Agenda packet — City Council Infrastructure Committee, May 8, 2024

City of San Ramon

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Marisol Rubio, Chair • Mark Armstrong, Vice Chair
City Hall - Training Room, First Floor
7000 Bollinger Canyon Road
Regular Meeting
3:00 PM
May 8, 2024
AGENDA QUESTIONS: PLEASE CALL THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT (925) 973-2670

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. MINUTES APPROVAL

2.1 Infrastructure Committee - Regular Meeting - October 30, 2023

3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience are encouraged to address the Committee on any non-agenda item relating to the business of the Committee. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes.

4. NEW BUSINESS

4.1 Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update
Recommendation: Receive Report and Provide Direction to Staff

4.2 Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program Update and Funding for FY 2024/25 Recommendation: Receive Staff Report and Provide Direction to Staff

4.3 Infrastructure Maintenance Fund Update
Recommendation: Receive Report and Provide Direction to Staff

5. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS

6. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify that the attached Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda was posted 72 hours before the noted meeting. 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 at 925-973-2539 or [email protected].

Dated: May 3, 2024
2 Infrastructure Committee Meeting – May 8, 2024

ATTENDEE CONDUCT
There will be zero tolerance for any person addressing the Committee 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.

At the discretion of the Committee Chair, 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 Committee unable to continue the meeting;
c. Excessive profanity or slander; Specific threats or “fighting words” that incite violence; or d. Speech that is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Policy Committee 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 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
October 30, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Marisol Rubio Chair Present
Mark Armstrong Vice Chair Present
Attendees: Steven Spedowfski, City Manager; Scott Koll, Deputy City Manager; Maria Fierner, Public Works Director; Kathi Heimann, P&CS Director; Mike Dodds, Program Manager; Marc Luke, Maintenance Supervisor; Jonette Fuentes, Administrative Analyst; Andrea Stein, Administrative Coordinator; and Debbie Hince, Administrative Coordinator

2. MINUTES APPROVAL

2.1 Infrastructure Committee - Regular Meeting - Apr 27, 2023 2:00 PM RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Armstrong, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Marisol Rubio, Chair
AYES: Rubio, Armstrong

3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

4. NEW BUSINESS
None.

5. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
None

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

6.1 San Ramon Community Center Renovation Project (CIP 200003), Phase 2 Exterior Renovation – Terrace Room Patio
Recommendation: Receive Report and Provide Feedback to Staff Mike Dodds provided the Committee with three new options for the shade structures on the Terrace Room Patio. Changes had to be made due to the Fire Marshall requiring the shade structures be 20 feet from the building.

Committee members supported Option 3.

2.1 Packet Pg. 3
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 30, 2023 2:00 PM (Minutes Approval) 2 Infrastructure Committee Meeting – October 30, 2023
RESULT: RECEIVED

7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 PM.

2.1 Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 30, 2023 2:00 PM (Minutes Approval)

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: May 8, 2024
TO: Infrastructure Committee/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Interim Public Works Director
By: Robin Bartlett, Division Manager/District Engineer
SUBJECT: Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Five-Year Pavement Management Plan provides a list of streets anticipated to be treated in San Ramon over the next five years. The Plan is based on the available Five-Year Pavement Management Program Budget (including Measure J Funds, Gas Tax or Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) Funds, Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee, and savings from previous pavement projects). Changes to this year’s Five-Year Plan are based on an anticipated reduction in funding of $600,000 per year due to a shift in funding of pavement maintenance operations to Public Services Division staff that have previously been funded by the General Fund. This Plan was developed using the “critical point” pavement management approach, and the goal to prioritize and treat all low PCI streets in the City within the Five-Year Plan. The City’s current overall average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 77. Based on proposed funding, the PCI is anticipated to rise to 79 by the end of 2024, drop gradually to 75 by the end of 2028, drop to 73 by the end of 2029, and down to 70 by the end of 2033. Factors influencing the PCI and a discussion of areas to be treated over the next five years are included below.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Infrastructure Committee review the Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update and provide comments to staff.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
The City uses a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to assist with prioritizing streets to include in maintenance and rehabilitation projects. As part of this Program, the City is required to regularly inventory the condition of the streets and assign each a rating from 0 to 100. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI).

4.1 Packet Pg. 5
PCI is an objective and rational, although not perfectly precise, basis for determining pavement condition and establishing maintenance priorities. The method is based on a visual survey of various types of distresses in a pavement on selected parts of a given street. The result of the survey is a numerical value between 0 and 100 for a specific street section, with 0 representing the worst possible condition and 100 representing the best possible condition. PCI averages are reported as a whole number; variations of one or more points in any given year should be expected.

PCI is a budgeting and planning tool, not a design tool. Therefore, projected treatments may change when staff does detailed inspections prior to design. Given the timing of treatment methods, this may result in the schedule of treatment changing by one to two years and occasionally more. In order to reduce changes and maintain cost efficiency, staff is endeavoring to do more detailed follow-up inspection earlier in the design cycle, as staff availability allows.

The City utilizes an independent engineering consultant to perform the Pavement Condition Survey every two years to determine the condition of all pavement sections throughout the City.

Staff then utilizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Pavement Management System (MTC-PMS) StreetSaver software to help prepare a Five-Year Pavement Management Plan, which identifies likely repair locations and types. The StreetSaver software incorporates data gathered from most agencies in the Bay Area, as well as many other agencies in other locations. As such, it provides a powerful tool for predicting pavement life and treatment costs.

In February 2022, staff applied for a grant through the Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 23. The City received Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding of $67,900. By combining this grant with the City's local matching funds of $16,800, MTC and City staff jointly retained Pavement Engineering, Inc. (PEI) to perform the 2023 Pavement Condition Survey of the City’s roadways. As part of the Survey, an updated PCI was assigned to each pavement section. The overall average PCI was calculated based on the updated survey of each street section. The current overall PCI, per roadway classification and based on the survey results, is summarized below. The PCI will be evaluated again in 2025 under P-TAP Round 25.

Current Conditions
The current data and condition of the City’s streets are as follows:

Total centerline miles 243.1
Total lane miles 503.2
Total pavement area 43.0 million square feet
Parking Lot area 1.1 million square feet
System Replacement value $670.3 million
Current Average PCI 77
Current Average PCI Arterials 76 (27% of total pavement area) Current Average PCI Collectors 76 (13% of total pavement area) Current Average PCI Residential 78 (58% of total pavement area) Current Average PCI Other 72 (2% of total pavement area)

4.1 Packet Pg. 6
Critical Point Approach and Implementation Strategies
In 2018, based on staff’s recommendation, the City adopted a “critical point” approach to pavement maintenance. The “critical point” refers to implementing a pavement preservation or rehabilitation on a given street just prior to that street’s condition deteriorating to the point where it requires the next most expensive treatment. This method maximizes the useful life obtained from the original pavement and each successive treatment while minimizing the cost of each successive treatment. Key recommendations for the approach include:

1. Maximizing the use of a “critical point” strategy to get the most life out of a given pavement prior to it requiring more substantial and costly rehabilitation treatment.

2. Continuing to use a modified “pave by area” approach to help contain costs by concentrating the work into selected locations, but with larger areas and with only select streets subject to treatment.

3. Combining critical point analysis and identifying select “low PCI” streets and “special case” streets to address those streets in the worst condition or with special problems. Low PCI streets have been defined as follows:

Functional Classification (FC) Low PCI Defined
Arterials (A) PCI less than 50
Collectors (C) PCI less than 45
Residential/Local Streets (R) PCI less than 30

4. Undertaking an extensive preventative maintenance program on newer streets, predominantly within the Dougherty Valley, which are approaching the critical point to where low-cost preventative maintenance treatments will no longer be effective.

When these recommendations were presented to the Infrastructure Committee, they agreed with the approach of implementing “critical point” pavement management when selecting streets to be treated while also maintaining the policy of treating low PCI streets in the City by the end of the five-year period.

In addition, staff began implementing new strategies to improve cost-effectiveness, including, when possible:
• Preparing plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates (PS&Es) in-house, whenever possible, reducing the design costs;
• Minimizing subcontractor work, by utilizing in-house staff for necessary crack seal work prior to paving, where appropriate;
• Obtaining separate bids for asphalt concrete (AC) and preventative maintenance treatments;
• Minimizing subcontractor work by obtaining separate concrete repair bids for necessary curb ramp construction for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including necessary sidewalk, curb, gutter, and valley gutter concrete repairs;

4.1 Packet Pg. 7
• Moving streets previously done within the Stop Gap Program into the Pavement Management Project, to the extent practical;
• Enhancing coordination between Public Services street maintenance staff and Engineering staff to improve efficient provisions of in-house Stop Gap work (pothole repair, crack sealing, and minor patching);
• Writing bid documents with more flexibility in terms of working hours and lane closures, to pavement contractors, as long as it does not affect construction safety; • Increasing the amount of preventive maintenance done as a portion of the whole including increasing crack sealing operations;
• Proposing to conduct enhanced pre-deign evaluation of pavement conditions to help verify appropriate pavement treatment methods further in advance to help reduce changes during the design phase; and
• Evaluating paving technologies that have not been used in the City to determine if they can provide better solutions. A product of such evaluations will be the increased use of Rubberized Cape Seals on residential streets throughout the City.

Pavement Funding
Projected Five-Year Pavement Management Program Budget
Funding for Pavement Management is provided by several sources, which are summarized below and shown on the projected Five-Year Pavement Management Program (PMP) Budget in Attachment A. The attachment shows projected Federal, State, and Local funds per fiscal year.

The anticipated funding sources are:
• Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) or Gas Tax, which includes the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB-1); and
• City’s Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee (RVIF).

The City’s Measure J funds are discussed below.

In addition to the funding shown, the City receives funds from time to time from utility companies as in-lieu fees to compensate for pavement damage. These fees are most commonly collected in accordance with the City’s Pavement Cut Moratorium Ordinance when utility company’s damage recently paved streets. The funds are not shown because they cannot be easily predicted, and the funds are intended to offset damage caused by the utility companies and not to improve the streets.

The deductions, shown in Attachment A, account for administrative and General Fund overhead per fiscal year, as well as a set-aside contingency of 20% of the combination of upcoming fiscal year’s Gas Tax and Measure J Funds to secure proper cash flow and variance in forecasted revenue projections. After deductions are applied, the table shows the projected distribution of the available funds per year into the different City programs and/or projects.

4.1 Packet Pg. 8
Contra Costa County Return to Source Measure J
Measure J is the Contra Costa County’s half-cent transportation sales tax through Year 2034. For the City, Measure J represents approximately $1M for different City programs and/or projects.

Since FY 2021/22, this source of funding has been eliminated in order to pay back a $9.2M State Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) loan to help pay for the Bollinger Canyon Road/Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing Project (CIP 905530). The pay back will conclude by the end of FY 2028/29. These funds were partially offset by the reallocation of approximately $4.6M in Certificate of Participation and General Fund money to PMP 2021 and PMP 2022.

Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee (RVIF)
The purpose of the RVIF is to recoup the costs associated with impacts to the pavement by heavy refuse collection trucks. These vehicles account for approximately 46% of vehicle loads on residential pavements. The Pavement Management Program started to receive RVIF funds in FY 2018/19 in the amount of $1.369M. The Fee resulted in the addition of $1.529M in FY2019/20, and a projected flat fee of $1.5M annually starting in FY2020/21, subject to an inflation adjustment, for the Pavement Management Program only.

In June 2021, City Council approved an Amendment to the contract with Alameda County Industries of San Ramon, Inc. (ACI) for solid waste collection services. With the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic, ACI sustained large reductions in services, particularly from commercial enterprises with commensurate loss in revenue. This loss in revenue occurred while residential waste generation increased. This resulted in a substantial financial impact to ACI, estimated at more than $1.5M from March 2020 through June 2021. As a result, ACI requested an “extraordinary rate increase.” ACI and City staff discussed the situation and arrived at an agreement, which avoided the need for an extraordinary rate increase and the complex process that it would have entailed.

Under this agreement, ACI will be able to avoid operating at a loss, but with little or no profit until businesses restore their service levels to pre-COVID levels. This agreement will use $750,000 of existing reserves in the Solid Waste Fund and defer payment of $750,000 in Refuse Vehicle Impact Fees (RVIF), rather than an increase to customer rates, to resolve ACI’s claim.

ACI will pay back the RVIF over a three-year period, which started July 1, 2022.

Projected Changes in Funding Allocations
The City of San Ramon is currently experiencing significant budget shortfalls. In order to help balance the budget, staff is anticipating that $600,000 per year of Gas Tax funds will be reallocated to support operations in the Streets and Drainage program area of the Public Works Department. Until now, these activities have been paid for through the General Fund and include: crack sealing; pothole repairs; pavement marking and legend replacements; and similar work. For estimating future work and evaluating overall impact of this funding allocation, staff has assumed that it will remain constant for each of the next five years.

4.1 Packet Pg. 9
Pavement Management 2023 Project (CIP 000008)
The Pavement Management 2023 Project (CIP 000008) is focused on a combination of slurry, microsurfacing, and rubberized cape seals, which can be completed by one contractor. This work began last fall but was not completed before the onset of cooler temperatures and rain preventing further treatment. The Pavement Management 2023 Project (CIP 000008) incorporates the treatment of the following locations:
• Dougherty Road, between Old Ranch Road and City Limit; • Stagecoach Road, between Alcosta Boulevard and City Limit; • Bollinger Canyon Road, between Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard;
• Various residential streets west of Bollinger Canyon Road, between Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard;
• Various residential streets east of Bollinger Canyon Road, between Norris Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard;
• Various residential streets west of Morgan Drive, between Arapaho Circle and Bollinger Canyon Road;
• Various residential streets in the Richard Fahey Village Green Park area; • Various residential streets in the neighborhood of Hidden Hill Elementary School; • Various residential streets south of Windemere Parkway, between Bollinger Canyon Road and Albion Road; and
• Areas where utility companies would have performed pavement cuts and paid the City an in-lieu fee for the City to treat the roadways if these streets have not been treated previously under the Stop Gap Program or by separate contract.

This work restarted in late April and is expected to be completed by the end of May; however, since the work is not completed it is not included in the database. Completion of this work will result in a modest increase in the City’s PCI rating. The list of streets and location maps for the Pavement Management 2024 Project (CIP 000013), Crow Canyon Widening Project (CIP 905328) and proposed Plans through 2029 are shown on Attachment B and C, respectively.

Pavement Management 2024 (CIP 000013)
The Pavement Management 2024 Project (CIP 000013) incorporates the treatment of hot mix asphalt at the following locations:
• Pine Valley Road - between Alcosta Boulevard and Broadmoor Avenue • Belle Meade Drive - between Alcosta Boulevard and Broadmoor Avenue • Broadmoor Court, Braeburn Court, Dexter Place, Hardwick Place, Montevideo Court, Oak Valley Drive, Pine Valley Court, and Sedgefield Court As is current practice to save costs, the PMP 2024 Project will incorporate hot asphalt concrete digout repairs on streets that are scheduled for slurry seal or similar treatments with PMP 2025.

4.1 Packet Pg. 10
Pavement Management Projects 2025 – 2029
Streets selected for treatment between 2025 and 2029 are shown in Attachment C and listed in Attachment B. These are aggressive scenarios based on the overall projected Five-Year Pavement Management Program Budget shown in Attachment A.

The primary changes in this year’s projections from the last year are reflected in Years 2027 and 2028. Due to the previously mentioned allocation changes, less pavement management can be completed. This will result in fewer streets treated with PMP 2027 and a minor reduction in the scope of work on the PMP 2028 Project on San Ramon Valley Boulevard. In addition, staff has allocated more of the available funds to specific projects leaving little in reserve for added streets, more costly treatments than predicted, or higher than expected bids. This also reduces flexibility to respond to problems that arise during construction. This could result in reductions in the scope of projects over time.

PMP 2029 was added to the Five-Year Plan. It will focus on preventative maintenance. Due to the reduced funding, the scope of work is relatively modest and focuses on completing the street maintenance on San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

This list of planned streets to be paved will be subject to yearly revisions based on observations of the actual condition of the street, analysis of its rate of deterioration, selection of other streets in the area, market conditions, cash flow strategies, and other factors.

