection with Pine Valley Road. This intersection operates at LOS B in existing and future conditions. Future development will slightly increase congestion at this intersection. and Project 13 will signalize the intersection and decrease intersection delay.

Table 14: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Existing Project Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Control
Type
Control
Type
Movement
Delay
sec/veh LOS Delaysec/veh LOS Delaysec/veh LOS

1. Camino Ramon & Shopping
Plaza TWSC TWSC
All 9.5 A 102.8 F 37.8 E
EB 75.7 F 875.1 F 308.6 F

2. Bollinger Canyon Road &
Crow Canyon Road Signal Signal
All 18.3 B 21.3 C 21.3 C
SB 46.7 D 47.7 D 46.6 D

4. Bollinger Canyon Road & Norris
Canyon Road AWSC Signal
All 16.3 C 26.5 D 12.8 B
WB 18.4 C 35.2 E 11.7 B

5. Crow Canyon Road & Service
Center TWSC Signal
All 0.4 A 0.5 A 5.5 A
NB 19.5 C 32.1 D 28.1 C

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
17 Table 14: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Existing Project Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Control
Type
Control
Type
Movement
Delay
sec/veh LOS Delaysec/veh LOS Delaysec/veh LOS

6. San Ramon Valley Boulevard &
Western Drive (N) TWSC Signal
All 1.1 A 9.3 A 15.1 B
EB 16.1 C 306.7 F 17.7 B

8. San Ramon boulevard & Hooper
Drive TWSC Signal
All 1.2 A 4.9 A 6.1 A
EB 14.4 B 51.7 F 11.7 B

9. Camino Ramon & Office Park
Drive TWSC TWSC
All 7.4 A 36.5 E 14.9 B
EB 63.2 F 429.6 F 172.6 F

10. Crow Canyon Road & Shoreline
Drive Signal Signal
All 6.3 A 7.3 A 6.2 A
NB 37.6 D 37.6 D 37.6 D

12. Broadmoor Drive &
Montevideo Drive AWSC Signal
All 11.1 B 13.2 B 6.4 B
WB 12.0 B 15.3 C 5.9 A

13. Broadmoor Drive & Pine Valley
Road AWSC Signal
All 12.7 B 15.5 C 6.8 A
WB 14.2 B 19.0 C 6.3 A
Note:

Intersections that operate at LOS E or F are Bold.

Intersection and All-way stop-control intersection (AWSC) reported as intersection delay/LOS. Two-way stop-controlled intersections (TWSC) is reported as overall intersection delay/LOS followed by worst movement's delay/LOS.

Roadway Capacity
The roadway capacity evaluation was conducted for the Fostoria Way Widening Project (Project 3), and the V/C ratios are summarized in Table 15 by direction. Future development will greatly increase the V/C ratio for the westbound direction, while Project 3 will reduce the V/C ratio back to near existing conditions.

Table 15: Roadway Capacity Level of Service Summary – Project 3 Direction
# Lane (Capacity) Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project Existing/
No Project
Project Vol V/C LOS Vol V/C LOS Vol V/C LOS
Eastbound 1
(550 veh)
2 (1600 veh) 100 0.18 ≤ E 230 0.42 ≤ E 230 0.14 ≤ E
Westbound 1
(550 veh)
2 (1600 veh) 125 0.23 ≤ E 420 0.76 ≤ E 420 0.26 ≤ E
Safety
The safety analysis evaluated Projects 7, 14, 21 and 24. Table 16 presents a summary of the safety level of service for Projects 7, 14 and 24.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
18 For Project 7, the crash rate exceeds the crash rate threshold for existing conditions, which is considered an existing deficiency. In addition, Project 7 is forecasted to worsen into the future without improvements. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed for Project 7 will reduce the crash rate to 1.0, an acceptable crash rate.

For Project 14, the crash rate exceeds the crash rate threshold for existing conditions, which is considered an existing deficiency. In addition, Project 14 is forecasted to worsen into the future without improvements.

It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed for Project 14 will reduce the crash rate to 2.1 from

2.4, but not to an acceptable rate of 1.0.

For Project 24, the crash rate exceeds the crash rate threshold for existing conditions, which is considered an existing deficiency. In addition, Project 24 is forecasted to worsen into the future without improvements.

It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed for Project 24 will reduce the crash rate to 1.5 from

2.1, but not to an acceptable rate of 1.0.

Table 16: Safety Analysis Summary
Project# Project Name
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Crash/
M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS
Project 7 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Curb
Installation 1.1 F 1.1 F 1.0 ≤ E
Project 14 Old Crow Canyon Rd. Corridor
Improvement 2.4 F 2.4 F 2.1 F
Project 24 Bollinger Canyon Rd. Sidewalk
Improvement 2.1 F 2.1 F 1.5 F
Project 21 will implement safety countermeasures at the highest collision locations in the City that were identified in the City’s most recent Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Table 17 presents the safety analysis summary for these safety improvement projects. As shown in Table 17, five locations have crash rates that exceed the crash rate threshold established for this study for existing conditions, which is considered an existing deficiency at these locations. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed for Project 21 will reduce the crash rate compared to No Project conditions.

Table 17: Safety Analysis Summary – Project 21
Project Segment
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Crash/
M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS
Crow Canyon Rd between Bollinger Canyon
& San Ramon Valley Blvd 1.1 F 1.1 F 0.8 ≤ E
Crow Canyon Rd between San Ramon Valley
Blvd & Camino Ramon 7.1 F 7.1 F 4.9 F

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
19 Table 17: Safety Analysis Summary – Project 21
Project Segment
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Crash/
M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS Crash/M-VMT LOS
Crow Canyon Rd between Camino Ramon &
Dougherty Rd 0.2 ≤ E 0.2 ≤ E 0.1 ≤ E
Bollinger Canyon Rd between San Ramon
Valley Blvd & Camino Ramon 6.3 F 6.3 F 4.4 F
Bollinger Canyon Rd between Camino
Ramon & Dougherty Rd (N) 0.4 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E 0.3 ≤ E
Bollinger Canyon Rd between Dougherty Rd
(N) & E Branch Pkwy 0.6 ≤ E 0.6 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E
Bollinger Canyon Rd between E Branch Pkwy
& South City Limit 0.4 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E 0.2 ≤ E
San Ramon Valley Blvd between North City
Limit & Norris Canyon Rd 1.0 ≤ E 1.0 ≤ E 0.7 ≤ E
San Ramon Valley Blvd between Norris
Canyon Rd & Pine Valley Rd 0.5 ≤ E 0.5 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E
San Ramon Valley Blvd between Pine Valley
Rd & Alcosta Blvd 0.1 ≤ E 0.1 ≤ E 0.1 ≤ E
Camino Ramon between Fostoria Wy &
Bollinger Canyon Rd 0.6 ≤ E 0.6 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E
Montevideo Dr between San Ramon Valley
Blvd & Alcosta Blvd 0.7 ≤ E 0.7 ≤ E 0.5 ≤ E
Alcosta Blvd between San Ramon Valley Blvd
& Old Ranch Rd 2.5 F 2.5 F 1.7 F
Alcosta Blvd between Old Ranch Rd & Crow
Canyon Rd 0.2 ≤ E 0.2 ≤ E 0.1 ≤ E
Broadmoor Dr between Pine Valley Rd &
Montevideo Dr 5.4 F 5.4 F 3.7 F
Norris Canyon Rd between Twin Creeks Dr &
Alcosta Blvd 0.5 ≤ E 0.5 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E
Pine Valley Rd between San Ramon Valley
Blvd & Alcosta Blvd 0.4 ≤ E 0.4 ≤ E 0.3 ≤ E
Pedestrian and Bicycle
The pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing analysis was conducted for Projects 15 and 16. The level of traffic stress (LTS) is summarized in Table 18 and Table 19 for Project 15 and Project 16, respectively.

Project 15 will construct a pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing on the Iron Horse Trail over Crow Canyon Road. The Iron Horse Trail crossing at Crow Canyon Road has a LTS of 4 for existing conditions, which is an existing deficiency. The crossing under No Project conditions will continue to have a LTS of 4 for future conditions. Project 15 will improve the LTS from 4 to 0 for future conditions.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
20 Table 18: Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Level of Traffic Stress Summary
Project
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Crossing Road
Attribute LTS Crossing RoadAttribute LTS Crossing RoadAttribute LTS

15. Crow Canyon Rd / Iron
Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian
Overcrossing
40 mph
Median Refuge
(>6 ft)
6+ Lanes
4 40 mph
Median Refuge
(>6 ft)
6+ Lanes
4 - 0-2
Project 16 will improve and upgrade the City's Bicycle Network as outlined in the City's most recent Bicycle Master Plan. Out of several projects that are recommended as part of the Bicycle Master Plan, nine projects were identified as top tier projects that are going to provide greater benefits by meeting demand and connecting key destinations. Many of these top tier projects have been completed, and therefore, the analysis was conducted for the remaining projects. Table 19 summarizes the LTS evaluated for these projects. It should be noted that Table 19 provides a range of LTS values as many of the project corridors consist of segments with different attributes evaluated for LTS. The top tier project corridors have at least one segment at LTS 4 for existing conditions, which is considered an existing deficiency. These corridors will continue to have an LTS of 4 for future No Project conditions. Implementing Project 16 will improve the LTS to between 0 and 2.

Table 19: Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Level of Traffic Stress Summary Bicycle Master Plan ID
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Segment Attribute LTS Segment Attribute LTS Segment Attribute LTS #1 – Alcosta Boulevard
Varies1
35-40 mph
4 Lanes
Some Parking2
Raised Median
3-4
Varies1
35-40 mph
4 Lanes
Some Parking2
Raised Median
3-4
Separated Bike
Lane/Multi-Use
Path
35-40 mph
4 lanes
0-2
#2 – Bollinger Canyon Road
Varies1
30-50 mph
2-8 Lanes
Some Parking2
Various Median3
2-4
Varies1
30-50 mph
2-8 Lanes
Some Parking2
Various Median3
2-4
Separated Bike
Lane/Multi-Use
Path
30-50 mph
2-8 lanes
0-2
#6 – Dougherty Road
Bike Lanes, 5-7 ft
50 mph
6 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
4 Bike Lanes, 5-7 ft
50 mph
6 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
4 Separated/Buffered
Bike Lane
50 mph
6 lanes
2 #14 – Old Ranch Road
Mixed Traffic
35 mph
4 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
4 Mixed Traffic
35 mph
4 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
4 Multi-Use Path 0

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
21 Table 19: Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Level of Traffic Stress Summary Bicycle Master Plan ID
Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Project
Segment Attribute LTS Segment Attribute LTS Segment Attribute LTS #15 – San Ramon Valley
Boulevard
Varies1
35-45 mph
4-6 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
2-4
Varies1
35-45 mph
4-6 Lanes
No Parking
Raised Median
2-4
Separated Bike Lane
35-45 mph
4-6 lanes
1-2
Note:
1 Corridor includes segments with mixed traffic, bicycle lanes, and/or buffered bicycle lanes 2 Corridor includes segments with on-street parking and no parking 3 Corridor includes segments with various median types (i.e. raised median, two-way left-turn lanes, undivided) Housing Analysis
As mentioned previously, AB 602 requires that studies either calculate a fee levied or imposed on housing development projects proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees. Simply, development impact fees must be stratified by the size of the housing unit or provide findings that support not stratifying the fees. In order to guide future analysis requirements and help inform the City of San Ramon as to how AB 602 may impact the SRTIF program in regards to the housing fee stratification requirement, an analysis was conducted to evaluate housing fees by housing size.

The analysis relied on cross-tabulation of the following three data sources:
· The average number vehicle trips generated by household size (i.e., number of persons in the household) derived from a Big Data platform (Replica) for a typical weekday (Thursday) in the Fall of 2019
· The number of single-family housing units in categories of persons per household and square footage of units estimated from the 2019 US Census’ American Housing Survey (AHS) · Building permits by square footage for single family units constructed within the City of San Ramon and the surrounding areas between 2019 and 2021
The trip generation information was combined with the number of single-family detached units in crosstabulated categories of persons per household and total household square footage. This resulted in estimates of vehicle trip rates and equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for each square footage category established as a part of this analysis. This data was combined with the square footage data for single-family housing units built in the City and the surrounding between 2019 and 2021. The housing size data was provided by agencies in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. The resultant dataset was used as the basis for evaluating whether future Nexus Study updates should consider square footage in the development of the fee schedule. The major analysis processes are discussed in detail in the following sections.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
22 Replica Big Data
Replica is a big data platform that provides demographic and travel data based on multiple data collection sources such as mobile location data, merchant transaction data, census data, land use data, and observed “ground-truth” mobility data. Data from Replica’s Fall 2019 typical Thursday dataset for the Contra Costa County and Alameda County was used to estimate the number of vehicle trips by persons per household.