Crow Canyon Widening
The widening of Crow Canyon Road, between City limits with the Town of Danville (Danville) and the I-680 Freeway, from two lanes to three lanes in each direction, is a requirement of the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley (Settlement Agreement) signed in 1994. It is also included in the City’s General Plan and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.

Roadway widening was completed between Alcosta Boulevard and the I-680 Freeway in 2008, and between the Danville town limits and Indian Rice Road in 2011.

The Crow Canyon Widening Project (CIPs 905312 and 905328) will complete the widening from Alcosta Boulevard to St. George Road, from two lanes to three lanes in each direction. As part of the Project, the existing pavement will be repaved. This Project was awarded on February 22, 2022, for a total contract amount not to exceed $14,296,956. The Project is funded by the Southern Contra Costa JEPA (SCCJEPA) Regional Impact Fees Fund and Traffic Improvement Fund. It is anticipated to be completed in late 2024.

City-Owned Parking Lots and Other Projects
In addition to maintaining streets in the public right-of-way, funds from Measure J and Gas Tax also pave parking lots, repair sidewalks, replace curb ramps, and undertake “stop gap” work. The City currently owns 32 parking lots, approximately 1.1 million square feet, located at various facilities. The parking lots are included in the Pavement Condition Survey. The PCI of the parking lots currently ranges from 46 to 80. Staff schedules work on an as-needed basis and on

4.1 Packet Pg. 11
those years where the PMP project heavily contains preventative treatments such as slurry seal or microsurfacing. The following City-owned parking lots are targeted for treatment under this Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update:

Parking Lot Treatment Year Current PCI
Arlington Park 2025 76
Six Pillars Park 2025 70
Long-Term Projections
Projected PCI
The City’s current overall average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 77. Based on proposed funding, the PCI is anticipated to rise to 79 by the end of 2024, drops gradually to 75 by the end of 2028, drops to 73 by the end of 2029, and down to 70 by the end of 2033. A graph of the anticipated PCI is shown on Attachment D.

Other Impacts
In recent years, the City’s Pavement Management Program has been funding other elements not directly related with roadway pavement treatments. This has reduced the available funds from the Program and has the potential to reduce funds further in the coming years. These other elements include: 1) curb ramp construction for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); 2) sidewalk repairs; and 3) bike lanes and green conflict zone markings. The costs of ADA compliance and restriping for accommodation of new bike lane standards (with some limitations) have been included in the current five-year analysis. Other elements such as Green Infrastructure (GI) have not been included, and the extent to which they impact the available funds will result in reductions in the number of streets treated and commensurate reductions in the City’s PCI. Each of these elements are discussed briefly below.

1. ADA Compliance
In 2013, the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation issued ADA requirements to provide or upgrade curb ramps when streets, roads, or highways are altered through resurfacing. The cost of ADA curb ramps has been as high as 7.5% of the total cost of the projects.

2. Bicycle Master Plan
One element competing for funds from the Pavement Management Program is funding to implement the Bicycle Master Plan improvements. This includes the cost of restriping to comply with and implement the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and current standards for bicycle lanes, including green bike lanes, as well as other improvements. Staff continues to include bicycle infrastructure improvements in the PMP projects as this is the most cost-effective way to implement these upgrades.

4.1 Packet Pg. 12

3. Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure is intended to treat stormwater at its source to eliminate pollutants while delivering environmental and social benefits. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is currently working on a new Permit - MRP 3.0. As currently proposed, MRP 3.0 will require the City to treat a minimum of approximately six (6) acres of impervious surface and treat the runoff from any new pavement projects that add significant impermeable surface, or reconstruct a road, or repave a road with asphalt concrete overlays or inlays. The cost implications of these requirements are difficult to predict as they depend on numerous factors – terrain, available land, or right-of-way to provide treatment areas, conflicts with bicycle lanes, minimum road and travel lane widths, traffic volumes, utilities, and other factors. This is anticipated to have significant implications for the San Ramon Valley Boulevard Project, which has not been fully analyzed or incorporated into the cost analysis.

Target PCI and Alternative Funding
The long-term projections indicate that the City’s pavements will continue a gradual decline from the current high end of “good” condition (PCI 77) to the low end over the next 10 years. A “good” condition is a PCI between 70 and 79; and between 60 and 69 is a “fair” condition. The shortfall in spending to maintain the pavement in its current condition is approximately $2.5M per year. As the City is challenged to balance the costs to deliver needed and desired services with available funding, finding the money necessary to maintain the pavement is an additional challenge that will not be solved easily or quickly.

Fortunately, the deterioration in overall pavement quality is a gradual process, and some decline in overall PCI can be borne without widespread impacts. However, it must be noted that the cheapest pavement to maintain is a good pavement. Therefore, as the City’s overall PCI lowers, the cost to maintain that pavement at the new lower level will actually be higher than current requirements. In addition, as the overall PCI deteriorates, a progressively larger number of streets will fall into one of the “low PCI” categories. This will limit flexibility in determining the best use of funding resulting in lower efficiency and yet higher costs. In addition, the requirement of MRP 3.0 as discussed above poses a major new threat to pavement management, especially when streets deteriorate to the point that asphalt concrete overlays or inlays, or pavement reconstruction is required.

The costs to restore the City’s overall pavement condition to the current levels will also increase with time. Staff estimates that it would cost between $30M and $40M to return the City’s PCI to 78, once it reaches 70 (not including Green Infrastructure). This level of new funding would result in a major burden on the City’s budget.

Based on the above logic, the Infrastructure Committee and City Council previously set a target range of 75 to 80 for the City’s overall PCI and incorporated this target into the City’s annual goals. Staff estimates that the City’s PCI will drop below a PCI of 75 in 2029.

4.1 Packet Pg. 13
The most likely funding mechanisms to help maintain the current PCI include: 1) a parcel tax measure; 2) a sales tax measure; or 3) allocations from the General Fund, which would require offsetting budget reductions, fee increases, or other funding mechanisms to compensate. If recommended by the Infrastructure Committee, staff can begin exploring options in greater detail. This would be expected to culminate in the hiring of consultants to provide detailed recommendations to the City regarding the best options and timing for any action.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
The Projected Five-Year PMP budget is shown in Attachment A. The Five-Year Pavement Management Plan is primarily funded by the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) or Gas Tax (including SB-1), and the Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee (RVIF).

NEXT STEPS

1. Staff will incorporate comments from the Infrastructure Committee and include any recommendations into the Five-Year 2024/25 - 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program.

2. Staff will continue to seek grant funding for Pavement Management Projects.

3. Staff will provide updates during FY 2024/25 on the Pavement Management Program and will update the Five-Year Pavement Management Plan in 2025.

ATTACHMENT
A: Projected Five-Year PMP Budget (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) D: Projected Five-Year Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Projections

4.1 Packet Pg. 14
Projected Five-Year PMP Budget (FY 2023/2024 to FY 2028/2029) 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29
Funding Sources
Unallocated/unused funds from previous contracts year $ 1,744,752 $ 2,953,257 $ 2,475,225 3,101,514 $ 1,891,755 $ 1,199,136 $ Beginning Balance Measure J Funds and in lieu as of 7/1/22 (Fund 213) $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Beginning Balance Gas Tax Huta Funds as of 7/1/22 (Fund 208) $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Beginning Balance RFIV 7/1/22 (Fund 217)Unencumbered funds expected to be returned to source (PMP 2022) $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Expected Measure J Funds (first year 22-23) $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Expected Gas Tax Huta Funds (first year 22-23) $ 4,483,117 4,306,264 $ $ 4,483,117 4,483,117 $ 4,483,117 $ 4,483,117 $ Available and Expected RVIF Funds (appropriation from previous fiscal year) 1,749,996 $ 1,749,996 $ 1,624,998 $ 1,522,500 $ 1,568,175 $ 1,568,175 $ Received in-lieu fees since 7/1/22 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Expected in-lieu fees in addition to above $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ General Fund Contribution - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Total Funds Expected this year $ 9,186,370 7,801,012 $ 9,209,629 $ 8,480,842 $ 7,943,047 $ 7,250,428 $ Deductions or Standard Allocations
Sidewalk Repair $ - 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ Materials and staff for Public Services $ 51,600 $ 618,287 618,287 $ 618,287 $ 618,287 $ 618,287 $ Stop Gap - Crack Seal and Hot Mix $ - 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ Traffic Calming $ 15,000 - $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 20% withholding from Measure J for cash flow - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20% withholding from Gas Tax for cash flow 861,253 $ 896,623 $ 896,623 $ 896,623 $ 896,623 $ 896,623 $ General Fund Overhead 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,001 $ Administration 147,155 $ 151,569 $ 156,116 $ 160,800 $ 165,624 $ 170,593 $ Total Non-PMP Deductions $ 1,981,480 2,010,008 $ 2,631,027 $ 1,985,710 $ 2,640,534 $ 1,995,504 $ PMP and Similar Pavement Projects
Paving Year PMP 2023 - Slurry PMP 2024 - AC PMP 2025 - slurry PMP 2026 - AC PMP 2027 - slurry PMP 2028 - AC Available for PMP and Similar Projects 5,791,004 $ 7,204,890 $ 6,578,602 $ 6,495,132 $ 5,302,513 $ 5,254,924 $ Existing and Anticipated Allocations -Crow Canyon Road - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Allocated PMP 2022Additional New Allocations Annual PMP 2023 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Annual PMP 2024 AC 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Annual PMP 2025 Slurry $ 1,000,000 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ Annual PMP 2026 AC - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $
Annual PMP 2027 slurry $ - - $ 5,500,000 $ - $
Annual PMP 2028 AC - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $
Annual PMP 2029 slurry $ 2,500,000
Roll over Available for next year $ 2,204,890 1,541,004 $ 1,578,602 $ 995,132 $ 302,513 $ 254,924 $

ATTACHMENT A

4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: A: Projected Five-Year PMP Budget (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year City of San Ramon
5-Year Pavement Management Plan
FY 2023/2024 - 2028/2029
(Sorted by Construction Year, and Alphabetical Order)

YEAR ROAD NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION
FC
PCI
PRIOR

STREETSAVER

ESTIMATED TREATMENT
PCI
AFTER
2024 ALDERWOOD LN OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 38 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 BANCROFT PL OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 40 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 BELLE MEADE DR BROADMOOR DR ALCOSTA BLVD R 36 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 BRAEBURN CT BROADMOOR DR END R 35 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 BROADMOOR CT BROADMOOR DR END R 35 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 DEXTER PL MILO WAY END R 34 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 HARDWICK PL MILLBRIDGE DR END R 34 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 HEATHER RIDGE CT OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 47 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 HOLBROOK PL OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 38 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2024 MONTEVIDEO CT MONTEVIDEO DR END R 33 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 OAK VALLEY DR SUMMIT VIEW DR DOUGHERTY RD R 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 PINE VALLEY CT ALCOSTA BLVD END R 40 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 PINE VALLEY RD ALCOSTA BLVD THUNDERBIRD DR C 57 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 PINE VALLEY RD THUNDERBIRD DR IRON HORSE TRAIL C 60 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 PINE VALLEY RD IRON HORSE TRAIL BROADMOOR DR C 65 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2024 SEDGEFIELD CT SEDGEFIELD AVE END R 36 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 56 2024 SUNNYSIDE PL OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 29 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2025 ALCOSTA CT ALCOSTA BLVD END R 76 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2025 ALDWYCH WAY BARONS LN ENFIELD ST R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 APTOS CT APTOS WAY END R 72 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 81
2025 APTOS WAY MARLBORO WAY DAVONA DR R 87 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 93 2025 ARGYLE CT KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2025 ARLINGTON PARK KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY W END O 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2025 ARLINGTON WAY MONTROSE WAY E BRANCH PKWY R 88 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 94 2025 AVERY CT ENFIELD ST END R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83
2025 BARONS LN ENFIELD ST (S) ENFIELD ST (N) R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2025 BLACKTHORNE CT OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 43 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 59 2025 BRIDGE CREEK DR STONEY CREEK DR (N) STONEY CREEK DR (S) R 52 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 65 2025 BRIDLE CT OLD RANCH RD END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2025 CANTAS PL LORETO DR END R 55 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 67
2025 COUNTRY CREEK CT STONEY CREEK DR END R 50 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 63 2025 EDGEWARE CT MONTROSE WAY END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 ENFIELD ST E BRANCH PKWY BARONS LN R 76 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 84 2025 ENSENADA DR ALCOSTA BLVD GRANADA DR R 60 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 71 2025 ENSENADA DR GRANADA DR MANGOS DR R 57 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 69 2025 HAWTHORN CT OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 69 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 78 2025 HIGHBURY WAY MONTROSE WAY KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 HILLTOP CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 HOLBORN WAY KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY WINDEMERE PKWY R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2025 JAMAICA DR BARBADOS DR END R 82 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 89 2025 KNIGHTSBRIDGE CT HIGHBURY WAY END R 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2025 KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY BARONS LN MONTROSE WAY R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY MONTROSE WAY HIGHBURY WAY R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 KNOLLCREST CT N END BLACKTHORN CT R 39 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 57 2025 LANSFORD CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2025 LEIGH CT LYNNBROOK DR END R 70 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 79 2025 LINDA VISTA CT SUMMIT VIEW DR END R 62 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 72 2025 LONE PINE CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2025 LONGWOOD CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 79 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 87 2025 LORETO DR SANTA ROSA AVE (N) SANTA ROSA AVE (S) R 65 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 74 2025 LYNNBROOK CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 LYNNBROOK DR WOODLAND DR WOODVIEW TERR DR R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2025 MADRID PL ENSENADA DR END R 43 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 59 Red = Low PCI Street
4/25/2024 1 of 5 Attachment B

4.1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update) City of San Ramon
5-Year Pavement Management Plan
FY 2023/2024 - 2028/2029
(Sorted by Construction Year, and Alphabetical Order)