Table 20 summarizes the trip generation rates for each household category.

Table 20: City of San Ramon Trip Generation Data – Replica 2019 Persons per Household Households Trips
PM Peak Period
Home-Based Vehicle Trips
1 4,510 2,759 0.61
2 6,560 8,267 1.26
3 5,152 7,435 1.44
4 6,641 10,038 1.51
5 1,836 3,299 1.80
6 604 1,427 2.36
7+ 315 919 2.92
Total 25,618 34,144
Average 1.33
Source: Replica Fall 2019 Thursday Dataset.

American Housing Survey
The American Housing Survey (AHS), which is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), collects data on the nation's housing, including data on household characteristics and demographics.

The AHS data is collected in odd numbered years only. The most recent available survey data from 2019 was used, which is consistent with the trip data collected from Replica. The AHS was designed to include two samples, the National sample, and the independent Metropolitan sample. The metropolitan areas that are surveyed and the size of the surveys have been reduced over recent years. While these measures have reduced costs, they also limit the localized data available.

As the AB 602 analysis requires trip generation to be defined by square footage, housing units were cross tabulated by three variables: structure type, square footage, and total persons in the household. This crosstabulation requires an adequate sample size for each category. The closest available metropolitan area for the City of San Ramon region was the City of San Jose. However, the San Jose metropolitan area sample size limits its ability to provide information for all square-footage categories and may not be representative of housing in the City of San Ramon. In addition, the tools available from the Census Bureau to create crosstabulations from the AHS for the purposes of this analysis indicate that the only sample that can provide a statistically relevant sample for the three required variables is the full national sample. Thus, it was decided that the national sample from the 2019 AHS should be used to define the number of single-family housing

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
23 units by persons per household and by the square footage of the housing unit. This data is summarized in Table 21.

Table 21: No. of Single-Family Unit Detached Structures by AHS Square Foot Category Persons per
Household
Total
Units
<500
s.f.
500 to
749 s.f.
750 to
999 s.f.
1,000 to
1,499
s.f.
1,500 to
1,999
s.f.
2,000 to
2,499
s.f.
2,500 to
2,999
s.f.
3,000 to
3,999
s.f.
>4,000
s.f.

Size
Unknown
1 16,263 153 372 1,483 4,643 3,800 2,184 929 755 366 1,581 2 28,900 88 270 1,260 6,215 7,234 5,211 3,008 2,636 1,316 1,663 3 13,019 0 102 711 2,744 3,238 2,383 1,270 1,264 523 742 4 12,145 0 93 381 2,111 2,702 2,368 1,519 1,533 819 588 5 5,579 0 29 184 948 1,291 1,066 606 731 342 377
6 2,184 19 0 67 443 417 342 218 346 179 136
7+ 1,245 0 0 40 241 257 195 148 134 98 115
Average per
Household 2.66 1.70 2.00 2.24 2.47 2.62 2.76 2.88 3.06 3.11 2.50 Trip Generation by Categories of Square Footage
The number of trips by household size and persons per household, as well as the estimation of the average trip generation rate for each of the AHS square footage categories, are summarized in Table 22. The trip generation rates were estimated using the following steps:
· Multiply the trip generation rate for a category of “persons per household” estimated from Replica’s trip generation data (see Table 21) by the number of single-family units in each AHS square footage category for that same number of persons per household
· Sum the number of trips generated by all households in an AHS square footage category and divide by the total number of households in that square footage category.

The differences in trip rates for each household categories shown in Table 22, along with data on recent housing square footages built in the City’s surrounding region, were used to establish the EDU for each AHS square footage category.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
24 Table 22: Peak Vehicle Trips for All Households in Each AHS Square Foot Category Persons per
Household
Total
Trips
<500
s.f.
500 to
749 s.f.
750 to
999 s.f.
1,000 to
1,499
s.f.
1,500 to
1,999
s.f.
2,000 to
2,499
s.f.
2,500 to
2,999
s.f.
3,000 to
3,999
s.f.
>4,000
s.f.

Size
Unknown
1 9,949 94 228 907 2,840 2,325 1,336 568 462 224 967
2 36,420 111 340 1,588 7,832 9,116 6,567 3,791 3,322 1,658 2,096 3 18,788 0 147 1,026 3,960 4,673 3,439 1,833 1,824 755 1,071 4 18,357 0 141 576 3,191 4,084 3,579 2,296 2,317 1,238 889 5 10,025 0 52 331 1,703 2,320 1,915 1,089 1,313 615 677 6 5,160 45 0 158 1,047 985 808 515 817 423 321
7+ 3,632 0 0 117 703 750 569 432 391 286 336
Average per
Household 1.29 0.96 1.05 1.140 1.23 1.28 1.32 1.37 1.41 1.43 1.22 Recent Housing Built in Surrounding Region
Table 23 groups available data for 719 “non-age-restricted” single-family dwelling units built in the surrounding region between 2019 and 2021 by their square footage. The data indicates that the average size of the single-family dwelling units built in that three-year period was 3,131 square feet. Note that this data includes dwelling units constructed in the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, and some unincorporated areas of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Based on the analysis completed, an EDU of 1.0 was established for the “middle grouping” of single-family units between 2,500 and 2,999 square feet in size (the group in which the cumulative percentage reaches 50-percent). Setting the 1.0 EDU at this group means that housing units smaller than 2,500 square-feet were given an EDU less than 1.0 and dwelling units that are larger than 2,999 square-feet were given an EDU greater than 1.0.

Table 23: Single-Family Units Built in San Ramon’s Surrounding Region
Square Feet Units Percent
Less than 500 SF 15 2%
500 - 749 SF 18 3%
750 - 999 SF 7 1%
1,000 – 1,499 SF 6 1%
1,500 – 1,999 SF 6 1%
2,000 – 2,499 SF 161 22%
2,500 – 2,999 SF 142 20%
3,000 – 3,999 SF 179 25%
More than 4,000 SF 185 26%
Total 719 100%
Average Square Footage of Single-Family Units 3,131 SF
Note: Data collected between 2019 and 2021

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
25 Analysis Results
Table 24 summarizes the estimated EDUs for the seven recommended single-family dwelling units grouped by their square footage. Note that Table 24 contains fewer groups than Table 23 as the trip generation for dwelling units smaller than 1000 square-feet have similar trip generation characteristics resulting in the same EDU value.

The EDU values summarized in Table 24 were calculated by dividing the average number of trips per household for each group by the average trips per household for the middle (2,500 to 2,999 square feet) group. Table 24 also summarizes the calculated weighted average EDU for each of the AHS square footage categories, which is estimated by multiplying the EDU for each category by the percentage of households in that category (from the 2019 – 2021 available housing data). This calculation shows that the weighted average EDU for “non-age restricted” single-family dwelling units is 1.002, which is very close to the EDU of

1.0 that is used in estimating the average EDU set for the middle group of dwelling unit sizes (2,500 – 2,999 square-feet). Based on the analysis completed, there is evidence that trips in the PM Peak Period are correlated to the square footage of existing residences within the surrounding region of City of San Ramon and a stratified fee structure based on square footage was established as part of the AB 602 compliant Nexus Fee Study.

Table 24: Estimated EDUs for Single-Family Units by Square Foot Groupings Recommended Square
Footage Categories
Average Trip
per Household EDU1 Weighted Average EDU
Less than 1,000 SF 1.14 0.83 0.046
1,000 – 1,499 SF 1.23 0.90 0.007
1,500 – 1,999 SF 1.28 0.94 0.008
2,000 – 2,499 SF 1.32 0.97 0.217
2,500 – 2,999 SF 1.37 1.00 0.197
3,000 – 3,999 SF 1.41 1.03 0.257
More than 4,000 SF 1.43 1.04 0.269
Weighted Average of All Groups 1.002
1 Equals avg. trips per household for each grouping divided by the avg. trips per household for the middle group (1.37).

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
26 5. Nexus Allocation and Fee
Calculations
The nexus analysis process involves determining the relationship between the new development in the area subject to the fee and the cost of the improvements to be constructed. This process determines what proportion of the cost of each project would be funded by the fee program. The final result is a set of calculations for the maximum level of fee that could be applied to new development in the City of San Ramon.

Allocation to Users
The purpose of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program is to provide funding for improvements to the extent necessitated by future development. To provide a quantitative estimate of future usage, the proportion of project costs attributable to new local development was evaluated using the CCTA countywide travel demand model and the citywide growth projections.

The travel model that is currently available to conduct this analysis is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority travel demand model (CCTA model). Using the CCTA model, two scenarios were run: a “baseline” year and a “future” year. For both scenarios, the Tri-Valley Transportation Fee (TVTF) land use updates were incorporated into the model, as well as the network updates coming from the SRTIF project list. For each link associated with a SRTIF project, the traffic volume was captured. It is important to run these two scenarios as the fee will be charged only to new development and is based on an evaluation of that new development’s effects on the SRTIF projects. Simply, the growth in trips attributed to new development between the baseline and future year is what will dictate the maximum fee that can be charged in the updated SRTIF.

Since the SRTIF is a local fee program, it is also important to identify the proportion of traffic on each facility that is local in nature. Local trips are those trips that start and/or end in the City of San Ramon (i.e., trips that travel within the City, or that have one end inside the City and one end outside the City). Pass-through or non-local trips are excluded from the SRTIF calculations.

The results of the local trip analysis and the SRTIF project costs are summarized in Table 25. The table lists each of the TIF projects and shows the percentage of the new local traffic on the facility (i.e., the traffic resulting from new growth in San Ramon) that meets the definition of local trips, as described above. The percentage of new local traffic on each facility is then used as the percentage of that facility’s improvement cost that will be considered eligible for inclusion in the SRTIF program.

It should be noted that some projects on the SRTIF list are not specific to an individual location but are more citywide in nature. This includes Projects 11, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 23. These types of projects cannot be reflected in the CCTA model, so the modeling procedure described above is not applicable to those projects.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
27 Instead, because of the citywide nature of these projects, the proportion of project cost considered eligible for inclusion in the SRTIF program was determined based on the roadway congestion in the future year that is attributable to the projected growth within the City of San Ramon. The roadway congestion due to projected growth was determined based on the increase in congested lane miles between the base year and future year model runs for the trips that start and/or end in the City (internal trips). The ratio of Citywide growth-related congested lane miles to the total congested lane miles for the future year model run was used as the proportion of project cost eligible for inclusion in the SRTIF program for the citywide projects.

The proportion was calculated to be 30.5-percent as shown in Table 25 below.

The intent of this analysis is solely for the purposes of the SRTIF process. The primary result is the percentage of new trips projected to use each facility that are local. It is not intended for these results to be used to determine the appropriate size or configuration for any particular facility, or to directly support any projectspecific planning activities.

Table 25: Project Costs Eligible for TIF
Number Project Total Cost Estimate
(2023 $) % of New Local Trips Cost Eligible forSRTIF
1 Camino Ramon Shopping Center
Intersection Improvements $568,700 23.7% $135,000
2 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Crow Canyon
Rd. Intersection $763,500 96.8% $738,900
3 Fostoria Way Widening $3,685,500 88.6% $3,265,600
4 Bollinger Canyon Rd. / Norris
Canyon Rd. Traffic Signal $578,400 75.1% $434,400
5 Crow Canyon Rd. / Service Center
Traffic Signal $557,100 100.0% $557,100
6 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Westside
Dr. (N) Traffic Signal $476,000 64.2% $305,500
7 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Curb
Installation $340,000 40.2% $136,800
8 San Ramon Valley Blvd. / Hooper
Dr. Traffic Signal $608,700 51.0% $310,300
9 Camino Ramon Office Park
Intersection Improvements $625,500 23.7% $148,500
10 Crow Canyon Rd. / Shoreline Dr.

Intersection $250,200 100.0% $250,200
11 Pedestrian Enhancements $0 30.5% $0
12 Montevideo Dr. / Broadmoor Dr.

Traffic Signal $518,100 23.2% $120,300
13 Pine Valley Road / Broadmoor Drive
Traffic Signal $658,200 7.4% $48,800

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
28 14 Old Crow Canyon Rd. Corridor
Improvement $6,739,200 100.0% $6,739,200
15 Crow Canyon Rd. / Iron Horse Trail
Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing $20,700,000 30.5% $6,317,600 16 Citywide Bicycle Network
Improvements & Enhancements $50,443,500 30.5% $15,395,400 17 Radar Speed Display Sign $52,650 30.5% $16,100
18 Citywide Intelligent Transportation
System Upgrade $41,852,900 30.5% $12,773,500
19 Bike Master Plan Update $176,000 100.0% $176,000
20 ITS Master Plan Update $110,000 100.0% $110,000
21 Local Roadway Safety Plan Projects $2,086,900 30.5% $636,900 22 Future Nexus Study Update $80,000 100.0% $80,000
23 Smart Signals Project $248,175 100%* $248,200
24 Bollinger Canyon Rd. Sidewalk
Improvement $891,955 18.6% $165,600
Total $133,011,180 36.9% $49,109,900
Sources: City of San Ramon CIP, 2023; Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CCTA Model; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Additional Kimley-Horn model analysis, 2023.
* Total cost for Smart Signals project for the signals within the City is 2,163,683. The proportion of Citywide project eligible for inclusion in SRTIF program is 30.5% which is higher than the required 11.47% local match for the available funding for this project.