YEAR ROAD NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION
FC
PCI
PRIOR

STREETSAVER

ESTIMATED TREATMENT
PCI
AFTER
2025 MONTROSE CT KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 MONTROSE WAY KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY EDGEWATER CT R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 OLD RANCH ESTATES DR BLACKTHORN CT OLD RANCH RD R 62 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 72 2025 OVERLOOK CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 OVERLOOK DR WOODVIEW TERR DR ALCOSTA BLVD R 76 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2025 PEACEFUL VALLEY DR SUMMIT VIEW DR (N) SUMMIT VIEW DR (S) R 57 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 68 2025 PEMBROKE CT HOLBORN WAY END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2025 PEMBROKE WAY HOLBORN WAY (W) PEMBROKE CT R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 PRESTWICK CT KNIGHTSBRIDGE WAY END R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2025 REGENCY CT W END OLD RANCH ESTATE DR R 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2025 RIDGEPOINT CT OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 63 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 73 2025 RIDGEVIEW CT WOODVIEW TERR DR END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2025 ROMA PL SANTA ROSA AVE END R 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 2025 ROYAL COACH CT OLD RANCH ESTATE DR END R 61 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 72 2025 SANTA ROSA AVE EL SUYO DR ENSENADA DR R 56 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 68 2025 SEVILLE PL LORETO DR END R 62 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 73 2025 SHADY VALLEY CT SUMMIT VIEW DR END R 53 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 66 2025 SHIREOAKS PL W END OLD RANCH ESTATE DR R 39 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 58 2025 SIX PILLARS PARK PEMBROOK CT NE END (WINDEMERE) O 69 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 78 2025 SPRINGBROOK DR STONEY CREEK DR (N) STONEY CREEK DR (S) R 43 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 60 2025 ST DENIS DR DAVONA DR BROADMOOR DR R 82 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 89 2025 STONEY CREEK DR OLD RANCH RD BENT CREEK DR (N) R 61 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 72 2025 SUMMER VALLEY CT SUMMIT VIEW DR END R 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2025 SUMMIT VIEW DR OLD RANCH RD SHADY VALLEY CT R 49 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 63 2025 SUMMIT VIEW DR SHADY VALLEY CT LINDA VISTA CT R 48 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 62 2025 SUN RIDGE DR SUMMIT VIEW DR (N) SUMMIT VIEW DR (S) R 55 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 67 2025 SUVA CT JAMAICA DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86
2025 TAHITI DR BARBADOS DR CROW CANYON RD R 76 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 84 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (EB) ROCKHAMPTON RD BOLLINGER CYN RD A 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (EB) BOLLINGER CYN RD S BELLINGHAM WAY A 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (EB) S BELLINGHAM WAY BETHANY RD (N) A 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (NB) E BRANCH PKWY ALBION RD A 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (SB) BETHANY RD (N) E BRANCH PKWY A 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (WB) ALBION RD S BELLINGHAM WAY A 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (WB) S BELLINGHAM WAY BOLLINGER CYN RD A 60 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 71 2025 WINDEMERE PKWY (WB) BOLLINGER CYN RD ROCKHAMPTON RD A 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2025 WOODLAND CT WOODLAND DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2025 WOODLAND DR ALCOSTA BLVD END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2025 WOODLAND VALLEY DR SUMMIT VIEW DR (N) SUMMIT VIEW DR (S) R 56 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 67 2025 WOODVIEW CIR WOODVIEW TERR DR OVERLOOK DR R 77 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2025 WOODVIEW CT WOODVIEW CIR END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2025 WOODVIEW TERR DR (NB) OVERLOOK DR LYNNBROOK DR R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2025 WOODVIEW TERR DR (SB) LYNNBROOK DR OVERLOOK DR R 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 2026 BERNARD AVE BROADMOOR DR KITTERY AVE R 41 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (EB) BOLLINGER CYN RD TWIN CREEKS DR A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (EB) TWIN CREEKS DR SR VALLEY BLVD A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (EB) CAMINO RAMON ALCOSTA BLVD A 56 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (WB) ALCOSTA BLVD CAMINO RAMON A 56 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (WB) CROW CANYON PL 680 OC BRIDGE (E) A 70 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 CROW CANYON RD (WB) SR VALLEY BLVD BOLLINGER CYN RD A 60 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 OMEGA RD 330 FT N/O DEERWOOD RD FARIA PRESERVE PKWY C 27 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2026 PINE VALLEY RD TAREYTON AVE SR VALLEY BLVD C 51 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2026 SAN BLAS PL ESTERO DR END R 34 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 Red = Low PCI Street
4/25/2024 2 of 5 Attachment B

4.1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update) City of San Ramon
5-Year Pavement Management Plan
FY 2023/2024 - 2028/2029
(Sorted by Construction Year, and Alphabetical Order)

YEAR ROAD NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION
FC
PCI
PRIOR

STREETSAVER

ESTIMATED TREATMENT
PCI
AFTER
2026 SOTA PL ESTERO DR END R 40 HEAVY REHABILITATION 100 2027 ACORN CT SEDGEFIELD AVE END R 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 ALDGATE WAY SHERWOOD WAY PAIGE WAY R 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2027 ALMOND CT BROADMOOR DR END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 ALTA LOMA PL BROADMOOR DR END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 ALVO CT ENFIELD ST END R 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82
2027 ARDEN CT WYCLIFFE LN END R 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 ARLINGTON WAY E BRANCH PKWY THURLOW WAY R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 84 2027 ARLINGTON WAY THURLOW WAY PERCY LN R 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 ARVADA CT CHEYENNE AVE END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 ASHBY WAY N END HILLSBORO AVE R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 AVOCADO CT ASHBY WAY END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 BAKER WAY MORNINGTON LN SHERWOOD WAY R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 84 2027 BANBURY DR WYCLIFFE LN CHANCERY WAY R 69 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2027 BUTTE AVE SEDGEFIELD AVE BROADMOOR DR R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 CABRILLO AVE BROADMOOR DR SEDGEFIELD AVE R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 CARRINGTON CT BAKER WAY END R 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 CASHEW CT BROADMOOR DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 CASPER PL BUTTE AVE END R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83
2027 CASSANDRA PL BROCKTON AVE END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 CENTENNIAL WAY WESTSIDE DR (W) WESTSIDE DR (E) R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 CENTURY OAKS CT WESTSIDE DR END R 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 CHANCERY WAY WYCLIFFE LN E BRANCH PKWY R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 CHAPPARAL CT WESTSIDE DR END R 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 2027 CHESTNUT CT BROADMOOR DR END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 CHEYENNE AVE BROADMOOR DR ASHBY WAY R 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 CLIFTON CT BAKER WAY END R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 84 2027 CODY CT OAK CREEK DR END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 COMSTOCK CT CENTENNIAL WAY END R 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 CROW CANYON RD (EB) SR VALLEY BLVD 680 OC BRIDGE (W) A 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 CROW CANYON RD (EB) 680 OC BRIDGE (E) CROW CANYON PL A 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 CROW CANYON RD (EB) CROW CANYON PL CAMINO RAMON A 62 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 73 2027 CROW CANYON RD (WB) CAMINO RAMON CROW CANYON PL A 59 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 70 2027 CROW CANYON RD (WB) 680 OC BRIDGE (W) SR VALLEY BLVD A 73 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2027 DAVONA DR PINE VALLEY RD HAVEN PL C 72 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 81 2027 DAVONA DR HAVEN PL WESTWOOD AVE C 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 DAVONA DR WESTWOOD AVE TAREYTON AVE C 72 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 81 2027 DAVONA DR TAREYTON AVE NORTHLAND AVE C 71 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 80 2027 DAVONA DR NORTHLAND AVE MAY WAY C 82 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 89 2027 DAVONA DR MAY WAY BLUE FOX WAY C 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 DAVONA DR BLUE FOX WAY ALCOSTA BLVD C 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 DAYTON CT CHEYENNE AVE END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 DIAMOND RANCH CT HENRY RANCH DR END R 81 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 DUNCAN HILL CT WESTSIDE DR E END R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (EB) BOLLINGER CYN RD CHANCERY WAY A 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (EB) CHANCERY WAY SHERWOOD WAY A 64 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 74 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (EB) SHERWOOD WAY ENFIELD ST A 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (EB) ENFIELD ST ARLINGTON WAY A 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (EB) ARLINGTON WAY WINDEMERE PKWY A 65 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 74 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (WB) WINDEMERE PKWY ARLINGTON WAY A 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (WB) ARLINGTON WAY ENFIELD ST A 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (WB) ENFIELD ST SHERWOOD WAY A 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (WB) SHERWOOD WAY CHANCERY WAY A 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 77 Red = Low PCI Street
4/25/2024 3 of 5 Attachment B

4.1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update) City of San Ramon
5-Year Pavement Management Plan
FY 2023/2024 - 2028/2029
(Sorted by Construction Year, and Alphabetical Order)

YEAR ROAD NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION
FC
PCI
PRIOR

STREETSAVER

ESTIMATED TREATMENT
PCI
AFTER
2027 EAST BRANCH PKWY (WB) CHANCERY WAY BOLLINGER CYN RD A 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 EDEN PL LARAMIE AVE END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88
2027 EL MOLINO PL DAVONA DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 EMBLETON LN MORNINGTON LN VERNON WAY R 77 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2027 ENFIELD ST E BRANCH PKWY THURLOW WAY R 63 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 73 2027 ENFIELD ST THURLOW WAY PAIGE WAY R 68 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2027 ETNA CT DAVONA DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86
2027 FARRINGDON WY ENFIELD ST LAMBETH WAY R 77 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2027 FENWICK WAY ENFIELD ST ARLINGTON WAY R 77 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 85 2027 FILBERT CT SEDGEFIELD AVE END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 FOUR OAKS HOLLOW WESTSIDE DR W END R 69 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2027 HALIFAX WAY ENFIELD ST HOSKINS LN R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 HARLOW LN MORNINGTON LN BAKER WAY R 69 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2027 HENRY RANCH DR WINDING CREEK WAY W END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 87 2027 HILLSBORO AVE ASHBY WAY W END R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 HILLSBORO AVE BROADMOOR DR ASHBY WAY R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 HOSKINS LN ENFIELD ST HALIFAX WAY R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2027 INGLETON WAY WYCLIFFE LN E BRANCH PKWY R 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 KEARNY WAY WINDEMERE PKWY KEATS LN R 64 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 74 2027 KEATS LN ENFIELD ST HALIFAX WAY R 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 LAMBETH WAY THURLOW WAY FENWICK WAY R 73 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 LANDER PL BUTTE AVE END R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83
2027 LARAMIE AVE DAVONA DR ASHBY WAY R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 LIPTON PL LARAMIE AVE END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 LYCHEE CT AVOCADO CT END R 75 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 MADELIA PL BROCKTON AVE END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 MADORA PL INTERLACHEN AVE END R 73 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2027 MAJESTIC OAK CT WESTSIDE DR END R 81 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 MELBOURNE WAY SHERWOOD WAY MORNINGTON LN R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 MILLS PL LARAMIE AVE END R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 MILTON CT WYCLIFFE LN END R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2027 MORNINGTON CT BAKER WAY END R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 MORNINGTON LN SHERWOOD WAY HARLOW LN R 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 MORNINGTON LN HARLOW LN BAKER WAY R 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 82 2027 OAK CREEK DR DAVONA DR TAREYTON AVE R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 PAIGE CT KEARNY WAY END R 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 81
2027 PAIGE WAY ENFIELD ST KEARNY WAY R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2027 PECAN CT DAVONA DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86
2027 PERCY LN ENFIELD ST KEATS LN R 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 PINE VALLEY PL WESTSIDE DR END C 72 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 81 2027 PINENUT CT BROADMOOR DR END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 QUIMBY CT CHANCERY WAY END R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2027 RIVERTON PL BUTTE AVE END R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 SALISBURY WAY MORNINGTON LN MELBOURNE WAY R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 SEDGEFIELD AVE CABRILLO AVE BROADMOOR DR R 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 SHERWOOD WAY WINDEMERE PKWY MORNINGTON LN C 65 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 75 2027 SHERWOOD WAY MORNINGTON LN E BRANCH PKWY C 69 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2027 STRATFORD DR PINE VALLEY RD TAREYTON AVE R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 SUNNYBROOK PL YOSEMITE AVE END R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 TAREYTON AVE PINE VALLEY RD DAVONA DR R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 TAREYTON CT TAREYTON AVE END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 THURLOW WAY ENFIELD ST ARLINGTON WAY R 72 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 2027 VERNON WAY MELBOURNE WAY MORNINGTON LN R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 Red = Low PCI Street
4/25/2024 4 of 5 Attachment B

4.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update) City of San Ramon
5-Year Pavement Management Plan
FY 2023/2024 - 2028/2029
(Sorted by Construction Year, and Alphabetical Order)

YEAR ROAD NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION
FC
PCI
PRIOR

STREETSAVER

ESTIMATED TREATMENT
PCI
AFTER
2027 WELFORD RANCH CT WESTSIDE DR N END (CDS) R 79 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 WESTSIDE CT WESTSIDE DR END R 78 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 86 2027 WESTSIDE DR MAJESTIC OAK CT WINDING CREEK WAY C 73 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2027 WESTSIDE DR WINDING CREEK WAY DUBERSTEIN DR C 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2027 WESTSIDE DR DUBERSTEIN DR WOODBOROUGH WAY C 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 82 2027 WESTSIDE DR WOODBOROUGH WAY SR VALLEY BLVD C 74 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 83 2027 WESTSIDE PL WESTSIDE DR END R 82 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 89 2027 WESTWOOD AVE DAVONA DR END R 76 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 84 2027 WINDING CREEK WAY WESTSIDE DR CITY LIMIT R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 WINDMILL CT WESTSIDE DR N END (CDS) R 77 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 85 2027 WINTHROP AVE E END DAVONA DR R 80 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 88 2027 WYCLIFFE CT INGLETON WAY END R 75 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2027 WYCLIFFE LN INGLETON WAY CHANCERY WAY R 70 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 79 2027 YOSEMITE AVE TAREYTON AVE DAVONA DR R 81 LIGHT MAINTENANCE 89 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) 680 RAMPS PINE VALLEY RD A 59 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) PINE VALLEY RD WESTSIDE DR A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) WESTSIDE DR MONTEVIDEO DR A 54 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) BOLLINGER CYN RD TALAVERA DR A 61 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) TALAVERA DR NORRIS CANYON RD A 57 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) NORRIS CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD A 64 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) CROW CANYON RD FOSTORIA WAY A 57 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) FASTORIA WAY CITY LIMIT A 55 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) CITY LIMIT DEERWOOD RD A 54 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) DEERWOOD RD CROW CANYON RD A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) NORRIS CANYON RD TALAVERA DR A 63 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) TALAVERA DR BOLLINGER CYN RD A 63 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) MONTEVIDEO DR WESTSIDE DR A 56 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) WESTSIDE DR PINE VALLEY RD A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2028 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) PINE VALLEY RD 680 RAMP A 58 LIGHT REHABILITATION 100 2029 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) ELLINGSON WAY BARNWOOD DR A 67 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 76 2029 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (NB) BARNWOOD DR BOLLINGER CYN RD A 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2029 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) CROW CANYON RD NORRIS CANYON RD A 69 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 78 2029 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) BOLLINGER CYN RD BARNWOOD DR A 74 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 83 2029 SAN RAMON VLY BLVD (SB) BARNWOOD DR MONTEVIDEO DR A 71 HEAVY MAINTENANCE 80 Red = Low PCI Street
4/25/2024 5 of 5 Attachment B

4.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: B: List of Streets and Street Sections to be treated between 2024 and 2029 (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Management Plan Update) Scenario Treatments
5 Year Plan (FY 23/24 - 28/29) - All Project Period
Feature Legend

4.1.c
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement Feature Legend
Scenario Treatments
5 Year Plan (FY 23/24 - 28/29) - All Project Period

4.1.c
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement

4.1.c
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement

4.1.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement

4.1.c
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement

4.1.c
Attachment: C: Projected Five-Year PMP Maps (FY 2024/2025 to FY 2028/2029) (4340 : Five-Year Pavement 77 79
77 77
75 75
73 6570758085
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
PCI Range
Year
Projected Five-Year Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Projections PCI Range

4.1.d
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: D: Projected Five-Year Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Projections (4340 : Five-Year

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: May 8, 2024
TO: Infrastructure Committee/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Interim Public Works Director
By: Gary Manuel, Landscape Program Manager
SUBJECT: Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program Update and Funding for FY 2024/25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program (CIP 935564) was created to address treerelated infrastructure damage in the Dougherty Valley, which began receiving funding appropriation in FY 2012/13. In November 2017, the City Council approved the Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan (PLAN), which recommends developing an Annual Work Plan (AWP) to address infrastructure damage caused by maturing trees. The FY 2023/24 AWP is in progress, with all funds expected to be expended by the end of the fiscal year. Staff has prepared an Annual Work Plan Summary for FY 2024/25. Work has been identified for FY 2024/25 AWP in the amount of $870,755.

The PLAN has been in place for seven years and, based on the available funding, implementation has been successful with the completion of six (6) AWPs, or 27 subdivisions to date. FY 2023/24 AWP is in progress. This represents approximately 25% of the total area that needs to be addressed. Due to the work completed to date, staff continue to realize savings in landscape maintenance and water costs.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Infrastructure Committee receive the report and provide input on the proposed FY 2024/25 Annual Work Plan, FY 2024/25 funding, and the Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan (PLAN) implementation.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program (CIP 935564) was created in FY 2012/13 to address infrastructure damage related to trees in the Dougherty Valley growing in narrow turf planting strips. In 2017, the City Council appointed the Dougherty Valley Tree Committee, a committee of San Ramon residents, to provide input into developing the Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan (PLAN) (Attachment A). On November 14, 2017, the City

4.2 Packet Pg. 30
Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-124, approving the Negative Declaration (IS 17-250-003) and the PLAN.