Therefore, 100% of the project cost is considered eligible for in SRTIF program.

Fee Calculations
The SRTIF fee is calculated based on the total costs eligible for inclusion in the TIF program divided by the projected amount of new Adjusted PM Peak Trips anticipated to occur between 2023 and 2040. Table 26 summarizes the result of the calculations described previously, resulting in a fee calculation of $4,634 per PM Peak-hour trip. Table 27 applies this value across all land use categories. As mentioned earlier, a stratified fee structure based on square footage for single family residential units was established as part of the AB 602 compliant Nexus Fee Study.

Table 26: Calculation of Fee per Adjusted PM Peak Trip
Calculation Value
Cost Eligible for TIF $49,109,900
Growth in Adjusted PM Peak Trips 10,599
Fee per Trip $4,634
Source: Fehr & Peers, Nexus Study 2021 and Kimley-Horn, Nexus Study 2023.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
29 Table 27: Fee per Land Use Category
Land Use Category Unit Fee per
Trip
Adjusted PM Peak
Trip Demand Factor
Raw Fee
per Unit
Administrative
Charge (2%)
Total Fee
per Unit
Residential
Single Family < 1,000 SF DU $3,846 0.88 $3,370 $67 $3,438 Single Family 1,000-1,499 SF DU $4,170 0.88 $3,655 $73 $3,728 Single Family 1,500-1,999 SF DU $4,355 0.88 $3,817 $76 $3,893 Single Family 2,000-2,499 SF DU $4,494 0.88 $3,939 $79 $4,018 Single Family 2,500-2,999 SF DU $4,634 0.88 $4,061 $81 $4,142 Single Family 3,000-3,999 SF DU $4,773 0.88 $4,183 $84 $4,266 Single Family >4,000 SF DU $4,819 0.88 $4,223 $84 $4,308 Multi-family DU $4,634 0.48 $2,203 $44 $2,247
Other PM Peak
Hour Trip $4,634 1.00 $4,634 $93 $4,726
Nonresidential
Retail KSF $4,634 1.72 $7,973 $159 $8,132
Office KSF $4,634 2.16 $10,005 $200 $10,205
Service Commercial1 KSF $4,634 - $4,652 $93 $4,745
Other PM Peak
Hour Trip $4,634 1.00 $4,634 $93 $4,726
1The Service Commercial Raw Fee per Unit was calculated to maintain the same relationship between the Office fee and the Service Commercial fee that is contained in the City’s current fee schedule.

Source: Fehr & Peers, Nexus Study 2021 and Kimley-Horn, Nexus Study 2023. Fee per Single Family DUs developed based AB 602 Housing Analysis.

It should be emphasized that the values presented in this nexus report are the maximum fee levels that could be set based on the data and assumptions presented here. The City Council may elect to set fee amounts that are lower than the maximum levels.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
30 6. Summary of Required Program
Elements
This report has provided a detailed discussion of the elements of the San Ramon Transportation Impact Fee program and explained the analytical techniques used to develop this nexus study. The report addresses the fee program elements required by Government Code 66000-66025, as summarized below.

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee
The San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee (SRTIF) program is established for the purpose of supporting public infrastructure improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of new development in San Ramon.

2. Identifying how the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee The fee is used to help fund capital improvement projects that will accommodate future transportation needs throughout the City of San Ramon. Table 2 identifies the projects to be funded through the fee.

3. Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
As described in this report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics.

The calculations presented in Table 5 account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types. These considerations account for the difference in impacts on the local transportation system generated by different land use types.

4. Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
The need for the facilities listed in Table 2 has been established through local planning processes prepared by the City of San Ramon and building upon the adopted nexus study from the 2016 TIF Update.

5. Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable to new development Section 4 of this report describes the calculations completed to determine the cost of the public facility that is attributable to new development in the SRTIF area. A reasonable effort has been made to quantitatively establish the relationship between the fees charged in the SRTIF program and the costs of public improvements attributable to new development within the City of San Ramon.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
31 Appendices
Appendix A: Traffic Impact Fees in San Ramon and Nearby Jurisdictions
As part of the process to update the City of San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee (SRTIF) program, staff requested a summary of transportation impact fees collected by other jurisdictions in the general vicinity of the City.

The following table presents the data collected and compares it to the existing and proposed SRTIF amounts. Information on fees in other jurisdictions was gathered from the current fee schedules available on each jurisdiction’s website. Jurisdictions impose development impact fees for a wide range of purposes; the fees shown here are those charged specifically for transportation purposes. As shown in the table below, the current and proposed SRTIF fees are lower than the average of nearby jurisdictions for all land uses except Office.

Municipality / Authority Single-Family
(Per Unit)
Multifamily
(Per Unit)
Retail (Per
KSF)
Office (Per
KSF)
San Ramon (Current) $2,918 $1,809 $6,090 $7,070
San Ramon (Proposed) $4,142* $2,247 $8,132 $10,205
Average of Nearby Jurisdictions $9,510 $6,255 $12,462 $12,134 Brentwood $14,567 $9,031 $5,428 $6,511
Concord $3,251 $2,624 $8,810 $7,040
Dublin (West Dublin) $7,681 $3,994 $7,681 $7,681
Oakley $14,587 $8,898 $2,567 $8,893
Livermore (Downtown) N/A $4,913 $14,595 N/A
Livermore (All other areas) $11,869 $8,002 $32,235 $20,636 Martinez $2,221 $1,528 $2,230 $1,810
Pleasant Hill $3,879 $3,110 $10,030 $8,527
Pleasanton $11,392 $7,005 $26,130 $17,780
Alamo (Unincorporated Contra Costa
County) $16,142 $13,446 $14,910 $14,910
Regional Fees
Contra Costa Sub-Regional Fees $5,178 $5,178 $5,000 $7,970 Southern Contra Costa Regional Fees $1,853 $1,853 $1,810 $2,910 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees $6,946 $4,095 $5,920 $9,280 Note: N/A - Not Applicable or Not Available, KSF = 1,000 Square Feet. * Fee reported for the middle group of dwelling unit sizes.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Final Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
October 2023
32 Appendix B: Level of Service Analysis Outputs

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Intersection LOS Outputs: Existing Conditions

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Existing
1: Camino Ramon & Shopping Plaza 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 9.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 0 97 7 2 43 159 542 2 13 529 45
Future Vol, veh/h 56 0 97 7 2 43 159 542 2 13 529 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 238 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 62 0 108 8 2 48 177 602 2 14 588 50
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1297 1599 319 1279 1623 302 638 0 0 604 0 0 Stage 1 641 641 - 957 957 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 656 958 - 322 666 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 105 677 123 102 694 942 - - 970 - - Stage 1 430 468 - 277 334 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 421 334 - 664 456 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 92 84 677 88 82 694 942 - - 970 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 92 84 - 88 82 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 349 461 - 225 271 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 316 271 - 550 450 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 75.7 19.1 2.2 0.2

HCM LOS F C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 942 - - 203 313 970 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.188 - - 0.837 0.185 0.015 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - - 75.7 19.1 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 6.2 0.7 0 - -

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Existing 2: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Crow Canyon Rd 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 23 678 58 79 966 25 59 39 63 24 26 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 23 678 58 79 966 25 59 39 63 24 26 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 798 68 93 1136 29 69 46 74 28 31 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 49 1833 818 161 2057 917 89 258 219 40 115 78 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1039 704 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 798 68 93 1136 29 69 46 74 28 0 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1744 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 12.6 2.0 4.5 17.8 0.7 3.4 2.0 3.8 1.4 0.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 12.6 2.0 4.5 17.8 0.7 3.4 2.0 3.8 1.4 0.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 1833 818 161 2057 917 89 258 219 40 0 192 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.44 0.08 0.58 0.55 0.03 0.77 0.18 0.34 0.70 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 1833 818 178 2057 917 218 520 440 218 0 484 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.2 13.6 11.0 39.3 11.7 8.1 42.2 34.3 35.1 43.7 0.0 36.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.6 0.8 0.2 3.8 1.1 0.1 13.0 0.3 0.9 20.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 4.6 0.7 2.1 6.1 0.2 1.8 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.8 14.4 11.2 43.1 12.8 8.2 55.3 34.6 36.0 63.7 0.0 37.5 LnGrp LOS D B B D B A E C D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 893 1258 189 80
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.3 14.9 42.7 46.7
Approach LOS B B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 53.4 6.0 17.4 7.5 59.1 8.5 14.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 14.6 3.4 5.8 3.3 19.8 5.4 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 0.1 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Existing
4: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Norris Canyon Rd 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh16.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 105 295 67 92 35 113 138 55 33 203 9 Future Vol, veh/h 9 105 295 67 92 35 113 138 55 33 203 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 117 328 74 102 39 126 153 61 37 226 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 3 3
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 18.5 18.4 13.7 14.1

HCM LOS C C B B

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 8% 0% 35% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 46% 92% 0% 47% 0% 100% 88%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 54% 0% 100% 18% 0% 0% 12%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 113 92 101 114 295 194 33 135 77
LT Vol 113 0 0 9 0 67 33 0 0
Through Vol 0 92 46 105 0 92 0 135 68
RT Vol 0 0 55 0 295 35 0 0 9
Lane Flow Rate 126 102 112 127 328 216 37 150 85
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X) 0.297 0.227 0.237 0.268 0.626 0.485 0.089 0.342 0.191 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.518 8 7.606 7.629 6.88 8.1 8.696 8.178 8.092 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 421 447 470 469 521 444 410 438 441
Service Time 6.303 5.785 5.391 5.404 4.654 5.885 6.483 5.965 5.879 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.299 0.228 0.238 0.271 0.63 0.486 0.09 0.342 0.193 HCM Control Delay 14.9 13.1 12.8 13.2 20.6 18.4 12.3 15.2 12.8 HCM Lane LOS B B B B C C B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 4.3 2.6 0.3 1.5 0.7

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Existing
5: Service Center & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 836 9 12 604 1 6 0 13 4 0 4
Future Vol, veh/h 4 836 9 12 604 1 6 0 13 4 0 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 211 - - 193 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 889 10 13 643 1 6 0 14 4 0 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 644 0 0 899 0 0 1250 1572 450 1123 1577 322 Stage 1 - - - - - - 902 902 - 670 670 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 348 670 - 453 907 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 937 - - 751 - - 129 109 556 160 109 674 Stage 1 - - - - - - 299 355 - 413 454 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 641 454 - 556 353 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 937 - - 751 - - 126 107 556 153 107 674 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 126 107 - 153 107 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 298 354 - 411 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 626 446 - 540 352 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 19.5 20

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 268 937 - - 751 - - 249
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 0.005 - - 0.017 - - 0.034
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 8.9 - - 9.9 - - 20
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.1

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Existing
6: San Ramon Valley & WestSide Dr 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 24 20 445 504 50
Future Vol, veh/h 37 24 20 445 504 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 125 130 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 41 26 22 489 554 55
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 871 305 609 0 - 0
Stage 1 582 - - - - -
Stage 2 289 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 290 691 966 - - -
Stage 1 522 - - - - -
Stage 2 735 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 283 691 966 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 283 - - - - -
Stage 1 510 - - - - -
Stage 2 735 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.1 0.4 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 966 - 283 691 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.144 0.038 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 19.8 10.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 0.1 - -

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Existing
8: San Ramon Valley Blvd. & Hooper Dr. 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 0 46 5 2 4 31 652 0 0 422 29
Future Vol, veh/h 19 0 46 5 2 4 31 652 0 0 422 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 55 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 0 49 5 2 4 33 701 0 0 454 31
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 888 1237 243 994 1252 351 485 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 470 470 - 767 767 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 418 767 - 227 485 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 175 758 199 171 645 1074 - - 0 - - Stage 1 543 558 - 361 410 - - - - 0 - -
Stage 2 583 410 - 755 550 - - - - 0 - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 228 170 758 182 166 645 1074 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 228 170 - 182 166 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 526 558 - 350 397 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 558 397 - 706 550 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 20.7 0.4 0

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1074 - - 451 241 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - - 0.155 0.049 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 14.4 20.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.5 0.2 - -

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Existing
9: Camino Ramon & Office Park Dr 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 66 0 101 0 0 1 77 667 0 1 535 71
Future Vol, veh/h 66 0 101 0 0 1 77 667 0 1 535 71
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 102 - - 79 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 77 0 117 0 0 1 90 776 0 1 622 83
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1234 1622 353 1269 1663 388 705 0 0 776 0 0 Stage 1 666 666 - 956 956 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 568 956 - 313 707 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 102 643 125 96 611 889 - - 836 - - Stage 1 415 456 - 277 335 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 475 335 - 672 436 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 122 92 643 94 86 611 889 - - 836 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 122 92 - 94 86 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 373 456 - 249 301 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 426 301 - 549 436 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 63.2 10.9 1 0

HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 889 - - 239 611 836 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 - - 0.812 0.002 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 63.2 10.9 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 6.2 0 0 - -

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Existing 10: Shoreline Dr. & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 817 127 23 598 74 36
Future Volume (veh/h) 817 127 23 598 74 36
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 860 134 24 629 78 38
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2290 357 46 2911 144 128
Arrive On Green 0.74 0.74 0.03 0.82 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 3174 480 1781 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 496 498 24 629 78 38
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1784 1781 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 8.0 1.1 3.1 3.4 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 8.0 1.1 3.1 3.4 1.8
Prop In Lane 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1321 1326 46 2911 144 128
V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.38 0.52 0.22 0.54 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1321 1326 245 2911 679 604
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.7 3.7 38.5 1.6 35.3 34.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.8 8.8 0.2 3.1 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.2 1.6 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.5 4.5 47.3 1.8 38.5 35.9
LnGrp LOS A A D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 994 653 116
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.4 37.6
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 63.5 69.5 10.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 27.0 31.0 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 10.0 5.1 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 4.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.3
HCM 6th LOS A

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Existing
12: Broadmoor Dr. & Montevideo Dr. 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 162 39 103 147 31 69 7 83 24 10 26 Future Vol, veh/h 38 162 39 103 147 31 69 7 83 24 10 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 43 184 44 117 167 35 78 8 94 27 11 30
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.1 12 10.3 9.3

HCM LOS B B B A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 43% 16% 37% 40%
Vol Thru, % 4% 68% 52% 17%
Vol Right, % 52% 16% 11% 43%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 159 239 281 60
LT Vol 69 38 103 24
Through Vol 7 162 147 10
RT Vol 83 39 31 26
Lane Flow Rate 181 272 319 68
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.267 0.379 0.446 0.105
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.311 5.023 5.029 5.569
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 676 720 718 642
Service Time 3.347 3.033 3.039 3.613
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 0.378 0.444 0.106
HCM Control Delay 10.3 11.1 12 9.3
HCM Lane LOS B B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 1.8 2.3 0.4

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Existing
13: Broadmoor Dr. & Pine Valley Rd. 03/07/2023
Scenario Existing San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Existing (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 10
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh12.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 117 60 61 151 39 34 68 41 38 39 28 Future Vol, veh/h 31 117 60 61 151 39 34 68 41 38 39 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 43 163 83 85 210 54 47 94 57 53 54 39
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 12.5 14.2 11.6 10.9

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 24% 15% 24% 36%
Vol Thru, % 48% 56% 60% 37%
Vol Right, % 29% 29% 16% 27%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 143 208 251 105
LT Vol 34 31 61 38
Through Vol 68 117 151 39
RT Vol 41 60 39 28
Lane Flow Rate 199 289 349 146
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.32 0.431 0.52 0.241
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.803 5.374 5.374 5.951
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 616 667 669 599
Service Time 3.869 3.434 3.432 4.023
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.323 0.433 0.522 0.244
HCM Control Delay 11.6 12.5 14.2 10.9
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 2.2 3 0.9

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Intersection LOS Outputs: Future Without Project Conditions

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future No Project
1: Camino Ramon & Shopping Plaza 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 102.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 0 153 8 2 43 189 681 2 13 801 58
Future Vol, veh/h 80 0 153 8 2 43 189 681 2 13 801 58
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 238 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 0 170 9 2 48 210 757 2 14 890 64
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1750 2129 477 1651 2160 380 954 0 0 759 0 0 Stage 1 950 950 - 1178 1178 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 800 1179 - 473 982 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 55 49 534 65 47 618 716 - - 848 - - Stage 1 280 337 - 203 263 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 345 262 - 541 325 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 37 34 534 34 33 618 716 - - 848 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 37 34 - 34 33 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 198 331 - 144 186 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 222 185 - 363 319 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 875.1 45.8 2.6 0.1

HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 716 - - 95 145 848 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.293 - - 2.725 0.406 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 - -$ 875.1 45.8 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 24.5 1.8 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future No Project 2: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Crow Canyon Rd 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 678 58 82 1006 52 81 106 83 31 35 24 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 678 58 82 1006 52 81 106 83 31 35 24 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 798 68 96 1184 61 95 125 98 36 41 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 74 1763 787 162 1939 865 122 286 243 47 115 79 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1036 707 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 798 68 96 1184 61 95 125 98 36 0 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1743 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 13.1 2.0 4.7 20.4 1.6 4.7 5.5 5.0 1.8 0.0 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 13.1 2.0 4.7 20.4 1.6 4.7 5.5 5.0 1.8 0.0 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 1763 787 162 1939 865 122 286 243 47 0 194 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.45 0.09 0.59 0.61 0.07 0.78 0.44 0.40 0.77 0.00 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 1763 787 178 1939 865 218 520 440 218 0 484 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 14.7 11.9 39.3 13.9 9.7 41.3 34.6 34.4 43.5 0.0 37.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.7 0.8 0.2 4.4 1.4 0.2 10.2 1.0 1.1 22.4 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 4.8 0.7 2.1 7.3 0.6 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.1 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 15.6 12.1 43.7 15.4 9.8 51.5 35.6 35.5 65.9 0.0 38.1 LnGrp LOS E B B D B A D D D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 921 1341 318 105
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 17.1 40.3 47.7
Approach LOS B B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 51.7 6.4 18.8 8.7 56.1 10.2 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 15.1 3.8 7.5 4.7 22.4 6.7 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Future No Project
4: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Norris Canyon Rd 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 3
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh26.5
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 112 324 92 113 47 158 211 84 34 217 9 Future Vol, veh/h 10 112 324 92 113 47 158 211 84 34 217 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 124 360 102 126 52 176 234 93 38 241 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 2 3 3
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 3 3 2 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 3 3 1 2
HCM Control Delay 33.9 35.2 19.1 18.1

HCM LOS D E C C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 NBLn3 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 8% 0% 37% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 46% 92% 0% 45% 0% 100% 89%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 54% 0% 100% 19% 0% 0% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 158 141 154 122 324 252 34 145 81
LT Vol 158 0 0 10 0 92 34 0 0
Through Vol 0 141 70 112 0 113 0 145 72
RT Vol 0 0 84 0 324 47 0 0 9
Lane Flow Rate 176 156 171 136 360 280 38 161 90
Geometry Grp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Degree of Util (X) 0.477 0.402 0.422 0.34 0.828 0.742 0.109 0.442 0.246 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.785 9.26 8.86 9.167 8.406 9.537 10.416 9.889 9.807 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 370 391 408 394 432 381 345 365 367
Service Time 7.501 6.976 6.576 6.867 6.106 7.254 8.151 7.623 7.542 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.476 0.399 0.419 0.345 0.833 0.735 0.11 0.441 0.245 HCM Control Delay 21.1 18.1 17.9 16.5 40.4 35.2 14.4 20.3 15.7 HCM Lane LOS C C C C E E B C C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 1.9 2 1.5 7.8 5.8 0.4 2.2 1

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future No Project
5: Service Center & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1176 10 12 657 1 6 0 13 5 0 4
Future Vol, veh/h 5 1176 10 12 657 1 6 0 13 5 0 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 211 - - 193 - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 1251 11 13 699 1 6 0 14 5 0 4
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 700 0 0 1262 0 0 1643 1993 631 1362 1998 350 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1267 1267 - 726 726 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 376 726 - 636 1272 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 893 - - 547 - - 66 60 424 107 59 646 Stage 1 - - - - - - 179 238 - 382 428 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 428 - 433 237 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 893 - - 547 - - 64 58 424 101 57 646 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 64 58 - 101 57 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 178 237 - 380 418 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 598 418 - 417 236 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 32.1 28.6

HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 153 893 - - 547 - - 162
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.132 0.006 - - 0.023 - - 0.059
HCM Control Delay (s) 32.1 9.1 - - 11.7 - - 28.6
HCM Lane LOS D A - - B - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.2

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future No Project
6: San Ramon Valley & WestSide Dr 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 9.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 31 20 1029 1429 59
Future Vol, veh/h 47 31 20 1029 1429 59
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 125 130 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 52 34 22 1131 1570 65
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2213 818 1635 0 - 0
Stage 1 1603 - - - - -
Stage 2 610 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 37 319 393 - - -
Stage 1 150 - - - - -
Stage 2 505 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 35 319 393 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 35 - - - - -
Stage 1 142 - - - - -
Stage 2 505 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 306.7 0.3 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 393 - 35 319 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.056 - 1.476 0.107 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.7 -$ 497.3 17.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 5.6 0.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future No Project
8: San Ramon Valley Blvd. & Hooper Dr. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 46 0 102 5 0 4 69 719 0 0 719 108
Future Vol, veh/h 46 0 102 5 0 4 69 719 0 0 719 108
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 55 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 49 0 110 5 0 4 74 773 0 0 773 116
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1366 1752 445 1308 1810 387 889 0 0 - - 0 Stage 1 831 831 - 921 921 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 535 921 - 387 889 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 106 85 561 117 78 611 758 - - 0 - -
Stage 1 330 383 - 291 347 - - - - 0 - -
Stage 2 497 347 - 608 360 - - - - 0 - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 97 77 561 87 70 611 758 - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 97 77 - 87 70 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 298 383 - 262 313 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 445 313 - 489 360 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 51.7 32.4 0.9 0

HCM LOS F D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 758 - - 226 141 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.098 - - 0.704 0.069 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 51.7 32.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 4.6 0.2 - -

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future No Project
9: Camino Ramon & Office Park Dr 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 36.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 66 0 104 0 0 1 77 841 0 1 860 77
Future Vol, veh/h 66 0 104 0 0 1 77 841 0 1 860 77
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 102 - - 79 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 77 0 121 0 0 1 90 978 0 1 1000 90
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1716 2205 545 1660 2250 489 1090 0 0 978 0 0 Stage 1 1047 1047 - 1158 1158 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 669 1158 - 502 1092 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 58 44 482 64 41 525 636 - - 701 - - Stage 1 244 303 - 208 269 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 413 269 - 520 289 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 52 38 482 43 35 525 636 - - 701 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 52 38 - 43 35 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 209 303 - 178 231 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 354 231 - 389 289 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 429.6 11.9 1 0

HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 636 - - 114 525 701 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 - - 1.734 0.002 0.002 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - -$ 429.6 11.9 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 15.3 0 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future No Project 10: Shoreline Dr. & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1154 210 32 628 74 39
Future Volume (veh/h) 1154 210 32 628 74 39
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1215 221 34 661 78 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2211 399 59 2909 145 129
Arrive On Green 0.74 0.74 0.03 0.82 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 3100 543 1781 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 715 721 34 661 78 41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1773 1781 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 14.5 1.5 3.3 3.4 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 14.5 1.5 3.3 3.4 2.0
Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1307 1304 59 2909 145 129
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.55 0.58 0.23 0.54 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1307 1304 245 2909 679 604
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.7 4.7 38.1 1.6 35.3 34.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 1.7 8.6 0.2 3.1 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.3 6.4 46.7 1.8 38.4 36.1
LnGrp LOS A A D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1436 695 119
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 4.0 37.6
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 62.8 69.5 10.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 27.0 42.0 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 16.5 5.3 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.3 4.5 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3
HCM 6th LOS A

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Future No Project
12: Broadmoor Dr. & Montevideo Dr. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 9
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh13.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 180 39 122 194 36 77 7 104 26 10 26 Future Vol, veh/h 38 180 39 122 194 36 77 7 104 26 10 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 43 205 44 139 220 41 88 8 118 30 11 30
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 12.3 15.3 11.5 9.9

HCM LOS B C B A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 41% 15% 35% 42%
Vol Thru, % 4% 70% 55% 16%
Vol Right, % 55% 15% 10% 42%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 188 257 352 62
LT Vol 77 38 122 26
Through Vol 7 180 194 10
RT Vol 104 39 36 26
Lane Flow Rate 214 292 400 70
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.333 0.43 0.58 0.118
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.613 5.301 5.216 6.008
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 639 678 692 594
Service Time 3.666 3.348 3.258 4.074
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.335 0.431 0.578 0.118
HCM Control Delay 11.5 12.3 15.3 9.9
HCM Lane LOS B B C A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.5 2.2 3.8 0.4