The PLAN calls for implementing Option 1, which was the consensus of the Dougherty Valley Tree Committee. Option 1 outlines the strategic process for developing an initial AWP followed by recurring AWPs and an ongoing, multi-year work plan. The goal of this option is to preserve trees or retain trees for as long as possible. The AWP focuses on prioritizing locations to address trees based on the severity of damage and the size of planting strips. In conformance with the PLAN, staff has prepared AWP Summary and Maps for AWPs completed FY 2017/18 – FY 2022/23, including the remaining areas in AWP FY 2023/24 (Attachment B) and the proposed AWP for FY 2024/25 (Attachment C).

Methodology for Determining AWP Locations
Site selection for the Annual Work Plan focuses on prioritizing locations based on the following conditions: the size of planting strip and tree species; utility spacing and conflict; existing and future infrastructure damage expected to occur in the next five years; and tree health and structure. Additionally, staff utilizes information gathered from submitted property damage claims and requests for service or repairs through the Citizen Request Management (CRM) system to assist in identifying areas with concentrated damage related to the Dougherty Valley tree root issue.

California Assembly Bill (AB) 1572 – Potable Water: Nonfunctional Turf In addition to the methodology above, staff must consider locations affected by California Assembly Bill (AB) 1572. AB 1572, approved by the Governor on October 13, 2023, directs all appropriate state agencies to encourage and support the elimination of irrigation of nonfunctional turf with potable water. Currently, several subdivisions include turf irrigated with potable water.

These locations will be prioritized to comply with the AB 1572 January 1, 2028, deadline.

The Dougherty Valley arterials contain nonfunctional turf located within street rights-of-way.

Although watered using recycled water, staff recommends the Finance Committee consider the same elimination of turf outlined in AB 1572 for these areas. Long-term water savings and reductions in contract costs, tree root-related CRMs, and Citizen Claims would be the net result of the Committee considering this recommendation.

Implementation Results
Since the PLAN's adoption, staff has completed six (6) AWPs (27 subdivisions) and is currently completing the FY 2023/2024 AWP. A map outlining each year's AWP locations can be found in Attachment B, Tree Planting Maintenance Completed FY 2017/18 – FY 2023/24 AWP Map.

To date, the seven (7) Dougherty Valley Tree AWPs account for 1,315 tree removals, 1,132 tree replacements, 545,469 square feet (12.52 acres) of turf conversions to groundcover planting, and irrigation modifications from spray heads to shrub bubblers. In addition, 101,756 square feet (2.34 acres) of arterial turf planting strip has been converted to mulch for improved tree health, reduced maintenance, and water savings. Together, the combined areas account for an AWP

4.2 Packet Pg. 31
total of 647,225 square feet (14.86 acres) out of 2,864,070 square feet (62.75 acres) of turf within the Dougherty Valley. This represents approximately 25% of the total area that needs to be addressed.

Summary of Annual Work Plans to Date
To date, the Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program (CIP 935564) has received $2,020,000 from the 2019 Certificate of Participation (COP) Debt Financing. Additional funds have come from the General Fund ($350,000), the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund ($200,000), and the DV CSA Fund ($1,546,432). The total Project budget to date is $4,116,432.

FY 2017/18 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
RA 1130 / SUB 8669 (Millstream Lane) 96 79 14,873
RA 1200 (Ivy Hill Way) 0 0 48,444
RA 1176 (Windemere Parkway) 0 0 53,312
SUB 8155 (Rothbury Way/Rutherglen Drive) 18 17 2,880
Totals 114 96 119,509
FY 2018/19 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
SUB 9021/9022 (Sleeping Meadow Way) 73 58 13,190
SUB 8255/8256 (S. Gale Ridge
Road/Velvetleaf Circle)
150 124 42,800
SUB 8027 (Rosincress Drive) 57 55 27,852
Totals 280 237 83,842
FY 2019/20 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8690 (Tulip Way/Calico Court) 33 32 23,447
SUB 8149 (Arrowfield/Allanmere Drive) 36 31 19,706
SUB 8131/8132 (Lilac Ridge Road/Sweetgale
Drive)
153 113 45,331
Totals 222 176 88,484
FY 2020/21 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8773 (Chancery Way/Wycliffe Lane) 26 19 16,441
SUB 7796/7979/7980 (North Chanterella Drive) 85 65 55,170 SUB 8254 (South Chanterella/Ustilago Drive) 45 35 34,655 Totals 156 119 106,266

4.2 Packet Pg. 32
FY 2021/22 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
SUB 7981 (Hedgecrest Circle) 30 30 12,860
SUB 8631 (Belladonna Drive/Camassia Way) 52 55 17,015
SUB 9144 (Balmoral Way/Emerson Lane) 28 52 28,419
*RA 1124 (Watermill Road) 0 0 0
Totals 110 137 58,294
*RA 1124 deferred due to resident feedback in the subdivision requesting that no work be completed.

FY 2022/23 AWP
Location Number of
Removals
Number of
Replacements
Turf Converted
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8150/SUB 8619 (Bandol Way/Craneford
Way)
83 71 12,045
SUB 8151 (Craneford Way/Barossa Drive) 10 8 5,562
SUB 8154 (Kellybrook Way/Langton Drive/
Kenwick Drive)
45 38 7,339
SUB 8157 (Jasper Hill Drive/Pemberton
Drive/Langhorne Drive)
64 54 11,373
Totals 202 171 36,319
FY 2023/24 AWP – IN PROGRESS
Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 9142 (Kearny Way/Murdock Way/Ames
Way/Emerson Lane/Bennington Way)
125 106 28,489
SUB 9143 (Emerson Lane/Balmoral
Way/Kennard Lane/Bennington Way/Kings
Road/Holborn Way)
106 90 24,266
Totals 231 196 52,755
Proposed FY 2024/25 Annual Work Plan
Locations scheduled for FY 2024/25 were selected based on the severity of damage and size of planting strips in accordance with the PLAN. For the FY 2024/25 AWP, staff has reviewed and evaluated the proposed project sites and recommends the removal of up to 554 trees, replacement of 392 trees, conversion of 67,250 square feet of turf to ground cover planting, modification of irrigation overhead spray heads to shrub bubblers, and repair or replacement of damaged concrete sidewalks. The proposed locations are shown below.

4.2 Packet Pg. 33
FY 2024/25 AWP – PROPOSED PLAN
Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8715 (Watervale Way/Silva Way) 46 36 7,269
SUB 8717 (Longleaf Circle/Rosemount
Lane/Avalon Way)
384 269 37,326
SUB 8926 (Arlington Way/Hoskins
Lane/Halifax Way)
124 87 22,655
Totals 554 392 67,250
FISCAL ANALYSIS – ESTIMATED COSTS
The current available project fund balance for CIP 935564 will be fully depleted following the completion of the FY 2023/24 AWP. The estimated cost to complete the FY 2024/25 AWP is $870,755. Staff requests $870,755 for the FY 2024/25 5-Year CIP from the Dougherty Valley County Service Area (DVCSA) Fund. A breakdown of the cost estimate is provided below.

AWP ACTIVITY Units Unit $ Cost $
Tree Removal 554 525 ea. 290,850
Tree Replacement 392 315 ea. 123,480
Turf Conversion/Ground Cover Planting 67,250 3.72/sf. 250,170 Irrigation Modification 67,250 1.58/sf. 106,255
Sidewalk Repair 3 33,333 100,000
TOTAL AWP for FY 24/25 $870,755
PROJECT FUNDING FY 2024/25
Current Available Project Funding for CIP 935564 $ 0
FY 2024/25 5-Yr CIP Request - DVCSA $ 870,755
Estimated Cost for the Proposed FY 2024/25 AWP $ 870,755 Options for FY 2024/25 Annual Work Plan
Given the current fiscal challenges, staff has developed four alternative AWPs for FY 2024/25.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – This Alternative prioritizes Subdivision 8717 and Subdivision 8926, which have caused the most landscape and irrigation infrastructure damage and have the potential to damage private homeowner water meters. It is summarized below.

4.2 Packet Pg. 34
Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8717 (Longleaf Circle/Rosemount
Lane/Avalon Way)
384 269 37,326
SUB 8926 (Arlington Way/Hoskins
Lane/Halifax Way)
124 87 22,655
Totals 508 356 59,981
ALTERNATIVE 1 - ESTIMATED COSTS
AWP ACTIVITY Units Unit $ Cost $
Tree Removal 508 525 ea. 266,700
Tree Replacement 356 315 ea. 112,140
Turf Conversion/Ground Cover Planting 59,981 3.72/sf. 223,129 Irrigation Modification 59,981 1.58/sf. 94,770
Sidewalk Repair 2 50,000 100,000
TOTAL AWP for FY 24/25 $796,739
ALTERNATIVE 2 – Alternative 2 prioritizes Subdivision 8717 (most severe damage to turf and adjacent hardscape) and Subdivision 8715 (least severe damage to turf and adjacent hardscape).

Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8717 (Longleaf Circle/Rosemount
Lane/Avalon Way)
384 269 37,326
SUB 8715 (Watervale Way/Silva Way) 46 36 7,269
Totals 430 305 44,595
ALTERNATIVE 2 - ESTIMATED COSTS
AWP ACTIVITY Units Unit $ Cost $
Tree Removal 430 525 ea. 225,750
Tree Replacement 305 315 ea. 96,075
Turf Conversion/Ground Cover Planting 44,595 3.72/sf. 165,893 Irrigation Modification 44,595 1.58/sf. 70,460
Sidewalk Repair 2 50,000 100,000
TOTAL AWP for FY 24/25 $658,178
ALTERNATIVE 3 – This Alternative prioritizes Subdivision 8717, which shows the most severe damage to turf and adjacent hardscape.

4.2 Packet Pg. 35
Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8717 (Longleaf Circle/Rosemount
Lane/Avalon Way)
384 269 37,326
ALTERNATIVE 3 - ESTIMATED COSTS
AWP ACTIVITY Units Unit $ Cost $
Tree Removal 384 525 ea. 201,600
Tree Replacement 269 315 ea. 84,735
Turf Conversion/Ground Cover Planting 37,326 3.72/sf. 138,853 Irrigation Modification 37,326 1.58/sf. 58,975
Sidewalk Repair 1 50,000 50,000
TOTAL AWP for FY 24/25 $534,160
ALTERNATIVE 4 – Alternative 4 prioritizes Subdivision 8715, which shows the least severe damage to turf and adjacent hardscape.

Location Estimated
Removals
Estimated
Replacements
Turf
Conversion
(sq. ft.)
SUB 8715 (Watervale Way/Silva Way) 46 36 7,269
ALTERNATIVE 4 – ESTIMATED COSTS
AWP ACTIVITY Units Unit $ Cost $
Tree Removal 46 525 ea. 24,150
Tree Replacement 36 315 ea. 11,340
Turf Conversion/Ground Cover Planting 7,269 3.72/sf. 27,041 Irrigation Modification 7,269 1.58/sf. 11,485
Sidewalk Repair 1 50,000 50,000
TOTAL AWP for FY 24/25 $124,016
All subdivisions show visible damage to the adjacent landscape, hardscape, and irrigation infrastructure. The alternatives above are prioritized based on the immediate need to rectify.

Impact if No AWP for FY 2024/25
If no AWP is funded for FY 2024/25, funding would be needed to address any tree hazard mitigations. These funds will cover repair costs if irrigation mainlines, or other parts of irrigation infrastructure are damaged due to roots or tree site movement. Additionally, if a City-owned tree damages a private homeowner's water meter, funds will be required for root mediation and/or tree/stump removal. The minimum amount estimated to implement this approach would be $30,000.

4.2 Packet Pg. 36
This option comes with some risk as trees within the Proposed FY 2024/25 AWP will continue to grow, further damaging adjacent infrastructure, including homeowner water meters. The total number of Citizen Claims involving root damage between 2019 and 2024 (18 in FY 2023/24 alone) is approximately 106, with an average reimbursement request of $1,528 per claim. In FY 2023/24 to date, there have been 18 Citizen Claims totaling $33,681 in requested reimbursement and 40 root-related CRMs. The average contracted mainline repair cost is between $2,500 - $4,500 per incident.

City staff will continue with preventative maintenance, address safety concerns, and respond to CRMs.

Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan Additional Recommendations With the PLAN having been in place for seven (7) years, staff has begun exploring other recommendations, particularly the Urban Forester position/responsibilities. Urban forestry is defined as planting, maintaining, caring for, and protecting tree populations in urban settings.

Per the PLAN, this position could:
• Revise the current Tree Ordinance as needed.
• Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan.
• Continue to implement the recommendations included in the PLAN for Dougherty Valley.
• Develop annual plans, budgets, and urban forest awareness for the care and management of the City's trees.

Additional responsibilities would include:
• Management of the DV and GF tree contract (landscape, parks, trails, open space, GHAD, and schools).
• Attend Arbor Day events and receive the annual Arbor Day proclamation. • Manage the tree maintenance inventory database.

These responsibilities would be Citywide, overseeing the 50,000+ City trees in this capacity. The Urban Forester position is currently programmed within the 5-year budget projections; additionally, staff will continue to review this concept and provide an update at a future Committee meeting.

Implementation – Water and Maintenance Savings
Using comparable timeframes consisting of the 12 months before conversion and the most recent 12-month billing cycles in 2023, average savings (in dollars) over time can be calculated for the AWPs. AWPs in locations serviced by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) were compared using six (6) statements that track approximately 60 days of water usage per statement. These statements provided a full year of data tracking water savings.

4.2 Packet Pg. 37
Additional savings during FY 2024/25 will include a 10% reduction in water use proposed to the City Council to help reduce utility costs. These savings and reductions resulting from the DV Tree AWP should further reduce overall water usage.

Using this data, staff calculated the cumulative water savings to be $213,363 for all AWPs, including FY 2022/23. Each AWP reduced the amount invoiced to the City by approximately

25.82%. The unit rates charged by the City's water providers, EBMUD and DSRSD, have increased by approximately 39.3% during the same period. EBMUD's potable water and recycled unit rates have increased by approximately 44.73% from 2018 to 2023. DSRSD's potable and recycled water unit rates have increased by more than 33.87% from 2017 to 2023.

Planting strip turf conversion to groundcover and mulch has resulted in a landscape maintenance contract cost savings of approximately $128,500 through FY 2022/23. Additional cost savings will be realized once the FY 2023/24 AWP projects are complete.

NEXT STEPS
As directed by the Infrastructure Committee, staff will:
• Monitor the expenditures for the remaining FY 2023/24 AWP • Incorporate comments on the Proposed FY 2024/25 AWP

ATTACHMENT
A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management
B: Tree Planting Maintenance - Completed FY 201718 – FY 202324 AWP Map C: Proposed FY 2024-2025 AWP Map

4.2 Packet Pg. 38
12661 Torrey Pines Drive
Auburn, CA, 95602
(650)740-3461
(530)624-8403
www.CalTLC.com

DOUGHERTY VALLEY

TREE AND PLANTING STRIP

MANAGEMENT PLAN
San Ramon, CA
September 2017
PREPARED FOR:

San Ramon City Council
PREPARED BY:

CALIFORNIA TREE AND LANDSCAPE CONSULTING, INC.

Gordon Mann, President,
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist
Denice Britton, Vice-President
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist
In Coordination with the

DOUGHERTY VALLEY TREE CITIZENS COMMITTEE

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CalTLC would like to thank the Dougherty Valley Tree Citizens Committee for their participation, dedicated efforts and support in developing this Plan.

J. Dall Barley (Chair) Diane Bloomberg
Daniel Conolly Dennis Corburn
Karyne Ghantous Misty Walker Lohe
Amer Malik John Walkmeyer
Sandra Olinger
Patrick O’Keeffe, Special Advisor with Management Partners graciously assisted the consultants during the Committee Meetings by developing the agendas, facilitating the discussions and keeping things moving in a positive direction.

San Ramon City Staff were of tremendous assistance to CalTLC in the development of the plan, as well as providing background documents and information about current practices, as well as the framework for the project.