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th AWSC Scenario Future No Project
13: Broadmoor Dr. & Pine Valley Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future No Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 10
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh15.5
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 117 60 67 179 45 42 82 46 44 46 35 Future Vol, veh/h 31 117 60 67 179 45 42 82 46 44 46 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 43 163 83 93 249 63 58 114 64 61 64 49
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 14.2 19 13.6 12.4

HCM LOS B C B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 25% 15% 23% 35%
Vol Thru, % 48% 56% 62% 37%
Vol Right, % 27% 29% 15% 28%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 170 208 291 125
LT Vol 42 31 67 44
Through Vol 82 117 179 46
RT Vol 46 60 45 35
Lane Flow Rate 236 289 404 174
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.41 0.473 0.652 0.31
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.258 5.891 5.811 6.432
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 574 610 626 557
Service Time 4.313 3.939 3.811 4.491
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.411 0.474 0.645 0.312
HCM Control Delay 13.6 14.2 19 12.4
HCM Lane LOS B B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2 2.5 4.8 1.3

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Intersection LOS Outputs: Future With Project Conditions

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future with Project
1: Camino Ramon & Shopping Plaza 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 37.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 0 153 8 2 43 189 681 2 13 801 58
Future Vol, veh/h 80 0 153 8 2 43 189 681 2 13 801 58
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - - 238 - - 75 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 0 170 9 2 48 210 757 2 14 890 64
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1750 2129 477 1651 2160 380 954 0 0 759 0 0 Stage 1 950 950 - 1178 1178 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 800 1179 - 473 982 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 55 49 534 65 47 618 716 - - 848 - - Stage 1 280 337 - 203 263 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 345 262 - 541 325 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 37 34 534 34 33 618 716 - - 848 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 37 34 - 34 33 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 198 331 - 144 186 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 222 185 - 363 319 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 308.6 45.8 2.6 0.1

HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 716 - - 37 534 145 848 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.293 - - 2.402 0.318 0.406 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 - -$ 870.3 14.9 45.8 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - F B E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 - - 9.9 1.4 1.8 0.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 2: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Crow Canyon Rd 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 678 58 82 1006 52 81 106 83 31 35 24 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 678 58 82 1006 52 81 106 83 31 35 24 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 798 68 96 1184 61 95 125 98 36 41 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 74 1763 787 162 1939 865 122 286 243 47 208 176 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 798 68 96 1184 61 95 125 98 36 41 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 13.1 2.0 4.7 20.4 1.6 4.7 5.5 5.0 1.8 1.8 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 13.1 2.0 4.7 20.4 1.6 4.7 5.5 5.0 1.8 1.8 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 1763 787 162 1939 865 122 286 243 47 208 176 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.45 0.09 0.59 0.61 0.07 0.78 0.44 0.40 0.77 0.20 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 1763 787 178 1939 865 218 520 440 218 520 440 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 14.7 11.9 39.3 13.9 9.7 41.3 34.6 34.4 43.5 36.4 36.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.7 0.8 0.2 4.4 1.4 0.2 10.2 1.0 1.1 22.4 0.5 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 4.8 0.7 2.1 7.3 0.6 2.4 2.5 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 15.6 12.1 43.7 15.4 9.8 51.5 35.6 35.5 65.9 36.8 36.6 LnGrp LOS E B B D B A D D D E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 921 1341 318 105
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 17.1 40.3 46.7
Approach LOS B B D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 51.7 6.4 18.8 8.7 56.1 10.2 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 9.0 24.0 11.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 15.1 3.8 7.5 4.7 22.4 6.7 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 4: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Norris Canyon Rd 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 112 324 92 113 47 158 211 84 34 217 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 112 324 92 113 47 158 211 84 34 217 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 124 0 102 126 52 176 234 93 38 241 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 132 459 264 221 77 231 695 268 79 564 23
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 57 1782 1585 452 858 299 1781 2506 967 1781 3478 144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 0 280 0 0 176 164 163 38 123 128 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1839 0 1585 1609 0 0 1781 1777 1696 1781 1777 1844 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 2.6 0.7 2.1 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 2.6 0.7 2.1 2.1 Prop In Lane 0.08 1.00 0.36 0.19 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 590 0 562 0 0 231 493 470 79 288 299 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.33 0.35 0.48 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1529 0 1374 0 0 536 1282 1224 589 1282 1331 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 9.6 9.6 15.5 12.5 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.4 0.4 4.4 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.1 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 19.1 10.0 10.0 19.9 13.5 13.5 LnGrp LOS B A B A A B A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 135 280 503 289
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 11.7 13.2 14.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.5 14.2 13.6 9.3 10.4 13.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 5 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 24 26.0 10.0 * 24 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 4.6 3.9 5.2 4.1 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.7 0.2 1.3 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 5: Service Center & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 1176 10 12 657 1 6 0 13 5 0 4
Future Volume (veh/h) 5 1176 10 12 657 1 6 0 13 5 0 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 1251 11 13 699 1 6 0 14 5 0 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 12 2547 22 29 2544 4 97 2 49 128 4 31
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.71 0.71 0.02 0.70 0.70 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3610 32 1781 3641 5 430 36 1085 781 86 694 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 616 646 13 341 359 20 0 0 9 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1865 1781 1777 1869 1551 0 0 1561 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 9.4 9.4 0.4 4.3 4.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 9.4 9.4 0.4 4.3 4.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.30 0.70 0.56 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 1254 1316 29 1241 1306 147 0 0 163 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.45 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 1254 1316 178 1241 1306 538 0 0 540 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 4.0 4.0 29.2 3.4 3.4 27.7 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.0 1.4 1.3 10.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 1.7 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.7 5.4 5.3 39.8 3.9 3.9 28.1 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A D A A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1267 713 20 9
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.5 4.6 28.1 27.7
Approach LOS A A C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.0 47.3 7.7 5.4 46.9 7.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 5 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 * 22 18.0 5.0 * 22 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 11.4 2.3 2.2 6.3 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 6: San Ramon Valley & WestSide Dr 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 31 20 1029 1429 59
Future Volume (veh/h) 47 31 20 1029 1429 59
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 34 22 1131 1570 65
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 141 125 49 2321 1711 71
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.65 0.49 0.49
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 3647 3571 144
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 34 22 1131 800 835
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1781 1777 1777 1845
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.8 0.5 6.0 15.5 15.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 0.8 0.5 6.0 15.5 15.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 125 49 2321 874 908
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.27 0.45 0.49 0.91 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 859 764 238 2712 880 914
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 16.2 17.9 3.3 8.8 8.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 1.2 6.4 0.2 13.9 14.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 5.8 6.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.9 17.3 24.3 3.5 22.6 23.0
LnGrp LOS B B C A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 86 1153 1635
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 3.9 22.8
Approach LOS B A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.4 8.0 6.0 23.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 18.0 5.0 18.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 3.0 2.5 17.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.6 0.2 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1
HCM 6th LOS B

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 8: San Ramon Valley Blvd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 0 102 5 0 4 69 719 0 0 719 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 0 102 5 0 4 69 719 0 0 719 108 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 0 111 5 0 4 75 782 0 0 782 117
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 223 21 191 300 46 126 436 1730 0 0 1509 226
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 364 120 1075 630 257 710 619 3647 0 0 3194 464 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 0 0 9 0 0 75 782 0 0 448 451
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1559 0 0 1597 0 0 619 1777 0 0 1777 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.2 Prop In Lane 0.31 0.69 0.56 0.44 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 435 0 0 471 0 0 436 1730 0 0 865 870 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1112 0 0 1093 0 0 582 2565 0 0 1283 1290 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.7 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 8.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.7 LnGrp LOS B A A B A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 161 9 857 899
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.7 10.1 5.5 5.7
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.5 10.3 19.5 10.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 5.0 * 5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 22 18.5 * 22 18.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 4.8 7.2 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 0.7 4.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th TWSC Scenario Future with Project
9: Camino Ramon & Office Park Dr 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 14.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 66 0 104 0 0 1 77 841 0 1 860 77
Future Vol, veh/h 66 0 104 0 0 1 77 841 0 1 860 77
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - - 102 - - 79 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 77 0 121 0 0 1 90 978 0 1 1000 90
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1716 2205 545 1660 2250 489 1090 0 0 978 0 0 Stage 1 1047 1047 - 1158 1158 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 669 1158 - 502 1092 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 58 44 482 64 41 525 636 - - 701 - - Stage 1 244 303 - 208 269 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 413 269 - 520 289 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 52 38 482 43 35 525 636 - - 701 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 52 38 - 43 35 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 209 303 - 178 231 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 354 231 - 389 289 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 172.6 11.9 1 0

HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 636 - - 52 482 525 701 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 - - 1.476 0.251 0.002 0.002 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - - $ 421 15 11.9 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F C B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 7.1 1 0 0 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 10: Shoreline Dr. & Crow Canyon Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1154 210 32 628 74 39
Future Volume (veh/h) 1154 210 32 628 74 39
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1215 221 34 661 78 41
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2614 1166 59 2909 145 129
Arrive On Green 0.74 0.74 0.03 0.82 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1585 1781 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1215 221 34 661 78 41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1585 1781 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 3.4 1.5 3.3 3.4 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 3.4 1.5 3.3 3.4 2.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2614 1166 59 2909 145 129
V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.19 0.58 0.23 0.54 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2614 1166 245 2909 679 604
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.2 3.2 38.1 1.6 35.3 34.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.4 8.6 0.2 3.1 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.8 3.6 46.7 1.8 38.4 36.1
LnGrp LOS A A D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1436 695 119
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 4.0 37.6
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 62.8 69.5 10.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 27.0 42.0 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 13.0 5.3 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.4 4.5 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.2
HCM 6th LOS A

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 12: Broadmoor Dr. & Montevideo Dr. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 180 39 122 194 36 77 7 104 26 10 26 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 180 39 122 194 36 77 7 104 26 10 26 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 205 44 139 220 41 88 8 118 30 11 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 233 520 101 373 397 64 338 35 183 323 108 151 Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 134 1344 262 413 1025 164 526 159 842 450 500 695 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 292 0 0 400 0 0 214 0 0 71 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1739 0 0 1603 0 0 1528 0 0 1645 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.10 0.41 0.55 0.42 0.42
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 855 0 0 834 0 0 555 0 0 582 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1857 0 0 1740 0 0 1448 0 0 1457 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 292 400 214 71
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.9 8.5 7.4
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 9.4 13.3 9.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 18.5 22.5 18.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 2.8 6.2 4.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.3 2.5 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4
HCM 6th LOS A

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Scenario Future with Project 13: Broadmoor Dr. & Pine Valley Rd. 03/06/2023
Scenario Future with Project San Ramon Impact - PM 6:11 pm 08/02/2022 Future (PM) Synchro 11 Report KH Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 117 60 67 179 45 42 82 46 44 46 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 117 60 67 179 45 42 82 46 44 46 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 162 83 93 249 62 58 114 64 61 64 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 226 408 185 285 438 97 261 220 108 306 183 111 Arrive On Green 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 132 1074 488 253 1154 255 294 926 454 419 771 467 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 288 0 0 404 0 0 236 0 0 174 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1695 0 0 1662 0 0 1674 0 0 1658 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.15 0.29 0.23 0.15 0.25 0.27 0.35 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 820 0 0 820 0 0 588 0 0 600 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1748 0 0 1738 0 0 1473 0 0 1427 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 288 404 236 174
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.3 8.3 7.8
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 10.1 13.4 10.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 18.5 22.5 18.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 3.9 6.4 4.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.8 2.5 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.8
HCM 6th LOS A

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Draft Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
November 2023
1 Roadway Capacity Analysis: LOS Outputs

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) PM Volume V/C LOS
EB 1 550 100 0.18 A
WB 1 550 125 0.23 A
PM Volume V/C LOS
EB 1 550 230 0.42 B
WB 1 550 420 0.76 D
PM Volume V/C LOS
EB 2 1600 230 0.14 A
EB 2 1600 420 0.26 A
# Lane Capcity
3 Fostoria Way e/o Camino Ramon
Project ID Name Location
2040 No Project
2040 With Project
2022 Existing
3 Fostoria Way e/o Camino Ramon
Project ID Name Location Direction # Lane Capcity
# Lane Capcity
3 Fostoria Way e/o Camino Ramon
Project ID Name Location

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Draft Report
San Ramon TIF Nexus Update
November 2023
1 Safety Analysis: LOS Outputs