Public Works Department:

Maria Fierner, Director; Jeff Gault, Maintenance Operations Division Manager; Jonette Fuentes, Administrative Coordinator and Sean Anderson, Maintenance Supervisor Lauren Barr, Acting Division Manager, Planning Services Division, Bob Saxe, City Attorney
Joe Gorton, City Manager

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2
CHALLENGES OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2
MAINTAINING THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY TREE CANOPY 3
DOUGHERTY VALLEY TREE COMMITTEE 4

THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY STREET & PLANTING STRIP MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION 5
PLAN OPTIONS 6
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND ACTIONS FOR ALL OPTIONS 9
COSTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 14
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 16
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS–WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS 16

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – SITE LOCATION 18
APPENDIX 2 – DECISION MAKING MATRICES FOR TREE RETENTION PREPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL 19 APPENDIX 3 – SPECIES RECOMMENDATIONS, SPECIES DIVERSITY AND PLANTING STRIP TREES 23 APPENDIX 4 – PLAN METHODOLOGY 30
APPENDIX 5 – EXISTING CONDITIONS 32
APPENDIX 6 – BENEFIT VALUES OF TREES 40
APPENDIX 7 - PLANTING AND NURSERY STOCK SPECIFICATIONS 41 APPENDIX 8 – PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS 48
APPENDIX 9– BMPS FOR RETAINING, REPLACING AND GROWING NEW TREES 50 APPENDIX 10 – ROOT PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS 51

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Consulting Arborists Page 1 of 51

DOUGHERTY VALLEY

TREE AND PLANTING STRIP MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan was developed after six months of dedicated work by Dougherty Valley residents, City staff, and the CalTLC consultant team. California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. (CalTLC) was retained by the City of San Ramon to assist in developing ways to resolve damages caused by trees planted along residential streets Dougherty Valley. We were asked to work with a Citizen’s Tree committee to obtain public input on how best to resolve the problems in a way that would be considered acceptable to the citizens of Dougherty Valley.

The Dougherty Valley Citizen’s Tree Committee was selected and assigned by the San Ramon City Council. The committee met an average of twice a month to discuss existing conditions, and learn what future changes from the existing trees could be expected. The Committee discussed potential solutions, prioritized the remedies they thought would preserve neighborhood character and be acceptable to the residents, with the goal of developing a plan for recommendation to City Council.

Dougherty Valley subdivisions were not built in alignment with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, Dougherty Valley Design Guidelines, or reasonable design principles for sustainable urban forestry. The primary problems are: soil compaction, poor selection of tree species, lack space for trees both above and below ground and turf used in the planting strips. As a result, the trees have damaged irrigation systems, utilities, and sidewalks, leading to premature tree removal. The problems are only going to increase as the trees grow larger.

The primary recommended approaches include:
• planting appropriate tree species in the available growing space; • remediating soil areas to reduce compaction and improve soil fertility; • removing turf from the planting strips and installing wood chip mulch, landscape plants and new irrigation; • enlarging the growing space for existing and new trees where feasible; • removing trees where necessary to improve tree spacing and repair infrastructure damage; and • managing tree species to improve diversity over time.

The Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan explains the tree assessment, existing conditions, and technical urban forestry management approaches that can be applied to the infrastructure and trees. The concerns of both the residents and City staff for the plan were to minimize the impacts to the neighborhoods and to be affordable.

We believe the Plan provides the optimum solutions to improve and enhance the Dougherty Valley Streetscapes while reducing the problems associated with intrusive tree roots.

Projected savings based on reduced irrigation and turf and tree maintenance costs provide a significant funding opportunity for successful implementation of the plan. The residents’ desires to retain many of the larger tree species in small planting spaces is the biggest challenge the community will face with this Plan. The trees simply do not have adequate space to grow to their mature size. The Plan provides tools to make consistent decisions to address the challenges of infrastructure damage that will continue to develop as the trees grow.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 51

PURPOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN
● Maintain an urban forest canopy that provides the citizens of Dougherty Valley with the benefits of trees1, including:
urban heat island reduction,
storm water interception,
air quality improvement,
energy conservation,
shade for pedestrians, and aesthetic appeal.
● Maintain a sustainable tree canopy along the streetscapes of Dougherty Valley and work to retain adequate space for growing the right trees in these areas.
● Serve as a guide for City actions to develop a long-term, multi-year plan to manage the existing infrastructure conflicts and future infrastructure projects that may impact the streetscapes. ● Identify methods to prioritize tree and turf replacement. ● Provide a series of options for Tree Retention or Tree Replacement based on the amount of infrastructure damage, and the ability to complete the repair without impairing the stability of the tree. ● Reduce the environmental effects of the loss of individual trees, as longer-term replacement canopy is being grown.
● Reduce water use, consistent with State of California laws and regulations. ● Reduce public expenditures
● Consider wildlife and bird impacts in tree management and removal strategies.

CHALLENGES OF THE PLAN
The biggest challenges for this process are:
● Most of the planted areas are not consistent with the Dougherty Valley design guidelines ● Planting strips are too narrow to support the large sized shade trees that were planted ● The insufficient planting strip widths are continuing in new community development. A 2012 Tree Associates2 report recommended that only wider planting strips be used for larger sized trees. ● The typical placement of trees is too close to utilities, driveways, and street lights, while trees are missing in bulb-outs that appear to be designed for large trees.
● Trees are often spaced too close together to allow them to reach mature size. ● Infrastructure damages and repair costs will increase as the trees get larger. ● Basing tree related decisions on homeowner wants or desires without policies and tools to guide the choices results in inconsistent and varied streetscapes.
● Implementing tree planting following the adopted plan has suffered resistance from citizens in locations where trees have been removed and not been replanted.
● Varied site uses in the community, such as around schools, may require a different approach to turf in planting strips than in front of homes.

1 I-Tree is a program developed by the USFS that calculates the annual benefits of trees by calculating their positive impact on the storm water retention, energy conservation, absorption of pollutants and sequestration of carbon. www.treebenefits.com and www.itreetools.org. Also See Appendix 6, page 38.
2 2012. Tree Associates. Winters, CA.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 3 of 51
Maintaining the Dougherty Valley Tree Canopy
Developing a sustainable tree canopy cover provides a multitude of benefits and services to communities, including energy conservation, air quality improvement, heat island reduction, shade for outdoor use, and providing habitat for native birds and wildlife. Trees are assets whose value to the community should be included and considered in the community’s general plan, development process, and annual budget.

Urban forestry manages the community’s tree population. While each tree can be important, it is the cumulative canopy that defines a community’s tree resource. The two diversity needs are species and age - • species diversity improves the forest’s resilience to disease and insect problems; • age diversity provides a varied size of trees, as well as varied maturity. All populations need to have young trees replacing older trees, or potentially face the death of large swaths of trees at one time. • In new plantings, age diversity is challenging because all the trees are planted at the same time. But as trees grow at different rates and some are replaced, age diversity begins to improve.

The process to set a community wide canopy goal is to recognize the importance of canopy and:
• analyze and measure the existing canopy
• create a stated goal to achieve a specific canopy cover percentage • create the canopy cover plan, which includes several components • periodically evaluate if the goal is being achieved
Current thought in age diversity is to have no more than about 40% of the tree population in the smallest diameter class (less than 6 inches in diameter). Too many in the smallest class of trees means the city would not receive the full benefits of a tree canopy. When too many trees are in the larger diameter classes, concerns arise about mortality and replacement.3
Resolving the primary challenges of over-planting and limited growing space will affect the long term sustainable tree canopy. The optimum plan will identify and maintain the existing tree species that will grow long term in their planting space. The plan could also identify sites where space can be enlarged to retain existing trees for a longer time without conflicts and infrastructure damage. When trees are replaced, selecting species that will grow long term in the available planting space will provide the greatest long term sustainable tree canopy that is the wisest investment of maintenance resources.

Those trees that do not fit the long-term model should ideally be replaced before the expensive infrastructure damages occur and receive only minimal maintenance to manage risk – such as pruning low branches, dead branches, and weak branches that may fail, and plan the cycle of tree replacement. When this can be done with minimal investment, the City avoids spending a lot of money on trees that will be removed in the short term.

Irrigation damage is challenging to monitor because it is underground and hard to observe. If the approach to remove the turf and replace mulch in planting strips is adopted, irrigation modifications during the turf conversion may avoid some of the current irrigation line damage.

The DV Tree and Planting Strip Plan includes a matrix and steps for staff to make consistent supported decisions on tree removal to avoid the costly damages. In those situations where adjacent resident cooperation is required such as to provide easements to relocate sidewalks or accept alternative sidewalk materials, existing trees may be able to be retained for many more years.

3 Designing Urban Forests, Adapted from: McPherson, G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, S.E. Maco, and Q. Xiao, 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities. Journal of Forestry. 103: 411-416. Adapted by Melanie Lenart, University of Arizona

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 4 of 51

DOUGHERTY VALLEY TREE COMMITTEE
We were asked to work with a committed, engaged, and interested group of citizens known as the Dougherty Valley Citizen’s Tree Committee, who are passionate about their community, had personal desires, and are looking out for the best interests of the City.

The Citizen’s Tree Committee was appointed by the City Council in February 2017 and assigned to:
● Provide public input on how best to resolve the problems created by tree root damage to sidewalks, and water and other utility lines throughout Dougherty Valley.
● Review current conditions of the landscaping and tree issues as presented in the various consultant reports, staff reports, photos and observations
● Review professional input and recommendations from the consulting arborists on the current conditions of the potential future impacts
● Review landscape design guidelines and other aspects of the DV Specific Plan and the DV Community Design Handbook
● Hold Committee meetings and public work
sessions to discuss various options and
present scenarios
● Develop short term and long-term options
and future implementation strategies
● Make recommendations to Council for
considerations to be included in the DV Tree
and Turf Strip Management Plan.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````Photo 1. Trees growing alongside Bollinger Canyon Road

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 5 of 51

THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY TREE AND PLANTING STRIP MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
Planting strip width is the most fundamental constraint on the overall streetscape design of Dougherty Valley and its subdivisions. Functionally, the design was to have large trees growing along the main arterials and collector streets in areas with at least 8 to 12’ planting strips. The residential neighborhoods were planned to use smaller maturing species, and have less shade provided by the public trees. Should a homeowner decide they truly want more shade, it would be up to them to provide it on their property, undertaking the cost of the planting and maintenance, including any infrastructure that may be damaged.

The primary way to avoid the huge future maintenance costs in perpetuity is to choose species that fit the sites as designed. In some specific areas, it may be possible to gain a foot or two in planting strip width. How often this is done, and how it fits the available space are decisions that should meet a set of criteria. To move the sidewalk outside the public right-of-way, an easement from the adjacent property owner is the best partnership. This design change to the planter strips would be undertaken in cases where larger trees are desired to be retained.

The first draft of the Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the PLAN) proposed replacing tree species on streets that have already experienced the conflicts of the current design. Most of the trees have only been growing for 6 to 10 years, but the damages to irrigation, utilities and sidewalks are disruptive and costly. Costs will increase as the trees continue to grow.

The Tree Committee choice is to retain as many of the
original trees as possible, coupled with some remediation of existing growing conditions and experimental techniques and materials, such as modular walkways. They recognize that the cost of repairing the damages as the trees grow older will increase and may still result in some of the trees being removed. In some communities like Mill Valley, they accept those costs to retain the large trees. A first step in the proposed plan is for new trees to be planted where
space is available, improving the age diversity on the streets.

In some cases, new species will be chosen.

The tools in this plan are thoughtfully considered after listening to staff history and actions, as well as the Citizen Tree Committee’s feedback on the Dougherty Valley PLAN, field observations, and urban forestry research and best practices.

The intent is to provide:
● a consistent landscape for the community,
● techniques for staff to make findings-based decisions for each street, and
● maintenance practices consistent with the design
handbook intent.

Photo 2. London Plane trees planted in Mill Valley in
1900, prior to the street being paved or having
sidewalks. Today citizens tolerate the inconveniences
of the trees because they love the neighborhood.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 6 of 51
Basing their concerns on fiscal responsibility and the Dougherty Valley Community Design Handbook, staff previously proposed a more aggressive approach to modify existing species on specific streets to reduce further infrastructure damage and achieve the goals of the original plan. This was not preferred by the committee as the desired approach.

This plan has been
developed with the big
picture of the Dougherty
Valley streetscape and the
trees’ long-term
management in mind. The
plan is based on sound
urban forest practices with
the intent to achieve a
sustainable maintenance
budget.

Photo 3. Trees and landscaping on South Gale Ridge, a Collector Street.

Three options are proposed for action. Costs for the Proposed Options will vary significantly. The least expensive longterm choice will be Option 2, although there would be greater upfront costs as well as greater potential savings from small tree and turf grass replacement. The costs of the Option 1 preferred by the Citizen’s Committee may be higher, but the benefits may be greater in terms of tree resources and community appeal. The third option is responding to requests by property owners.

PLAN OPTIONS
The Tree Committee is presenting three options for the Council to consider addressing the challenging situations of the existing conditions and future concerns. The consultants, and staff provided a wide range of actions to implement with their corresponding outcomes. The three options are presented to demonstrate the comprehensive review of the situation and possible response actions.

Option 1 is the consensus choice of the Committee, as the reasonable sustainable alternative. The costs referred to in each option are based on current city contracts and other similar costs for the same work in the Bay Area. Costs may vary - up or down - depending on specifications, quantities, and timing of contracts

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 7 of 51
CITIZEN’S TREE COMMITTEE PREFERRED OPTION 1.

This Option provides a strategic process for developing an initial Annual Plan followed by a multi-year plan to address trees that are creating damages to utilities, irrigation and sidewalks within Dougherty Valley residential streets. The goal of this Option is to retain existing trees for as long as possible. The Annual Plan will focus the first activities at existing service call locations, and then move to a planned sequence of locations to address trees based on severity of damages and size of planting strips. Turf will be replaced around the trees as sites are repaired, or replaced for the entire valve distance in the planting strip as trees are replaced.

Option 1 includes using reasonable tree care best practices, along with increased community review of progress on an annual basis.
• Each year, develop an Annual Work Plan based on staff assessments of the sites to determine what the situation is, and what options are available for mitigation. The annual plan should include review of the previous year results and costs in support of the budget formulation. • The first plan will likely occur mid-year, and will begin with addressing the existing service requests.

The process will be:

1. Sort the existing requests by address, group them in geographical areas, and work by neighborhoods. When there are several requests on one street, assess the options and develop proposed measures for the street before any work is scheduled. Follow the tools and actions in the Implementation section of this report. The Plan should include the specific trees to be preserved and root pruned, those to be replaced, and those to be removed and not replaced (if any).

2. On blocks where several trees need replacing (based on the matrices in Appendix 2, page 19, and recommended tree species in Appendix 3 page 21) decide which replacement tree species is going to be used for the block and replace the trees with the new species. Maintain proper distance from utilities and concrete, and proper tree spacing.

3. When trees are replaced, use soil remediation techniques prior to planting and replace the turf with an appropriate ground cover.

4. On the same block, if there are trees that can be retained, repair the damage that has been caused using the appropriate actions and tools.

5. Decide at that time if the turf should be replaced with a ground cover around the retained trees, or if it should only be pulled back 5’ away from the tree and replaced with mulch.

6. Notify the homeowners on the street what the plan is and when the work will be completed. Provide them with a contact, or schedule a specific time to discuss the plan with them, possibly on site.

Working on the service request sites first accomplishes three important actions:
1) It responds to inquiries put on hold during the committee process; and 2) provides opportunities to test and confirm the proposed actions are workable, and verifies cost estimates. 3) provide notice to, and receive feedback from, the citizens on the proposed project plan.

The service request work will be the first priority in the planning and budgeting preparation for completing the rest of the work in the same area with the same size planting strips and size of trees. While the existing service requests are completed, staff will complete an assessment of the other sites in the area to determine the most critical sites to work on as the next step. The work, budget, and outcome will be evaluated after the first two steps – service requests and 1st phase of the work - so future assessments and budgets can occur in a timely manner, and receive the community feedback built into the plan.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 8 of 51
On all repair sites, turf should be removed from around the tree, or from the entire planter strip, depending on the severity of current damage to the irrigation system. When a block of trees is necessarily replaced, remove the turf in that planting strip, and choose a ground cover for the site. Ground covers should be just as varied as the tree species, to discover over time which ones are most resilient and which ones are most compatible with specific tree species.

Diversity of trees, as well as ground covers, is an important management characteristic throughout the community.

The second Annual Plan will then progress to new service requests and locations, as identified by staff assessments.

The tree replacement cost will range from $250 to $450, plus the turf conversion, so final costs per site will range from $720 to $2,250. Cost savings should be significant, but less than a more aggressive approach of replacing all trees on the block at the same time.

As the first Annual plan is being developed, a knowledgeable Certified Arborist and Landscape Architect should work with staff to develop a detailed list of streets with recommended tree species for each of the 56 neighborhoods, along with appropriate ground cover species. This list should consider some research of existing plants growing in San Ramon as well as experimental plantings in parks to assess new ground covers. It should be reviewed and approved by the Tree Committee.

OPTION 2. CHOOSE TO REDUCE LONG-TERM COSTS AND REPLACE THE TREES IN THE SMALLER PLANTING STRIPS BEFORE THEY CAUSE ANY MORE DAMAGE TO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS OR THE SIDEWALKS. REPLACE THE TURF IN THE PLANTING STRIPS AT THE SAME TIME.

This approach includes working on selected streets to remove and replace tree species too large for the planting strip before any damage expenses are realized. The prioritization of streets or blocks will be based on size of the planting strip (smallest strips first), anticipated size of the species currently planted, and age of the sites, and will be a more aggressive approach to prevent further infrastructure or utility damage. When trees or irrigation are replaced the turf will be removed and mulch and landscape plants will be installed. Soil remediation will also be implemented to correct the soil compaction.

For the first year, existing service requests will be planned geographically and completed. While the service request work is being performed, staff will assess the next phase. Once the service requests are completed, the first sites to be addressed will be the 4’ wide planting strips with potable water and trees too big for the available planting strip. Once the 4’ planting strips with potable water are completed, the 5’ wide planting strips with potable water will be addressed.

Once the potable water sites are completed, the sequence will be the 4’ wide strips with trees too large for the planting strip, and then 5’ wide strips. With each annual plan, the service requests will be responded to.

The same assessment, notification, and replacement tools will be used for Option 2 as in Option 1.

This option may require Capital outlays above and beyond the annual Maintenance funds. The costs will range from $480 (lower tree removal cost for smaller trees), the tree replacement cost of $250 to $450, plus the turf conversion range from $720 to $2,250. The cost savings will be based on cost avoidance, since every tree that is replaced before concrete damage occurs can be expected to save at least $900. Additional cost savings will also be from reduced turf irrigation and maintenance.

This option was not desired by the Committee. They felt it was too aggressive and will remove too many trees and replace them with smaller scale trees in an indiscriminate manner, and it would result in too drastic a change to their neighborhoods.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 9 of 51
OPTION 3. RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR SERVICE. ALLOW THE TREES TO GROW AS THEY ARE AND FIX THE PROBLEMS AS THEY ARE REPORTED WITHIN THE ALLOTTED BUDGET AND STAFFING.

Neither the Committee nor the Consultants consider this a viable option. Too much time and energy has been spent with the Citizen Tree Committee to not gain some improvement to the future streetscape designs and budget management.

Option 3 results in unplanned service request responses to damages. The trees will grow larger and damages will increase, and service request calls will increase in volume. If nothing is done until the sidewalk is damaged, the costs will range from $900.00 to $1,350.00 per tree site. Tree removal and stump grinding costs range from $480 to $790. The cost of tree planting is $250 to $450 per tree, and landscape conversion from turf to mulch ranges from $720 to $2,250 depending on planter strip size. The total range of costs when the sidewalk is repaired range from $900 to $4,840 depending on the size of the tree, tree removal, tree planting, and turf to mulch conversion.

IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS AND ACTIONS FOR ALL OPTIONS
Annual Plan Review
An Annual Work Plan will be developed each year along with the budget. A quarterly report of the completed work in the current year would keep the community up to date. The year-end report should review accomplishments for the year and be compared to the proposed plan for the coming year.

Multi-Year Plan Approach
The committee wanted a long-term approach with a multi-year focus as well as an annual work plan. As the first annual plan work is completed and the sites are assessed, a multi-year focus will support longer term budgeting, prioritization of sites, and realization of cost savings.

Homeowner Notification
The need to clearly explain the Annual Work plan to the public is important for The Plan to be successful. Information handouts will need to explain what is occurring at the individual properties, and what is occurring along the entire street. Scheduling and City contact information are important for inquiries to be efficiently communicated.

Enhance existing canopy by replacing dead and dying trees and then by thinning out overcrowded trees.

In reviewing the tree inventory, we learned there are 69 recommended removals based on poor condition, 230 stumps of previously removed trees, and 2039 vacant sites where trees were removed that are available for new tree planting (potentially up to 2,269 new trees). As an initial component of the program, focus on enhancing the landscape first by planting trees, while the chosen option is being initiated. Once the new trees are planted, thin out overplanted trees so the desired remaining trees can gain more room to grow to maturity.

Prioritize tree replacements based on current infrastructure damage.

The overarching goal is to retain as much canopy in Dougherty Valley as possible to retain the character of tree lined streets, but this needs to be accomplished in a sustainable manner.

If a tree can be retained without causing an unacceptable expense or risk, the removal should be delayed. The delay of removals will retain a similar look on a street. The phasing of removals on streets can retain as much canopy as possible during the transition to more appropriate species for the growing space for the long term.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 10 of 51
Soil Remediation and Tree Planting
When trees are removed and/or the irrigation system is replaced, soil remediation should be performed to reduce compaction, improve the soil permeability, and soil quality in the planting strip. There should be a standard amount of organic amendment used at each site and specifications developed for how to till and amend the soil. This language should be placed in the Landscape Contract Specifications.

Sidewalk Materials and Alternative Designs
Alternative materials include porous concrete, rubber sidewalks, and permeable plastic modular sidewalks. We showed slides and discussed these alternative in detail with the Tree Committee. Permeable materials allow water and air to seep through the walkway and can encourage the development of deeper roots over time. Thinner materials create more rooting space, and last longer than the traditional concrete sidewalks. Because concrete cracks over roots, more roots must be removed when repairs are made to protect the concrete walkway. Greater root removal may impact tree stability and health.

In some situations, temporary repairs may be needed to reduce liability of a displaced sidewalk. Temporary repairs include: grinding the offset level; saw cutting the offset level; ramping or patching the offset with asphalt fines (cement dust should be placed over the final surface of the asphalt. The gray color absorbs some of the oils, reduces the heat absorbed by the asphalt so it stays harder, and looks better than black asphalt); the sidewalk can be torn out and replaced with a temporary asphalt sidewalk (cement dust coating applied for the same reasons); or other alternative materials may be used for the sidewalk.

Usually, a step separation or significant slope angle are the triggers to perform the temporary or permanent repair. In court cases, offsets as small as ¾ inch have been called the threshold for whereby an agency should have acted to correct the offset before an incident occurs. This can be lower around senior housing or children gathering areas. For simplicity, our recommendation is to use 1” as the minimum offset to trigger a concrete replacement. Less than an inch can receive a temporary repair.

In some situations, the longevity of a tree may be extended by replacing the adjacent sidewalk with an alternative material to concrete, or moving the sidewalk over, or both moving the sidewalk and using an alternative material.

Choosing this option will be based on:
• the structure and health of the tree - at least fair condition; • adequate space between the trunk and the sidewalk to install a level, ADA compliant walkway; • if the sidewalk is being moved closer to the house, there is adequate space between the new sidewalk location and the adjacent home; and
• the condition of the curb and gutter is serviceable, not damaged or causing ponding of water.

Ways to Address Sidewalk Damage:
• When a street has a species too large for the available planting strip width, and the sidewalk cannot be moved over, the tree causing the damage and adjacent trees of similar size should be removed. The trees would be replaced with a species more appropriate for the planting strip width. • When a street has a species too large for the growing space, and the citizens want to retain the trees, it may be possible to relocate the sidewalk farther from the tree on private property, creating more growing space. The tree can continue to grow, until they get too large and start displacing the curb and gutter. The curb and gutter can also be moved, although it usually results in the loss of an on-street parking place. If the tree is displacing too great an offset of the curb and gutter, the tree will likely need to be replaced. This alternative of relocating the infrastructure to give the tree the necessary growing space may increase the cost of tree retention over the lifetime of the tree. To move a sidewalk onto private property, a sidewalk maintenance easement can be agreed upon with the adjacent property owner. The City could consider asking the adjacent homeowner to participate in a portion of the cost.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 11 of 51
• Where planting strips contain appropriate tree species, but still experience sidewalk damage, replace the sidewalk in a similar position with an alternative material that allows for tree conservation. Modular sidewalk materials now exist that are thinner than concrete and permeable. The benefits of modular materials are greater soil volume and growing conditions for the tree roots. The walkway can be lifted, tree roots pruned, and the same materials re-used. This reduces future repair costs and retains the consistent site appearance. • Temporary repairs can be made to reduce the liability of a displaced sidewalk when adequate funds are not available, or a decision cannot be made at the time a sidewalk condition is discovered. Temporary repairs include sidewalk grinding, saw cutting, patching or ramping, and in significantly offset concrete – remove the concrete and replace temporary asphalt or other materials. When asphalt is used, the surface should be coated with dry concrete “dust” as explained in the sidewalk materials and alternative design above.

Sidewalk replacement may require tree removal at a site, while temporary repairs can delay tree removal at that site.

The assessment tools will allow staff to make the best decisions for site mitigation and tree retention or removal.

Assessment for each street and planting situation
A detailed plan for each block should be developed, based on current species present and the amount of damage that has occurred or is expected to occur within the next 5 years. If the trees are healthy and no damage is expected within the next 5 years, place that block on a lower priority for work.

Focusing on the combination of oldest sites and limited planting strip size, develop a priority based strategy for retaining or replacing trees. Where trees are damaging infrastructure, choose a species from the recommended list and develop a time frame for replanting based on number of vacant tree sites, number of irrigation breaks, and amount of damage to infrastructure.

Improve Species Diversity and pay close attention to which species are used where Optimum Urban Forest best practices promote a population that contains no more than 10% of any one species (purple leaf Plum), 20% of a Genus (Prunus), and 30% of a Family (Rose). This is designed to reduce catastrophic tree losses when a disease or insect that is species specific arrives in your community. Two ways to achieve diversity in a community include alternating tree species on a street, or designating streets with 1 or 2 tree species and balance the number of streets with different species. There are two species shown in the inventory summary in Appendix 3, page 23, greater than 15% in Dougherty Valley – London Plane, and Ornamental Pear.

Planting 2 species on a street can be helpful in providing a more resilient canopy by reducing the ability for catastrophic insects or diseases to wipe out the entire street canopy. The current plantings of Trident maple and crape myrtle as replacements are a good example on street where the current trees were found to be too big for the planting space. An important priority of the tree committee was uniformity on streets, so trees with similar characteristics should be planted together to retain a more uniform tree canopy appearance.

Species with a high population percentage should not be used on new local streets. Plant these species only on existing designated streets, so their percentage of the overall population will be reduced.

Maintain appropriate and consistent tree spacing for optimum canopy development Tree spacing – the distance between trees - is defined for each species as that needed for the trees to grow to their full canopy potential. Removal of adjacent trees should be scheduled when the canopies of adjacent trees begins to overlap or conflict with each other and the trees will continue to grow larger.

The most challenging spacing is where trees are planted on both sides of the sidewalk and are too close together. The first criteria to look at is the rooting space. Some of the trees are planted between a wall and the sidewalk in a very narrow strip. Those trees will receive consideration for removal based on the limited growing space. In these situations. remove the trees between the sidewalk and the wall, and space out the trees along the planting strip if needed. Around parks, where there is ample growing space on the park side of the sidewalk, remove every other tree on one side of the sidewalk, and the alternating every other tree on the planting strip side of the sidewalk so each tree has space to grow a

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 12 of 51
full canopy. The ideal tree spacing for each species is equal to the ultimate spread of the tree’s canopy and is included in Appendix 3, pages 23.

Removing trees for canopy space will remove trees that are healthy, and structurally sound. They are being removed as an established forestry practice to allow adequate space for the long-term growth of the remaining trees, and will continue to gain a net increase of the community canopy.

Replace turf in planting strips with natural mulch, and low water use landscape plants with some stepping stones or walkway across the strip at the front entrance to homes. Eventually eliminate most turf strips on residential streets, especially those using potable water.

The simplest agreement the committee made was that turf around trees is not a good idea. The primary reasons are:
● the watering pattern causes more surface roots,
● the lawn maintenance has damaged too many tree trunks and roots, ● turf requires a greater water use and maintenance effort.

At the same time, the lawn has aesthetic appeal so the Committee wanted a phased approach to turf replacement. In locations where the turf will not be removed for a few years, place mulch in a rectangle, 4 to 5 feet on either side of the tree for the entire width of the planting strip width. This will improve the soil texture and aeration around the tree for improved growth, and avoid the “accidental” wounding of trees by lawn mowing equipment. It may also allow the placement of bubbler irrigation over the root system of the tree.

Replacing turf with mulch alone provides less color in the community. Staff has already experimented with several lower growing shrubs and ground covers and achieved a good palate of plants, and others can be added to create more variety, color themes, and interesting appearance. In planting strips receiving mulch in areas longer than 12 feet between a walkway or driveway, some modular walkway of a minimum dimension of 18 to 24 inches wide, made of either concrete, decorative stepping stones, bricks or pavers, are recommended to provide a clear pedestrian path across the planting strip to the front door. This accomplishes three important things:
● avoids damage to drip irrigation parts by people randomly walking across the mulch, ● provides a firm footing for high heels and shoes that may sink underfoot in wet soil conditions, and ● modular walks can be adjusted if needed
Convert Irrigation from overhead spray to bubblers.

Replace spray irrigation systems with bubblers. The typical valve may cover 5 to 12 homes. When plant material is converted from lawn to low water use shrubs and mulch, convert the irrigation to bubblers. Usually the entire valve area needs to be replaced at the same time, although in some cases drip emitters can be added to a spray head system by replacing the head with a bubbler head, leaving other heads as sprays. This would need to be overseen by an irrigation specialist.

There should be a minimum of 2 bubbler emitters per tree. The bubblers should be fitted so they are adjustable as the trees grow. The initial position is over the root ball of new plantings, since the only root system is what comes in the container. The bubblers should provide water around the base of the tree, and cover an area up to 5 feet from the trunk. After 2 years, the bubblers should be moved farther from the tree to cover a larger area. This irrigation adjustment needs to be included in the staff work description and the maintenance contract.

Improve Planting Specifications and Techniques
Improved planting specifications need to be adopted and followed. For #15 containers and 24” box trees, it appears that City staff is planting the trees according to industry best practices, and root problems appear to be reduced for the short term. The Planting Specifications that are included in contract documents need to be quite detailed not only as to planting, but also as to appropriate selection and purchase of trees, and the rejection at delivery of poor quality trees that arrive from the nursery.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 13 of 51
Bare Root Trees
To budget most efficiently for the new plantings, an annual plan for tree planting should be developed each fall so the number and location of trees to be replaced are known. The removal of trees can take place in the winter, avoiding bird nesting season and retaining the trees during the summer when shade is needed. The planting strips can be prepared with newly tilled and amended soils and irrigation systems can be installed. The new trees could be ordered as bare root trees instead of container trees. There are many advantages to using bare root nursery stock:
• The trees are less expensive by at least one third the cost • The holes dug into prepared soils are a minimum size
• Trees do not weigh much and can be planted by the citizens • You can see and place the roots in the optimum location for future growth. • Staking is much easier, and the establishment period for the trees is greatly reduced. • Within 2 years the trees will be larger than the #15 container trees currently being used.

Bare root trees require additional care: be certain the roots do not dry out, and the trees obtain adequate water in the first 2 months. The size of bare root trees is smaller, so the use of mulch and protective staking will improve their survival. A triangular staking pattern will create a frame around the trees. Cross bars have been used with two stakes in windy areas, and the cross bar has damaged tree trunks and branches. The triangular staking will reduce damage to trees.