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) Project 21 1 1
Segment # Mile Avg Col/Yr/mi (5Yr) Existing
Model
Future NoBuildExisting
ADT
Future
ADT Link ID Exist NSPFx
Fut NP
NSPFx
Fut WP
NSPFx CRF Exist Fut NP Fut WP CMF Ex VMT Fut VMT Exist Fut NP Fut WP Crow Canyon Road 1 1.00 11.80 24,871 28,188 29,490 32,807 3598 6.6 7.4 7.4 31.0 11.8 13.1 9.1 0.69 10,763,850 11,974,555 1.1 1.1 0.8 2 0.55 61.9 43,013 49,666 43,265 49,918 3590 5.3 6.2 6.2 31.0 61.9 71.4 49.3 0.69 8,685,449 10,021,039 7.1 7.1 4.9 3 2.77 7.1 36,459 38,278 36,434 38,253 44937 22.6 23.8 23.8 31.0 7.1 7.5 5.1 0.69 36,836,596 38,675,696 0.2 0.2 0.1 Bollinger Canyon Road 4 0.64 47.5 39,223 45,548 32,216 38,541 43506 4.6 5.5 5.5 31.0 47.5 56.8 39.2 0.69 7,525,658 9,003,178 6.3 6.3 4.4 5 2.05 12.4 51,390 59,816 37,920 46,346 3562 17.4 21.3 21.3 31.0 12.4 15.2 10.5 0.69 28,373,640 34,678,395 0.4 0.4 0.3 6 2.22 13.8 29,955 38,739 29,956 38,740 34304 14.9 19.3 19.3 31.0 13.8 17.8 12.3 0.69 24,273,347 31,391,022 0.6 0.6 0.4 7 1.74 3.9 13,988 16,341 17,516 19,869 4104 6.8 7.8 7.8 31.0 3.9 4.4 3.1 0.69 11,124,412 12,618,802 0.4 0.4 0.2 San Ramon Valley Blvd 8 1.23 11.2 23,795 31,004 25,508 32,717 34298 7.0 9.0 9.0 31.0 11.2 14.4 9.9 0.69 11,451,817 14,688,297 1.0 1.0 0.7 9 1.83 5.4 13,402 23,164 15,140 24,902 29062 6.2 10.2 10.2 31.0 5.4 8.9 6.1 0.69 10,112,763 16,633,291 0.5 0.5 0.4 10 1.08 1.1 12,490 21,388 29,200 38,098 36752 7.1 9.2 9.2 31.0 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.69 11,510,640 15,018,232 0.1 0.1 0.1 Camino Ramon 11 1.54 4.9 14,904 23,478 13,741 22,315 42154 4.7 7.7 7.7 31.0 4.9 8.0 5.5 0.69 7,723,816 12,543,262 0.6 0.6 0.4 Montevideo Drive 12 1.29 4 5,021 5,720 11,784 12,483 3471 3.4 3.6 3.6 31.0 4.0 4.2 2.9 0.69 5,548,496 5,877,621 0.7 0.7 0.5 Alcosta Blvd 13 1.61 16.9 13,720 15,710 11,702 13,692 44924 4.2 4.9 4.9 31.0 16.9 19.8 13.6 0.69 6,876,680 8,046,104 2.5 2.5 1.7 14 3.77 3.2 18,552 19,532 14,593 15,573 3491 12.3 13.2 13.2 31.0 3.2 3.4 2.4 0.69 20,080,698 21,429,227 0.2 0.2 0.1 Broadmoor Drive 15 1.06 3.2 4,556 5,176 1,531 2,151 23528 0.4 0.5 0.5 31.0 3.2 4.5 3.1 0.69 592,344 832,222 5.4 5.4 3.7 Norris Canyon Road 16 0.97 2.3 9,512 13,624 12,280 16,392 3559 2.7 3.6 3.6 31.0 2.3 3.1 2.1 0.69 4,347,734 5,803,588 0.5 0.5 0.4 Pine Valley Road 17 1.23 1.8 7,877 8,622 9,507 10,252 36705 2.6 2.8 2.8 31.0 1.8 1.9 1.3 0.69 4,268,168 4,602,635 0.4 0.4 0.3 Project 7 & 14 1.87 1.82 1.26
Crow Canyon Road 7 1.90 51.00 12,800 14,700 5.5 6.3 6.3 11.0 51.0 58.6 52.1 0.89 44,384,000 50,972,250 1.1 1.1 1.0 Crow Canyon Road 14 0.40 4.00 2,320 3,000 0.2 0.3 0.3 11.0 4.0 5.2 4.6 0.89 1,693,600 2,190,000 2.4 2.4 2.1 Project 23
Bollinger Canyon Road 14 0.51 55.00 42,315 50,963 28,100 36,500 3744 3.2 4.2 4.2 31.0 55.0 71.4 49.3 0.69 26,154,075 33,972,375 2.1 2.1 1.5

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: A: Final San Ramon Traffic Impact Fee Update (2024-020 : TIF Update) EXHIBIT 1

CITY OF SAN RAMON

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES

DESCRIPTION APPROVED
FEE*

PROPOSED
FEE
Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees
Residential
Single Family < 1,000 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 3,438.00
Single Family 1,000 – 1,499 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 3,728.00
Single Family 1,500 – 1,999 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 3,893.00
Single Family 2,000 – 2,499 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 4,018.00
Single Family 2,500 – 2,999 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 4,142.00
Single Family 3,000 – 3,999 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 4,266.00
Single Family > 4,000 SF $ 2,918.16 $ 4,308.00
Apartment, Townhouse, Condo (per unit) $ 1,809.35 $ 2,247.00 Other Residential (per P.M. Peak Hour Trip) $ 2,765.77 $ 4,726.00 Nonresidential
Retail (per KSF) $ 6,090.00 $ 8,132.00
Office (per KSF) $ 7,070.00 $ 10,205.00
Service Commercial (per KSF) $ 3,290.00 $ 4,745.00
Other Non-residential (per P.M. Peak Hour Trip) $ 2,765.77 $ 4,726.00 *The fees shown here were most recently updated in July 2023.

8.1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: EXHIBIT 1: Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (2024-020 : TIF Update)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Steven Spedowfski, City Manager
By: Scott Koll, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Meeting to Renew the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council open public testimony to allow members of the public to provide comments on the renewal of the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District (SRVTID).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The existing SRVTID is a benefit assessment district proposed to continue a revenue source to help fund promotions, marketing and sales programs for San Ramon lodging businesses (referred to as “Discover San Ramon”). This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the state to improve tourism and drive additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses. The SRVTID will include all lodging businesses and short-term vacation rentals, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located in the boundaries of the City of San Ramon, as shown on the map in the Management District Plan.

In 2017, lodging business owners decided to pursue formation of the SRVTID in 2015 for a five (5) year term in order to create a revenue source devoted to marketing San Ramon as a tourist, meeting and event destination.

In 2022, Discover San Ramon lodging businesses renewed the SRVTID for another two (2) year term. Discover San Ramon lodging businesses wish to renew the SRVTID for another five (5) year term. If renewed, the SRVTID could generate approximately $450,000 on an annual basis for promotion of travel and tourism specific to the City of San Ramon.

The SRVTID renewal process follows the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). The 94 Law requires that a public meeting be held prior to the adoption of any new or increased assessment pursuant to Section 54954.6 of the Government Code. The public meeting is the third step in the district renewal process and is intended to allow public testimony regarding the proposed assessment. No action is taken by the City Council during this step.

8.2 Packet Pg. 174
Tourism Improvement District
Tourism Improvement Districts (TIDs) utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism. These special assessment districts allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to increase tourism. Lodging business owners within the TID fund the TID, and those funds are used to provide services that are desired by and benefit the lodging businesses within the TID.

TID benefits:
• Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; • TIDs are customized to fit the needs of each destination; • IDs allow for a wide range of services including: destination marketing, tourism, promotion, and sales lead generation;
• TIDs are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment; • TIDs provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.

In California, TIDs are primarily formed pursuant to the 94 Law. This law allows for the creation of a special benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key distinction between TIDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TID.

Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment A) includes the proposed boundary of the SRVTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance. The SRVTID will include all lodging businesses and short-term vacation rentals, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located in the City of San Ramon.

The SRVTID will have a five (5) year term, beginning April 1, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter, and end five (5) years from its start date. Once per year beginning on the anniversary of SRVTID renewal there is a thirty (30) day period in which business owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and begin proceedings to terminate the SRVTID.

The annual assessment rate has not changed since SRVTID’s inception and shall remain two dollars ($2.00) per paid room per night. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on the following: overnight stays greater than a period of thirty (30) consecutive days; overnight stays by Federal or State employees who are on official business when the room is paid for directly by a Federal or State agency. This exemption does not include overnight stays by employees who are later reimbursed by their agency, nor stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt from transient occupancy taxes by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty.

The City will serve as the SRVTID fiduciary by collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each assessed lodging business located in the boundaries of the SRVTID. The City will take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed lodging business. The City shall conduct an annual audit of all

8.2 Packet Pg. 175
transactions between the City and the SRVTID.

SRVTID Renewal Process
January 23, 2024 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING
Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the business owners in the proposed SRVTID who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied, the San Ramon City Council may initiate proceedings to renew the district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to renew a district.

January 25, 2024 NOTICE
The 94 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the SRVTID. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period in which owners may protest SRVTID renewal.

February 13, 2024 PUBLIC MEETING
Allow public testimony on the renewal of the SRVTID and levy of assessments. No Council action required.

April 9, 2024 FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the renewed SRVTID that will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses shall be taken for a period of one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council.

If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to renew the SRVTID, the City Council shall adopt a resolution of formation renewing the SRVTID.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The City will receive a fee of one percent (1%) of the amount collected to cover its costs of administration. Because the SRVTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
No council action is required at this meeting. The final public hearing will be held on April 9, 2024.

ATTACHMENT
A: SRVTID Management District Plan

8.2 Packet Pg. 176
2024-2029

SAN RAMON VALLEY TOURISM

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.

January 11, 2024

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) Contents
I. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................... 4 III. BOUNDARY .......................................................................................................................................... 5 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES ......................................................................................... 6 A. ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN .........................................................................................................................................6 B. ANNUAL BUDGET .................................................................................................................................................7 C. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE ..............................................................................................................7 D. ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................................................9 E. INTEREST AND OVERDUE CHARGES ..........................................................................................................................9 F. TIME AND MANNER FOR COLLECTING ASSESSMENTS.................................................................................................10 V. GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 11 A. OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION.......................................................................................................................................11 B. BROWN ACT AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT COMPLIANCE..............................................................................11 C. ANNUAL REPORT................................................................................................................................................11 APPENDIX 1 – LAW.......................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES ....................................................................................................... 24 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 3
January 11, 2024
I. OVERVIEW
Developed by San Ramon lodging businesses and Discover San Ramon (DSR), the San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District (SRVTID) is an assessment district proposed to continue to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts for assessed businesses.

This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. The SRVTID was created in 2015 for a five (5) year term and renewed in 2022 for a two (2) year term. DSR and San Ramon businesses now wish to renew the SRVTID for an additional five (5) year term.

Location: The renewed SRVTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy located within the legal boundaries of the City of San Ramon (City), as shown on the map in Section III.

Services: The SRVTID is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing awareness and demand for room night sales. Promotions, marketing and sales programs will increase demand for overnight tourism and market payors as tourist, meeting and event destinations, thereby increasing demand for room night sales.

Budget: The total SRVTID annual assessment budget for the initial year of its five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $450,000. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do, and as lodging businesses open and close.

Cost: The annual assessment rate is two dollars ($2.00) per paid occupied room per night.

Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: overnight stays greater than a period of thirty (30) consecutive days; overnight stays by Federal or State employees who are on official business when the room is paid for directly by a Federal or State agency. This does not include overnight stays by employees who are later reimbursed by their agency; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt from transient occupancy taxes by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty.

Collection: The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, interest, and overdue charges) from each assessed lodging business located in the boundaries of the SRVTID. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed lodging business.

Duration: The renewed SRVTID will have a five (5) year life, beginning April 1, 2024 or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. After five (5) years, the SRVTID may be renewed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. (94 Law) if assessed lodging business owners support continuing the SRVTID programs.

Management: DSR shall continue to serve as the SRVTID’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the City Council.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 4
January 11, 2024
II. BACKGROUND
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TID laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TID. Additionally, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TIDs without a state law.

California’s TIDs collectively raise over
$300 million annually for local
destination marketing. With competitors
raising their budgets, and increasing
rivalry for visitor dollars, it is important
that San Ramon lodging businesses
continue to invest in stable, commercespecific marketing programs.

TIDs utilize the efficiencies of private
sector operation in the market-based
promotion of tourism
districts. TIDs allow tourism business owners to organize their efforts to increase commerce. Lodging business owners within the TID pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase commerce.

In California, most TIDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TIDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district.

There are many benefits to TIDs:
• Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay;
• Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services;
• They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 5
January 11, 2024
III. BOUNDARY
The SRVTID will continue to include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the legal boundaries of the City of San Ramon, as shown in the map below.

Lodging business means: any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, rooming house, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, or other similar structure or portion thereof.