Provide for large trees in large spaces
The arterial streets have the best opportunity for large scale trees and canopy. The lack of turf has avoided lawn mower damage to the trees. Some trees are overplanted, and the spacing can be managed as the trees continue to grow. In situations where there are trees on opposite sides of the sidewalk too close together, every other alternate tree on the opposite side of the sidewalk can be removed to provide the space for the trees to grow to their normal crown size, and provide a long-term canopy.

Areas that have “orchard” plantings of Flowering Plum can be thinned, or replanted in a phased approach to grow larger trees in the larger planting space. We promote the phased approach whenever possible, understanding that some situations cannot be phased, because there are many dead or poorly performing trees in these plum “orchards”.

Improve Landscape Maintenance and Tree Service Contract Specifications Review the landscape maintenance contract.
• Require trees and plants that die because of irrigation leaks or failures to be replaced. Obtain assistance from the manufacturer of the irrigation controller program, if it is not functioning as intended. They should be able to provide additional training and troubleshooting if irrigation breaks are not being identified. • Include moving bubblers away from tree trunks in new plantings after 2 years. • Require the mulched areas around trees to be increased in size as the trees grow to prevent injury by lawn mowers.

Review the Tree Service Contract. While most of the work appeared to be performed to industry standards in the form of how cuts are made, there has not been adequate attention paid to tree structure, where cuts would be made in different locations. The costs should be similar. When trees are young, they should be pruned at least every 3 to 5 years to maintain a central leader and improve branch structure to reduce long term maintenance problems as the trees grow.

The temporary and permanent branches are treated differently until the temporary branches are removed and only the permanent branches remain.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 14 of 51

COSTS OF THE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Costs cannot be accurately determined until the Option to implement is chosen and the various types of actions are known. One factor that needs to be considered is that contract services tend to be less expensive per unit of service if the amount of work is known at the time the contract is offered.

The costs of Option 2 have been projected by staff in a 2016 finance committee report4 that outlined the proposal to proactively replace trees that were causing infrastructure damage, as well as replacing the turf in planting strips less than 5’ wide. The tree inventory shows the numbers of trees in this report to be accurate. This report stated that the cost of removing 518 trees and replacing them with 380 smaller trees averaged $873 per replaced tree. Staff predicted that the total costs of the program would be $6.5M, but that $1.44M savings would be offset by water and labor costs after turf conversion, leaving a net cost of $5.1M. Further savings would result from avoidance of repairs to infrastructure damage.

With Option 1, there would still be avoidance of some costs to infrastructure damage, and savings from turf conversion, although to a smaller degree because the work would proceed more incrementally. The costs for tree replacement can be expected to be similar as for Option 2, although the numbers of trees cannot be predicted until the first Annual Plan is developed and reviewed at the end of the year.

There are 2,269 places available to plant trees now, based on the City’s inventory of stumps and vacant sites. Were these to be replaced in the first year, at a cost of $250 per #15 container tree, the total cost would be at least $567,250.

This could increase for two main reasons:
• Sixty-seven sites will require the stumps of the old trees to be removed before planting can be completed • Irrigation repairs may be required
• Soil remediation should take place, since poor soil condition may be the reason the tree did not thrive Total annual costs of maintain turf strips less than five (5) feet wide is $795,250. This should be reduced significantly over time, as the streets with the smaller planting strips are addressed and the turf strips are replaced with low water use shrubs and mulch. The costs for annual maintenance and water for the turf strips are estimated to be reduced by 50% once the turf conversion work is complete. The actual costs of implementing certain options and alternatives can vary significantly depending on the scope and amount of action undertaken.

It will be less expensive to do the work systematically because there will be a contract savings due to the scale of the work, and reduced travel time. And if the work is done conscientiously over the next 5 years, the cost savings will be more because many of the trees will not have grown large enough to cause conflicts, avoiding those infrastructure repair costs.

Involving residents, business owners and community service organizations can create more awareness of what trees do for the community and provides broad support for better tree care.

Involve citizen groups to work with the City or through special neighborhood events to plant container or bareroot trees on certain blocks to save costs and get neighbors involved. Tree planting is a very positive way to bring the community together and increase neighborhood engagement. This could be done as an Arbor Day celebration in support of the Tree City USA program, or with other nonprofit organizations leading the coordination with the citizens. Participation in planting through a Beautification Committee or non-profit tree group, such as Tree Davis, CityTrees, or the Sacramento Tree Foundation can be very beneficial.

4 Finance Committee Staff Report, March 2016. Prepared by Jeff Gault, Operations Division Manager.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 15 of 51
At the time of this report5, the following costs were considered for decisions and savings:
• Remove and replace concrete sidewalk will cost approximately $18 per square foot. • Remove and replace the driveway will cost approximately $20 per square foot. • Sidewalk repairs (50 ft2 to 75 ft2 per tree) - cost range of $900.00 to $1,350.00 per tree. • Remove and replace concrete curb/gutter and pave adjacent asphalt is $55 per lineal foot. • Typical curb and gutter section to correct a ponding grade offset is 10 feet, or $550.00. • Planting a #15 tree with irrigation modification is $250. • Cost of planting a 24-inch boxed tree with irrigation modification is $450. • The average cost of an irrigation repair is $193 per site. • The cost of conversion from turf to mulch and plants were quoted as $4.00 per square foot. • Street frontages average width is 45’ long planting strips of various widths. • Side frontages on corner houses average of 75’ long planting strips at the various widths. • Turf conversion to mulch - $720 for a 4’ wide planting strip to $1,350 for a 7.5’ wide planting strip. • Turf conversion to mulch - $1,200 for a side 4’ wide planting strip to $2,250 for a side 7.5’wide planting strip. • Root prune and install linear root barrier, for 10’ - $250. • Root prune and install linear barrier on 2 sides - $500. • Tree removal and stump grinding - $480 to $790 depending on tree size, species, and location.

Cost Savings
The cost savings that will result from turf removal alone will generate significant funding for replacing trees that are causing damages. The savings is realized from reduced water costs as well as reduced labor.

Low water use plants normally need to be trimmed every 3 to 6 months, versus weekly cutting of lawns.

The savings that result from avoiding repair costs to sidewalks and water lines will also fund much of the replanting and maintenance work for the future by setting the stage for the right trees to grow in the right growing spaces for the desired purpose. This allows annual funds to be shifted to more structural pruning of young trees that is essential in their first 10 years.

Funding
One funding option is to create a capital account for the DV Plan. This would allow the budget to transition across fiscal years, where general fund expenditures usually close out each fiscal year.

The City should examine other options for funding the project, including the potential for gaining additional funds from the County, and M29 assessment district funds.

Photo 4. Low Water use ground cover in a 4’ wide planter strip.

5 Cost figures are on 2017 dollars.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 16 of 51

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The recommendations in this report are meant to achieve a manageable and sustainable long-term canopy in Dougherty Valley. The intent is to maximize the tree canopy in the available planting spaces with reduced conflicts, longer life spans, and optimal benefits the trees.

With the current design, and long-term prognosis is that the trees will:
● not live a normal lifespan,
● cause expensive repairs to infrastructure that have negative environmental consequences based on tree removal, debris, and energy consumption,
● cause many trees to be removed prematurely, and not replaced, due to these conflicts.

The recommendations in the plan are meant to reduce the costly damage and premature removal of the trees as is occurring now. The new trees planted are intended to be grown on the site for up to 40 years or more. This provides a sustainable community tree canopy, not an unpredictable and variable canopy that is constantly subject to premature removals.

One result of removing the turf from the planting strips will be to reduce noise pollution from the constant lawn mowing that is occurring. There will also be less need for blowers that add to the constant background noise of suburban life.

The elements of the plan will be analyzed to determine their impact on the environment, using a California Environment Quality Act review and documentation. This analysis will be accomplished by appropriately trained staff and contractor, and submitted for review.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS – WHAT THE FUTURE COULD HOLD
The Consultants recommend that Council consider establishing a City-Wide Tree Committee as a permanent body to advocate for trees and assist with planning
Since such a committee would be considering tree situations citywide, a greater pool of members than just from Dougherty Valley should be recruited to participate. The new Committee should first review the current Tree Ordinance6, and propose revisions as needed. As the Dougherty Valley Plan is approved, any conflicts or changes necessary to the City’s tree ordinances governing public trees should be updated. If the goals for canopy cover, diversity, and tree spacing can be incorporated, it should promote a better long-term tree canopy in both Dougherty Valley and the entire City.

Establish Urban Forestry Position.

Assign an Urban Forestry Position within the Public Works Department, whose responsibilities would include working with Tree Committee to revise the current Tree Ordinance as needed, develop an Urban Forest Management plan, implement the recommendations included in this Plan for Dougherty Valley and develop annual plans, budgets, and urban forest awareness for the care and management of the City’s trees.

6 San Ramon Code of Ordinances, Chapter IIIA – Community Forestry Program. 4 pages.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 17 of 51

APPENDICES

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 18 of 51
APPENDIX 1 - SITE LOCATION

DOUGHERTY VALLEY

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 19 of 51
APPENDIX 2 –

DECISION MAKING MATRICES FOR TREE RETENTION, REPLACEMENT OR REMOVAL

EXISTING DAMAGE
Type of Damage Minor* Moderate# Significant@ Severe^
Tree Falling over from Root
Barrier
Remove
Barrier
Remove BarrierStake Replace Tree Replace Tree
Surface Rooting Root Prune Root pruneInstall Barrier Replace Tree Replace Tree Irrigation Heads Blocked Root Prune Root Prune Root pruneInstall Barrier Replace Tree Water Box Lifted Root Prune Root Prune Root pruneInstall Barrier Replace Tree Electrical Box Lifted Root Prune Root Prune Root pruneInstall Barrier Replace Tree Sidewalk Lifted Root Prune Root Prune Replace Sidewalk Replace Tree Other Infrastructure Damage Root Prune Root pruneInstall Barrier Root pruneInstall Barrier Replace Tree *Minor – Tree is damaging only one or two areas, and roots can clearly be pruned to reduce or stop the damage. #Moderate – Roots may be causing irrigation problems, or lifting a utility box, but can be root pruned to avoid future problems.
@Significant – Roots are damaging utilities and/or adjacent cement, which will need to be replaced. ^Severe – Roots have caused damage to utilities and/or sidewalks and several surface roots are visible that will continue to cause problems.

Any root pruning may result in poor tree stability. Linear root pruning should only take place if the distance from the base of the trunk is 3 times the diameter of the trunk at DBH or greater. Trees that have been root pruned should be checked for stability, and removed if found to be unstable.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 20 of 51

CHARACTERISTICS OF TREE SPECIES
Extent of Tree Removal
Required because of
Damage
Right Size Tree
for Site
Other Trees Likely
to Cause Damage Poor Species Trees too large for site
1 tree on Block Root Prune Replace with New
Species
Repair/RemediateMove/New Sidewalk
2-3 trees adjacent Repair/Remediate Repair/Remediate Repair/RemediateMove/New Sidewalk 5 trees on one side Repair/Remediate Replace with New
Species
Replace with New
Species
Replace with New
Species
7-10 trees on block Repair/Remediate Replace with New
Species
Replace with New
Species
Replace with New
Species

EXPECTED YEARS BEFORE DAMAGE
SIZE OF TREE <6" 6"-18" > 18"
Size of Planting Strip Small Medium Large
Small <4' 25+ years 10 years 5 years
Medium 4-6' 25+ years 15 years 10 years
Large >6' 25+ years 15 years 20 years
Very Large >8' 50+ years 25+ years 25+ years

TREE IS DAMAGING INFRASTRUCTURE
SIZE OF TREE <6" 6"-18" > 18"
Size of Planting Strip Small (4’) Medium (5-6’) Large (>6’) Small <4' Leave tree Replace tree Replace tree
Medium 4-6' Leave tree Root Prune + Barrier Replace tree Large >6' Leave tree Root Prune Root Prune
Very Large >8' Leave tree Leave tree Root Prune

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 21 of 51

SITE ASSESSMENT TOOL
Name: _______________________ Address: ___________________________ Date: _________ Phone: _______________________ Email: _____________________________________________ Planting Strip Width: ____ Tree Species: _______ DBH: _____ Inspector: __________________ Cause of request: Sidewalk Damage: __ Irrigation Damage: __ Curb and Gutter Damage: __ Utilities Damage: __ Other: ________________________________________________________ Assessment Matrix
Site Characteristic Acceptable Unacceptable Retain Replace Tree health and appearance
Tree condition and structure
Insects or pests present
Can clearance be achieved for access or line of sight
Space to continue to grow for 5 years
Species aligns with DV Guidelines
Site potential for Alternative Design
Root pruning will not de-stabilize tree
Tree Spacing
Site Characteristic Remove all Rectangle Plants Irrigation Turf in planting strip

Site Characteristic Same
species
New species Same
place
New
space
Tree planting
Root Pruning
Linear root pruning can occur at a distance from the trunk 3 times DBH or greater. If not, tree will need to be removed.

Individual root pruning can occur on up to 2 roots per tree, greater than 2 inches up to 6 inches, on one side at a distance of 2 times the DBH for roots. If not, he tree will need to be removed.

For individual roots larger than 6 inches, one root may be pruned not closer than 3 times DBH if the desire is to try to retain the tree. If stability is a concern, a pull test can be performed. If the tree is deemed unstable it will be removed.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 22 of 51
Tree Planting
Is there a better space to plant a tree? If yes, plant a tree in alignment with the DV guidelines, and future spacing goals. Trees can be planted close to existing trees to meet future spacing, with the understanding the existing trees will be removed when the new tree is established.

Site Assessment Considerations
Site longevity: If the tree can be retained on the site without likelihood of recurring sidewalk damage in 10 years, root prune and restore site
Sidewalk design: Can the sidewalk be moved? If yes, move the sidewalk towards the house to create the space for root pruning and site repair. If the site has the space and is a candidate for an alternative material, utilize an alternative material in the sidewalk repair.

Root Pruning: If the space is available to root prune and retain the tree, root prune and install new linear barrier.

Mulch: If planting strip is turf, change turf to mulch at the time of site repair, and modify irrigation for the tree and new landscape plants.

Turf removal and replace with mulch - If reasonable, remove the entire turf from strip and replace mulch and ornamental plants. Only remove turf and replace a mulch rectangle around the tree; modify irrigation for tree. # of sites: If the site is individual proceed with the individual site work. If a group of sites, confirm the plan for work to address the group.

Crowding: If tree crowns are encroaching and pruning will not resolve the encroachment long term, select the best tree and remove the crowding tree to meet spacing goals. If there is space for continued tree growth without significant damage until the next pruning cycle, continue to grow the tree.

Tree Planting: Is there space to plant a tree? If yes, plant a tree in alignment with the DV guidelines, and future spacing goals. (Trees can be planted close to existing trees to meet future spacing, with the understanding the existing trees will be removed when the new tree is established) Tree Species
Is the existing species correct for the planting strip space? Is the species in alignment with the diversity targets? Is the species in alignment with the DV Guidelines?
If yes to all 3, plant same species.

If not, plant different species.

Bird Nesting
Between February 1 and August 31 of each year (nesting season), conduct a visual inspection for evidence of nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to tree removal. If evidence of nesting is observed, no tree removal activities shall occur within 50 feet of the tree with the nest until the nest is vacated. No visual inspection is required between September 1 and January 31 of each year (non-nesting season).