A complete listing of assessed lodging businesses within the renewed SRVTID can be found in Appendix 2.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 6
January 11, 2024
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the SRVTID funds are promotions, marketing and sales programs available only to assessed businesses.

A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget will be developed and approved by DSR. The chart below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. These activities and allocations will also apply in subsequent years. The total initial assessment budget is estimated to be $450,000.

Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same. However, the City and the DSR board shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total budget per year. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the SRVTID, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the SRVTID.

Each budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the promotions, marketing and sales budget includes the cost of staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the promotions, marketing and sales program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the DSR on an as- needed basis.

Promotions, Marketing
and Sales, $360,000, 80%
Administration,
$67,000 , 15%
Contingency/Reserve,
$18,000 , 4%
City Collection Fee,
$4,500, 1%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget - $450,000

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 7
January 11, 2024
Promotions, Marketing and Sales
The specific benefit of the SRVTID is to increase demand for overnight lodging stays in San Ramon.

Therefore, the proposed SRVTID is expected to spend eighty percent (80%) of the revenue collected in the initial year of renewal on promotions, marketing and sales to promote San Ramon as a tourist, meeting, and event location. In addition, the SRVTID shall specifically seek to fund activities that promote weekend sales for the lodging buesinesses within the SRVTID. General promotions, marketing and sales projects may include, but are not limited to:
• Targeting internet marketing;
• Print advertising in magazines and newspapers;
• Billboard advertising;
• Local event partnerships designed to build brand identity; • Partnerships with other organizations to benefit the assessed businesses; • Membership in local and state organizations to promote and build recognition; • Creating print and digital marketing collateral to market San Ramon as a destination; • Attendance at trade shows;
• Educational events for SRVTID lodging businesses; and • Radio advertisements.

Administration and Operations
The administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized for administrative staffing costs, rent, telephone, postage, office costs, advocacy, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees.

City Administration Fee
The City of San Ramon shall be paid a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of assessment collected to cover its costs of collection and administration.

Contingency/Reserve
The budget includes a contingency line item to account for uncollected assessments, if any. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the DSR Board. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve fund shall be set by the DSR Board. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on SRVTID programs or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the DSR Board. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the SRVTID. If at the close of the annual fiscal year the contingency budget is over ten percent (10%) of the total annual revenue for the year, DSR shall allocate supplemental funds to the Promotion, Sales and Marketing efforts for the next year, and above the standard annual assessment budget.

B. Annual Budget
The total five (5) year assessment budget is projected at approximately $450,000 annually, or $2,250,000 through 2029. A similar assessment budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do, and as lodging businesses open and close.

C. California Constitutional Compliance
The SRVTID assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 8
January 11, 2024
property.1 Rather, the SRVTID assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26. Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions.

Two of these exceptions apply to the SRVTID, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of conferring the benefits or providing the services.

1. Specific Benefit
Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the SRVTID. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the SRVTID, and are narrowly tailored. SRVTID funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed businesses in SRVTID programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses. Nothing in this Plan limits the ability of the Owners’ Association to enter into private contracts with non-assessed businesses for the provision of services to those businesses.

The assessment imposed by this SRVTID is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is an increase in demand for room night sales. The specific benefit of an increase in demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with promotions, marketing and sales programs promoting lodging businesses paying the SRVTID assessment. The promotions, marketing and sales programs will be designed to increase room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the promotions, marketing and sales programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed businesses.

Although the SRVTID, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non-paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3

2. Specific Government Service
The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” 4 The legislature has
recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the SRVTID are 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 9
January 11, 2024
government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6

3. Reasonable Cost
SRVTID services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein. Funds will be managed by the DSR, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City. Only assessed lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from SRVTIDfunded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other SRVTID-funded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, SRVTID-funded services and benefits.

The SRVTID-funded programs are targeted directly to benefit assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-SRVTID funds. SRVTID funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed lodging businesses.

D. Assessment
The annual assessment rate is two dollars ($2.00) per paid occupied room per night. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: overnight stays greater than a period of thirty (30) consecutive days; overnight stays by Federal or State employees who are on official business when the room is paid for directly by a Federal or State agency. This does not include overnight stays by employees who are later reimbursed by their agency; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt from transient occupancy taxes by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty.

The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging businesses. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the SRVTID assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “SRVTID Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the SRVTID assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for calculation of transient occupancy taxes.

Bonds shall not be issued.

E. Interest and Overdue Charges
The SRVTID shall reimburse the City for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent SRVTID assessment are sought to be recovered in the same 5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 10
January 11, 2024
collection action by the City, the SRVTID shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs.

Assessed lodging businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying:

1. Original Delinquency. Any assessed business owner who fails to remit any assessment imposed by this Plan within the time required shall pay an overdue charge of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment.

2. Continued Delinquency. Any assessed business owner who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency overdue charge of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten percent (10%) overdue charge first imposed.

3. Fraud. If the City determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this Plan is due to fraud, an overdue charge of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto in addition to the overdue charge stated in subsections 1 and 2 of this section.

4. Interest. In addition to the overdue charge imposed, any assessed business owner who fails to remit any assessment imposed by this Plan shall pay interest at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of overdue charges, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.

5. Overdue Charges Merged with Assessment. Every overdue charge imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this Plan shall become a part of the assessment herein required to be paid.

F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments
The SRVTID assessment will be implemented beginning April 1, 2024 or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. The City will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, interest and overdue charges) from each lodging business located in the SRVTID. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each assessed lodging business. The City shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 11
January 11, 2024
V. GOVERNANCE
A. Owners’ Association
The City Council through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the SRVTID as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612.

The City Council has determined that Discover San Ramon (DSR) will continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the SRVTID.

B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54 950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the Board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act.

C. Annual Report
DSR shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include:
• Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district.
• The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 12
January 11, 2024
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2023 EXTRA SESSION CH 1, 2023 REGULAR SESSION CH. 890***
(ALL 2023 LEGISLATION)

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 18. PARKING
PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
ARTICLE 1. Declarations
36600. Citation of part
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements.
(d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businesses in a business district are not taxes for the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits:
(1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied.
(2) Job creation.
(3) Business attraction.
(4) Business retention.
(5) Economic growth.
(6) New investments.
(f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts.
(1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 13
January 11, 2024
assessed. Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits. The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits. (3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessments they may levy and the proper determination of special benefits. Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined.
36602. Purpose of part
The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize cities to levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act.

This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. 36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)).
36603.5 Part prevails over conflicting provisions
Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part.
36604. Severability
This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes.

ARTICLE 2. Definitions
36606. “Activities”
“Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place.
(c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment”
“Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district.
36607. “Business”

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 14
January 11, 2024
“Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions. 36608. “City”
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council”
“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk”
“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.
36609.5. “General benefit”
“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.
36610. “Improvement”
“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.
36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”
“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association”
“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property”
“Property” means real property situated within a district.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 15
January 11, 2024
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”
“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”
“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”
“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit” [Effective January 1, 2023]
(a) “Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of propertybased districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
(b) “Special benefit” also includes, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit provided directly to each assessed parcel within the district. Merely because parcels throughout an assessment district share the same special benefits does not make the benefits general. 36616. “Tenant”
“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.

ARTICLE 3 Prior Law
36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part.

CHAPTER 2. Establishment
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 16
January 11, 2024
A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city. 36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district. The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan
The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the estimated cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 17
January 11, 2024
and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against their property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years.

Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k)
(1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a propertybased district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel.
(3) In a property-based district, properties throughout the district may share the same special benefits. In a district with boundaries that define which parcels are to receive improvements, maintenance, or activities over and above those services provided by the city, the improvements, maintenance, or activities themselves may constitute a special benefit. The city may impose assessments that are less than the proportional special benefit conferred, but shall not impose assessments that exceed the reasonable costs of the proportional special benefit conferred. Because one or more parcels pay less than the special benefit conferred does not necessarily mean that other parcels are assessed more than the reasonable cost of their special benefit. (l) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan.
(m) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment
(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 18
January 11, 2024
by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest.

If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners. 36624. Changes to proposed assessments
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation
(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 19
January 11, 2024
(7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36627. Notice and assessment diagram
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.

CHAPTER 3: Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 20
January 11, 2024
(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part. 36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan
The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of the resolution of intention (a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627. 36638. Assessment as government improvised fee on Civ C § 1770 transaction [Operative July 1, 2024] (a) A business assessment pursuant to this part is a fee imposed by a government on the transaction for purposes of paragraph (29) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 of the Civil Code. (b) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2024.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 21
January 11, 2024
CHAPTER 3.5 Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments (a) The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks–Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part. (b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.

CHAPTER 4. Governance
36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council (a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used.
(b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information:
(1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year.
(4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year.
(5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
(6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636.

The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district.
36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 22
January 11, 2024
The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services.

CHAPTER 5. Renewal
36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.

CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment
36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure (a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances:
(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment.
(2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district (a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 23
January 11, 2024
which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal) SRVTID Management District Plan 24
January 11, 2024
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Address City State Zip
San Ramon Marriott 2600 Bishop Dr. San Ramon CA 94583
Extended Stay San RamonBishop Ranch West18000 San Ramon Valley Blvd San Ramon CA 94583 Hyatt House San Ramon 2323 San Ramon Valley Blvd San Ramon CA 94583 Sonesta Select San Ramon 18090 San Ramon Valley Blvd San Ramon CA 94583 Extended Stay San RamonBishop Ranch East2100 Camino Ramon San Ramon CA 94583 Residence Inn San Ramon 1071 Market Pl San Ramon CA 94583 Formatted: Tab stops: 0.76", Left

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: A: SRVTID Management District Plan (DOC-2024-2 : SRVTID Renewal)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 2024
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Kathi Heimann, Parks & Community Services Director By: Adam Chow, Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT: Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive the Arts Advisory Committee 2023 Annual Report and provide feedback to the Arts Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council adopted a procedure for all city committees whereby each committee would provide an annual report to the City Council on their operations, accomplishments, and work plans.

This report was prepared by the Arts Advisory Committee with input from staff and approved by the Arts Advisory Committee on December 20, 2023. The Parks and Community Services Commission approved the report on January 10, 2024 and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council.

FISCAL ANALYSIS:

The Art Advisory Committee is under the purview of the Parks and Community Services Department. There are no fiscal implications with the acceptance of this report.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

The Arts Advisory Committee will proceed with their work plan and goals for 2024 as approved.

ATTACHMENT
A: AAC Annual Report 2023
B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation

9.1 Packet Pg. 201
2023 Annual Report Page 1
2023 Annual Report to the City Council
Arts Advisory Committee
I. Purpose of the Committee
The Arts Advisory Committee’s purpose is to provide ongoing input to the City of San Ramon on the provision and delivery of cultural art programs and services in San Ramon. To do so one must recognize the intrinsic value of cultural arts to a community. The Arts bring a sense of creativity, inspiration, and socialization to our citizens. The Arts enrich our lives every day from the auditory experiences of music, story telling and theater to the visual experience of seeing art on display in our gallery or public art within our city. We can look and listen to cultural art and enjoy a few moments of inspirational relief from the fast-paced world in which we live.

II. Charge of the Committee

1. Make recommendations to the Parks and Community Services Commission and staff on the delivery of various cultural arts programs, activities, services, and policies.

2. Support and promote cultural arts programs in San Ramon and work with other agencies and organizations involved in cultural arts programs for the purposes of developing, promoting, and funding cultural arts programs in San Ramon.

3. Appoint appropriate sub-committees as necessary to further the work of the Parks & Community Services Department’s cultural arts programs and the efforts of the Committee.

4. Receive and evaluate input from the community, including input from other individuals and organizations on issues relevant to cultural arts programming.

5. Act as a liaison for cultural arts issues to other governmental, non-profit and private organizations.

6. Serve as the City’s review body for public art projects as they move through the advisory and regulatory bodies.

7. Serve as a resource to the City on a wide range of visual and performing arts mediums; work with public and private schools to promote arts in the community.

8. Develop a five-year cultural plan including goals and objectives, implementation strategies and evaluation methods. Conduct ongoing evaluation and assessment of the cultural plan.

9. Advise the City on cultural and performing arts facility needs and design.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: A: AAC Annual Report 2023 (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2023 Annual Report Page 2

10. Provide feedback to staff on the assessment of current and future needs of the cultural arts community for the purpose of program and facility planning.

III. History of the Committee
The San Ramon Arts Council served in 1988 as the City’s non-profit arts advisory group. The initial charge from the City Council was to conduct a community needs assessment and to develop a cultural plan. The Arts Council conducted a survey of all city residents, businesses and art organizations to assess cultural art needs in the community. As a result of their study and analysis, the Arts Council developed subcommittees and began the process of establishing goals and objectives. The information gathered during the community needs assessment provided input for a civic facility study that was completed in 1989 and the groundwork for San Ramon’s first Cultural Plan. Working with the subcommittees and a team of consultants the Arts Council developed a five-year Cultural Plan, detailing short and long-range goals and objectives.

For the next several years, the City Council and the Arts Council worked collaboratively from this Cultural Plan. In 1993, the Parks and Community Services Department increased its level of Cultural Art Programs and devoted more staff time and budget to cultural art programs.

In Oct. 1998, the City coordinated an Arts Summit to help reenergize the cultural arts organizations in San Ramon. The purpose was to bring together identified cultural arts groups to rethink the current cultural art plan and to develop new interest and potential leadership for the future. This group worked to identify strengths as well as gaps in the current cultural arts programs and to anticipate future issues. The formation of the Arts Task Force resulted from the Arts Summit meeting.

The Arts Task Force continued to gather information regarding cultural arts in San Ramon. Through their research and discussion, they came to the conclusion that an Arts Advisory Committee was needed in the City. They made a recommendation to establish an Arts Advisory Committee that would report to the Parks & Community Services Commission. Their recommendation was accepted and endorsed by the Parks and Community Services Commission in June of 1999. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council and the current Arts Advisory Committee was established in June 1999. The first meeting of the new Arts Advisory Committee was held in January 2000.

Currently the Committee is made up of seven voting members and two alternates. The Chairperson is Ranjini Venkatachari and the Vice Chairperson is Shelley Barry.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: A: AAC Annual Report 2023 (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2023 Annual Report Page 3
IV. Committee Operation
The Arts Advisory Committee is an advisory body to the City Council and is under the purview of the Parks and Community Services Commission. A Recreation Supervisor is the staff liaison to the Arts Advisory Committee. There is also a liaison from the City Council, a liaison from the Parks and Community Services Commission and a liaison from the Teen Council. The Arts Advisory Committee meets on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00pm at the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center.

V. 2023 Goal Update:

1. Review current arts programs and classes within the city and make recommendations to staff for improvement.

The Committee received four presentations on the current art programs and classes within the City including: the program plan for the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center; visual and performing arts classes and camps; theater operations at the Dougherty Valley Performing Arts Center and Front Row Theater and a presentation about the Poet Laureate program. The Committee provided comments and feedback on all four presentations.

2. Select an artist to commission an original piece of artwork for the San Ramon Art & Wind Festival.

The Committee assisted staff with the selection of an artist to create an original piece of artwork that was used on the promotional material for the annual festival. Rhonda Chase was selected as the featured artist for the 2024 Art & Wind Festival.

3. Review Art Gallery Exhibit proposals and select exhibits for the Lindsay Dirkx Brown Gallery, the Alcosta Senior and Community Center Gallery, the Dougherty Station Gallery, the City Hall Gallery and the San Ramon Main Library Gallery.

The Arts Advisory Committee reviewed a multi-media presentation depicting representative artwork from 50 artists and artist groups. The committee ranked each submission and provided feedback to the staff. Twelve artists/groups were selected to exhibit in the Lindsay Dirkx Brown Gallery, eleven artists/groups were selected for the Alcosta Senior and Community Center, ten artists were selected to exhibit at the Dougherty Station Community Center, eleven artists/groups were selected to exhibit at City Hall, and five at the San Ramon Library.

4. Review Public Art Proposals from private developments and make recommendations for acceptance to the Planning Commission.

It is within the purview of the Committee to make recommendations to the Planning Commission on public art proposals from private developments. The Arts Advisory Committee did not receive any public art proposals this year.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: A: AAC Annual Report 2023 (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2023 Annual Report Page 4

5. Review Cultural Growth Grant Applications and recommend grant amounts to staff.

It is within the purview of the Committee to make recommendations on the award and amount for the Cultural Growth Grants. The Committee received, reviewed, and approved three Cultural Growth Grant Applications this year for Anarkau - A Musical, Hansamo Korean Showcase, and Love for Piano Recital.

6. Encourage Arts Advisory Committee members to be an ambassador for arts, attend a minimum of four arts events per year in San Ramon, and provide feedback to staff.

Committee members generally attend more than four events a year and regularly provide feedback at the Committee Meetings.

7. Host an Arts Summit in 2023 for arts stakeholders to provide community feedback on the delivery of arts programs and activities.

The San Ramon Arts Summit was hosted on March 23, 2023 at the San Ramon Community Center. The 65 attendees included arts students, teachers, professional artists, arts businesses, arts patrons, and arts administrators who provided feedback on the future of arts in San Ramon.

8. Update the City of San Ramon Five Year Cultural Plan for 2023-2027.

The feedback from the Art Summit provided valuable information to update the priorities in the Five-Year Cultural Plan. The Committee has reviewed the summaries, themes and recommendations which will be used to update the Five-Year Cultural Plan which the committee will review in 2024.

9. Review programming and events at the arts center and provide recommendations to staff.

The Committee received a presentation from City Staff at the July meeting on the programs and events expected at the Arts Center. The Committee provided feedback and was eagerly anticipating the Arts Center’s Grand Opening.

10. Support visual and performing artists by encouraging additional opportunities to perform or exhibit in the community.

The Committee received a presentation on the Art Gallery Program in May and approved a recommendation to host two exhibits for emerging and professional local artists. The Parks Commission also approved the recommendation.

11. Collaborate with local arts groups, non-profit groups, schools, and businesses to promote arts in the community and leverage arts resources.

The Committee recommended staff collaborate with the local arts groups, schools, and businesses. Staff partnered with the PTA to host the Reflection Arts Program at the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center and community groups such as the Association of Indio American and Agomoni to offer publicity support.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: A: AAC Annual Report 2023 (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2023 Annual Report Page 5
VI. Goals for 2024

1. Review current arts programs and classes within the city and at the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center. Make recommendations to staff for improvement. Master Plan Goals 3.1B & 4.3K

2. Select an artist to commission an original piece of artwork for the San Ramon Art & Wind Festival.

3. Review Art Gallery Exhibit proposals and select exhibits for the Lindsay Dirkx Brown Gallery, Alcosta Senior and Community Center Gallery, Dougherty Station Gallery, City Hall Gallery and San Ramon Library Gallery. Master Plan Goal 3.2A

4. Review Public Art Proposals from private developments and make recommendations for acceptance to the Planning Commission.

5. Review Cultural Growth Grant Applications and recommend grant amounts.

Master Plan Goal 3.2A

6. Encourage Arts Advisory Committee members to be an ambassador for arts, attend a minimum of four arts events per year in San Ramon, and provide feedback to staff.

7. Update the City of San Ramon Five Year Cultural Plan for 2024-2028. Master Plan Goal 4.3K

8. Review the Arts in Public Places Program and make recommendations on updates if necessary. Master Plan Goal 4.3K

9. Review and make recommendations for future permanent public art projects at the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center. Master Plan Goal 4.3K Referenced Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Goals:

3.1B – Increase cultural arts program offerings by one to two classes a year.

3.2A – Emphasize programming that responds to different cultural segments, focuses on multi-generational and intergenerational opportunities, and brings a geographically diverse community together (movie nights, food trucks and cafes, etc.).

4.3K – Dougherty Station Community Center programming and reuse plan.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: A: AAC Annual Report 2023 (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
1 SAN RAMON ARTS ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
2023 ANNUAL REPORT

COMMITTEE CHARGE
• Support and promote cultural and performing arts programs in San Ramon. • Provide advice, counsel, recommendations, and feedback to the City of San Ramon on the provision, selection, and delivery of public art and cultural art programs, events, and services.
1 2

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
2 Madhuri Karanam Venkata
Chintapalli
Shelley Barry,
Vice-Chair
Ranjini
Venkatachari, Chair
Lisa Radzanowski Naina Shastri Patricia Valentine
Will Doerlich,
P&CS Commission
Liaison
Marisol Rubio,
City Council
Liaison
Srinivasa
Magapragada,
Alternate
Satyakala
Jarugumilli,
Alternate

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

1. Review current art programs and classes within
the city and make recommendations to staff for
improvement.

The Committee received four presentations on the current art programs and classes within the City including: the program plan for the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center; visual and performing arts classes and camps; theater operations at the Dougherty Valley Performing Arts Center and Front Row Theater, and a presentation about the Poet Laureate program.

The Committee provided comments and feedback on all four presentations.
3 4

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
3 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

2. Select an artist to commission an original
piece of artwork for the San Ramon Art &
Wind Festival.

The Committee assisted staff with the selection of an
artist to create an original piece of artwork that was
used on the promotional material for the annual
festival.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

3. Review Art Gallery Exhibit proposals and select
exhibits for the Lindsay Dirkx Brown Gallery, the
Alcosta Senior and Community Center Gallery,
the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center
Gallery, the City Hall Gallery, and the San Ramon
Main Library Gallery.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

4. Review Public Art Proposals from private
business and make recommendations for
acceptance to the Planning Commission.

The Arts Advisory Committee did not receive or
review any public art proposals this year.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

5. Review Cultural Growth Grant
Applications and recommend
grant amounts to staff.

The Committee received, reviewed,
and approved two Cultural Growth
Grant Applications last year for
Hansamo Korean Showcase and Love
for Piano Recital.
7 8

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
5 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

6. Encourage Arts Advisory Committee
members to be an ambassador for
arts, attend a minimum of four arts
events per year in San Ramon, and
provide feedback to staff.

Committee members generally attend more
than four events a year and regularly provide
feedback at the Committee Meetings.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

7. Host an Arts Summit in 2023 for arts
stakeholders to provide community
feedback on the delivery of arts
programs and activities.

The San Ramon Arts Summit was hosted on March
23, 2023 at the San Ramon Community Center.

The 65 attendees included arts students, teachers,
professional artists, arts businesses, arts patrons,
and arts administrators who provided feedback
on the future of arts in San Ramon.
9 10

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
6 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

8. Update City of San Ramon Five Year
Cultural Plan for 2023-2027.

The feedback from the Art Summit provided
valuable information to update the priorities in
the Five-Year Cultural Plan. The Committee has
reviewed the summaries, themes and
recommendations which will be used to
update the Five-Year Cultural Plan which the
committee will review in 2024.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

9. Review programming and events at the arts center and provide recommendations to staff.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
7 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

10. Support visual and performing artists
by encouraging additional
opportunities to perform or exhibit in
the community.

The Committee received a presentation on
the Art Gallery Program in May and approved
a recommendation to host two exhibits for
emerging and professional local artists. The
Parks Commission also approved the
recommendation.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIONS 2023

11. Collaborate with local arts groups,
non-profit groups, schools, and
businesses to promote arts in the
community and leverage arts
resources.

The Committee recommended staff
collaborate with the local arts groups, schools,
and businesses. Staff partnered with the PTA to
host the Reflection Arts Program at the
Dougherty Station Community Arts Center and
community groups such as the Association of
Indio American and Agomoni to offer publicity
support.
13 14

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
8 GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2024
Goals for 2024 focus on three main goals of the Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan:

3.1B Increase cultural arts program offerings by one to two classes a year.

3.2A Emphasize programming that responds to different cultural segments, focuses on multi-generational and intergenerational opportunities, and brings a geographically diverse community together (movie nights, food trucks and cafes, etc.).

4.3K Dougherty Station Community Center programming and reuse plan.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2024

1. Review current art programs and classes within the
city and at the Dougherty Station Community Arts
Center. Make recommendations to staff for
improvement. (Master Plan Goals 3.1B & 4.3K)

2. Select an artist to commission an original piece of
artwork for the San Ramon Art & Wind Festival.
15 16

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
9 GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2024

3. Review Art Gallery Exhibit proposals and select exhibits for the Lindsay Dirkx Brown Gallery, the Alcosta Senior and Community Center Gallery, the Dougherty Station
Community Arts Center Gallery, the City Hall Gallery,
and the San Ramon Main Library Gallery. (Master Plan
Goal 3.2A)

4. Review Public Art Proposals from private developments and make recommendations for acceptance to the
Planning Commission.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2024

5. Review Cultural Growth Grant Applications and recommend grant amounts to staff. (Master Plan Goal 3.2A)

6. Encourage Arts Advisory Committee members to be an ambassador for arts, attend a minimum of four arts events per year in San Ramon, and provide feedback to staff. 17 18

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report) 2/5/2024
10 GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2024

7. Update the City of San Ramon Five-Year Cultural Plan 2024-2028. (Master Plan Goal 4.3K)

8. Review the Arts in Public Places Program and make
recommendations on updates if necessary. (Master Plan Goal

4.3K)

9. Review and make recommendations for future permanent public art projects at the Dougherty Station Community Arts Center. (Master Plan Goal 4.3K)

QUESTIONS
AND

FEEDBACK
19 20

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: B: AAC Annual Report 2023 - Presentation (DOC-2024-3 : Arts Advisory Committee Annual Report)

San Ramon City CouncilFebruary 13, 2024

San Ramon City Council
February 13, 2024