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 23 of 51
APPENDIX 3 – SPECIES RECOMMENDATIONS, SPECIES DIVERSITY, AND PLANTING STRIP TREES Species Recommended for Planting in the Different Sized Planting Strips Common Name Scientific Name Mature size
3' to 4.5' Wide Height by Spread
Eastern Redbud Cercis candensis 20 x 20
Crabapple cultivars Malus species 20 x 20
Crape Myrtle cultivars Lagerstroemia indica 25 x 20
Flowering Cherry cultivars Prunus serrulata 25 x 25
Forest Pansy Redbud Cercis canadensis 'Forest Pansy' 20 x 25 Japanese Maple cultivars Acer palmatum 20 x 25
5' to 6.5' Wide
American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana 25 x 20
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis 45 x 30
Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis 25 x 20
European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus 35 x 25
Hedge Maple Acer campestre 30 x 30
Grecian Laurel - Sweetbay Laurus nobilis 30 x 25
Mayten Maytenus boaria 20 x 20
Red Horsechestnut Aesculus carnea 30 x 35
Snowbell Styrax japonica 25 x 20
Sour Gum - Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica 35 x 20
State Street Maple Acer miyabel 'Morton' 45 x 30
Trident Maple Acer buegeranum 20 x 20
7' to 8' Wide
Chinese Flame Tree Koelreuteria bipannata 35 x 30
English Oak Quercus robur 50 x 40
Freeman Maple Acer freemanii 50 X 40
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 45 x 35
Goldenrain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata 30 x 30
Holly Oak Quercus ilex 35 x 30
Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 40 x 30
Japanese Pagoda Tree Sophora japonica 35 x 25
Little Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 40 x 35
Marina Madrone Arbutus marina 30 x 25
Pin Oak Quercus palustris 55 x 40
Red Oak Quercus rubra 50 x 45
Red Maple cultivars Acer rubrum 40 x 35
Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus 40 x 30

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 24 of 51
Common Name Scientific Name Mature size

8.5' to 16' Wide Height by Spread
Autumnn Purple Ash
Fraxinus americana 'Autumn
Purple' 45 x 40
Shingle Oak Quercus macrocarpa 50 x 40
Chinkapin oak Quercus muehlenbergii 45 x 45
California Black Walnut Juglans hindsii 80 x 50
California Pepper Schinus molle 50 x 35
Canary Island Pine Pinus canariennsis 60 x 30
Chestnut Leaf Oak Quercus castaneafolia 50 x 40
Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 70 x 50
Cork Oak Quercus suber 50 x 30
Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara 60 x 40
Evergreen Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 40 x 35
London Plane cultivars Platanus hispanica 50 x 40
River Birch Betula nigra 40 x 35
Dura-Heat Birch Betula nigra 'BNMTF' 40 x 30
Sawtooth Zelkova Zelkova serrata 50 x 40
Soutehrn Live Oak Quercus virginiana 70 x 50
Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandifora 50 x 30
Valley Oak Quercus lobata 80 x 40
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 50 x 35
These growing space recommendations are the minimum site sizes for the species. Some of the trees planted in these minimum sized sites may, in optimum growing conditions, become too large for the site, and cause some infrastructure damage, likely in 30 to 50 years.

Trees to Avoid in Future Plantings – Due to disease, insect, frost intolerance or poor performance in Dougherty Valley, we recommend the following species not be planted on Dougherty Valley streets unless proven to perform well in park plantings.

African Sumac (Rhus lancea)
Raywood Ash (Fraxinus uhdei ‘Raywood’)
Australian willow (Geijera parvifolia)
California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
Callery Pears (Pyrus calleryana)
Carob (Ceratonia siliqua)
Chinese Hackberry (Celtis chinensis)
Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum)
Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.)
Western Catalpa (Catalpa speciosa)
Italian Alder (Alnus cordata)
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 25 of 51
CURRENT SPECIES IN DOUGHERTY VALLEY7
Botanical Common # of Trees
Percent of
Population
Platanus X hispanica LONDON PLANE 6082 23.51%
Pyrus calleryana ORNAMENTAL PEAR 5139 19.86%
Quercus agrifolia COAST LIVE OAK 2156 8.33%
Celtis sinensis CHINESE HACKBERRY 1710 6.61%
Pistacia chinensis CHINESE PISTACHE 1126 4.35%
Prunus cerasifera PURPLE-LEAF PLUM 1100 4.25%
Pyrus spp. FLOWERING PEAR 935 3.61%
Prunus blireiana FLOWERING PLUM 797 3.08%
Quercus lobata VALLEY OAK 688 2.66%
Sequoia sempervirens COAST REDWOOD 678 2.62%
Quercus virginiana SOUTHERN LIVE OAK 639 2.47%
Ulmus parvifolia CHINESE ELM 497 1.92%
Lagerstroemia indica CRAPE MYRTLE 476 1.84%
Zelkova serrata SAWTOOTH ZELKOVA 454 1.75%
Fraxinus angustifolia oxycarpa RAYWOOD ASH 438 1.69%
Pinus pinea ITALIAN STONE PINE 436 1.69%
Malus floribunda CRABAPPLE 346 1.34%
Crataegus laevigata ENGLISH HAWTHORN 225 0.87%
Crataegus spp. HAWTHORN 191 0.74%
Crataegus phaenopyrum WASHINGTON THORN 182 0.70%
Fraxinus spp. ASH 168 0.65%
Schinus molle CALIFORNIA PEPPER 147 0.57%
Cercis canadensis EASTERN REDBUD 109 0.42%
Arbutus unedo STRAWBERRY TREE 98 0.38%
Acer buergeranum TRIDENT MAPLE 73 0.28%
Arbutus 'Marina' MARINA ARBUTUS 73 0.28%
Photinia fraseri FRASERS PHOTINIA 66 0.26%
Aesculus californica CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE 61 0.24%
Chitalpa tashkentensis CHITALPA 59 0.23%
Umbellularia californica CALIFORNIA BAY 57 0.22%

7 Personal Communication, Jason Pinegar of West Coast Arborists. This information is from the tree inventory for Dougherty Valley.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 26 of 51
Botanical Common # of Trees
Percent of
Population
Rhus lancea AFRICAN SUMAC 57 0.22%
Cedrus deodara DEODAR CEDAR 55 0.21%
Afrocarpus nagi NAGI AFROCARPUS 49 0.19%
Celtis australis EUROPEAN HACKBERRY 49 0.19%
Cercis spp. REDBUD 49 0.19%
Cornus stolonifera RED TWIG DOGWOOD 47 0.18%
Fraxinus americana 'Autumn Purple' AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 44 0.17% Lagerstroemia indica 'Muskogee' MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE 38 0.15% Pinus radiata MONTEREY PINE 23 0.09%
Ginkgo biloba MAIDENHAIR TREE 20 0.08%
Prunus persica 'Nucipersica' NECTARINE 19 0.07%
Arbutus spp. ARBUTUS 17 0.07%
Pyrus kawakamii EVERGREEN PEAR 13 0.05%
Olea europaea OLIVE 13 0.05%
Liriodendron tulipifera TULIP TREE 13 0.05%
Juglans nigra BLACK WALNUT 12 0.05%
Fraxinus americana WHITE ASH 11 0.04%
Maytenus boaria MAYTEN TREE 10 0.04%
Malus spp. & cv. APPLE 10 0.04%
Platanus racemosa CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 8 0.03%
Quercus suber CORK OAK 5 0.02%
Populus fremontii FREMONT COTTONWOOD 5 0.02%
Salix nigra BLACK WILLOW 5 0.02%
Various Less than 5 trees per species 11 0.02%
25,871 Total trees

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 27 of 51
STREETS WITH 7’ WIDE PLANTING STRIPS (MOSTLY ON COLLECTOR STREETS) Type of Planting Strip Street Name
Predominant
Tree Species
Trunk Diameter
Range
Width of
Planting Strip
Front BLUEHEART WY LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Front BOWLIN AV COAST LIVE OAK 0-6 7
Median BOWLIN AV PURPLE-LEAF PLUM 0-6 7
Slope BOWLIN AV ARBUTUS 0-6 7
Front CINNAMON RIDGE RD ORNAMENTAL PEAR 0-6 7
Side CINNAMON RIDGE RD ORNAMENTAL PEAR 0-6 7
Front BROWNTAIL WY LONDON PLANE 0-6 7
Side ZABRINA CT LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Front CALICO CT RAYWOOD ASH 07-12 7
Front EAST BRANCH PKWY ORNAMENTAL PEAR 07-12 7
Front GALE RIDGE RD /N ORNAMENTAL PEAR 0-6 7
Side CALICO CT RAYWOOD ASH 07-12 7
Front HARCOURT WY CHINESE HACKBERRY 07-12 7
Front IVY HILL WY ORNAMENTAL PEAR 07-12 7
Front JAPONICA WY LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Front MAIDENHAIR CT LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Side ZABRINA WY LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Front MAIDENHAIR WY LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Side BLUEHEART WY LONDON PLANE 13-18 7
Front MONARCH RD /S LONDON PLANE 0-6 7
Front SHERWOOD WY ORNAMENTAL PEAR 07-12 7
Front SNAPDRAGON DR RAYWOOD ASH 0-6 7
Side CALICO DR RAYWOOD ASH 07-12 7
Side CALICO CT RAYWOOD ASH 07-12 7
Front WINDEMERE PKWY ORNAMENTAL PEAR 07-12 7
Front ZABRINA CT LONDON PLANE 07-12 7
Front ZABRINA WY LONDON PLANE 07-12 7

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 28 of 51

NUMBER OF TREES IN PLANTING STRIPS BY SIZE AND SPECIES
Strip Width Species # of Trees
4’ Chinese Hackberry 472
4’ Chinese Pistache 35
4’ Crabapple 21
4’ Fraser’s Photinia 13
4’ Hawthorn 4
4’ Italian Stone Pine 4
4’ London Plane 1499
4’ Muskogee Crape Myrtle 37
4’ Ornamental Pear 911
4’ Raywood Ash 75
4’ Southern Live oak 80
4’ Strawberry tree 60
4’ Trident Maple 58
4’ Stump 23
4’ Vacant site 491
Strip Width Species # of Trees
5’ Chinese Hackberry 234
5’ Chinese Pistache 295
5’ Coast Live oak 8
5’ Crabapple 103
5’ Crape Myrtle 79
5’ European Hackberry 49
5’ Hawthorn 53
5’ London Plane 1904
5’ Monterey pine 23
5’ Nagi Afrocarpus (broadleaf podocarpus) 21
5’ Ornamental Pear 453
5’ Purple-Leaf Plum 68
5’ Raywood Ash 121
5’ Red Maple 3
5’ Southern Live oak 8
5’ Trident Maple 12
5’ Sawtooth Zelkova 227
5’ Stump 25
5’ Vacant site 346

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 29 of 51
Strip Width Species # of Trees
6’ African Sumac 15
6’ Bronze Loquat 1
6’ California Pepper 4
6’ Chinese Elm 26
6’ Chinese Hackberry 472
6’ Chinese Pistache 95
6’ Coast Live oak 105
6’ Coast Redwood 71
6’ Cork oak 5
6’ Crabapple 74
6’ Crape Myrtle 15
6’ Deodar Cedar 9
6’ Eucalyptus 14
6’ Fraser’s Photinia 21
6’ Italian Cypress 4
6’ Italian Stone pine 36
6’ Hawthorn 35
6’ London Plane 771
6’ Maidenhair tree 20
6’ Marina Arbutus 39
6’ Nectarine 19
6’ Ornamental Pear 674
6’ Purple-Leaf Plum 30
6’ Raywood Ash 40
6’ Sawtooth Zelkova 204
6’ Valley oak 43
6’ Willow 2
6’ Stump 19
6’ Vacant site 156
For species diversity goals, to only have 10% of a species, at least 10 different species are necessary. There are more than 10 species, but most are currently a small percentage of the population, while two species make up 43% of the population. We have found that greater diversity can be a benefit and offer the Species Recommended for Planting in the Different Sized Planting Strips for consideration.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 30 of 51
APPENDIX 4 - PLAN METHODOLIGY
Field Assessments
The consultants made 4 different tours of the site to analyze what the landscape and growing conditions are, what has been done to address the situations to date, and develop recommendations as to how best to resolve the situation in both the short term and the long term.

Consultants Denice Britton and Gordon Mann visited several sites in the development prior to the first meeting with the City, including a site that was still under construction. We took part in the planned tour of the sites with the Committee members, and listened to their concerns, responses and ideas about resolutions and resistance to those resolutions.

Public works staff, areas who work day to day with the situation, took us on a tour where we learned of their challenges, the approaches they have taken and their concerns about escalation of the damages and the numbers of repairs they are experiencing.

The consultants took a final tour alone to discuss and examine conditions along arterial and collector streets, as well as local streets, to take an objective look at the problems, issues and potential impacts of the various solutions presented.

A copy of the West Coast Arborists Tree Inventory Data for Dougherty Valley was used as a resource to determine the actual species composition and the size of the planting strips along various streets.

The scope of work did not include the time to perform a block by block analysis of the entire area, and as a result a street by street recommendation is not included in the plan. The over-riding screening criteria became the planting strip size and age of the sites regardless of tree species or landscape plants present.

Tree Committee Discussions
The discussions with the Tree Committee revealed several misconceptions about what the community was supposed to look like, according to the Specific Plan and the approved development guidelines. In the study of documents provided, it became apparent that the Community was well planned, as presented in the Community Design Handbook8, but the actual built project did not follow those Guidelines. The Committee voted on several options regarding their recommendations to the consultant. The one that most of the Committee felt strongly about was to specifically “follow the Plan” for the project.

The Committee was in general agreement on these other discussion points:
•Use the right size species for the size of the planting strip •Provide appropriate spacing for trees
•Plant replacement trees farther from utilities to reduce conflicts •Reduce or eliminate lawns in planting strips
•Improve irrigation systems – use drip techline or emitters, and not spray heads The Tree Committee was split on whether trees along a neighborhood block should be more than one species.

Most Committee members found it acceptable to have 2 species on a neighborhood street, especially if the trees were being transitioned from the existing species to a new species. Committee members wanted consistent planting. No one seemed comfortable planting more than 2 species on a block.

8 Dougherty Valley Community Design Handbook, October 1992. Contra Costa County. PBR

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 31 of 51
The Committee asked that we develop a Maintenance Plan over time, so as not to make drastic changes all at once. We discussed that such a plan would look like the following:
•Retain trees that are not causing significant damage if possible •Root prune those trees to remove most damaging roots
•Consider moving the sidewalk over to make more room when needed and if possible •Change materials used for the sidewalks to reduce root cutting and recurring damage as appropriate •Consider Tree Removal as the last resort, based on specific criteria • Use similar species characteristics when using more than one species on a street

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The project challenged us to mitigate community conditions that have flaws. No one we consulted with wants to see trees removed in the Dougherty Valley neighborhoods. However, they understand that the trees were planted in less than optimal conditions that included:
● too narrow planting strips and crowded spacing for the species used, ● poor soil structure and fertility; and
● poor planting practices.

This limited growing space and other conditions has resulted in conflicts that have high repair costs, and will require trees to be removed before they reach mature age.

Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan9 sets forth a far-sighted vision for a growing community that meets the challenges of the site and design constraints, and contains the opportunities for improving the long-term community tree canopy. The Specific Plan document and related guidelines provide for the development of Dougherty Valley’s trees and planting strips, as a refinement to the Contra Costa County General Plan.

The community, as defined in the Plan, has been developed from 3 historic pieces of land, the Shapell Industries Site (2,708 Acres), Windemere BLC (2,320 Acres), and Camp Parks Military Reserve (950 Acres) 10 .

These areas have been assigned a multitude of uses including City Center, Community College, parks, open space and residential neighborhoods of varying densities. This report focuses primarily on the neighborhoods, and includes the streetscapes that are intended to provide a large portion of the ecological amenities of the built environment for the community. These neighborhoods encompass a total of 1,932.3 acres11, excluding the Village Center.

The Plan and our analysis further breaks down the streets into three categories:
• Arterials with 8’ to 16’ wide planting strips and medians (Figures 6-3 to 6-5) • Collector Streets with 7’ to 8’ wide planting strips (Figures 6-5 to 6-6) and • Local Streets with 3.5’ to 6’ wide planting strips (Figures 6-7 to 6-9) It is the local, residential streets that have experienced the most conflicts and were the primary attention of the Citizen’s Tree Committee.

9 Dougherty Valley Specific Plan (DVSP), Contra Costa County, Amended and Approved by the Board of Supervisors, Feb 11, 2014. 10 DVSP, Figure 3-4.
11 DVSP, Page 4-6

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 32 of 51
APPENDIX 5 – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Arterial Streets
The basic design intent of the arterials was to contain landscapes with significant sized trees that could provide an almost forested appearance with time. Arterial streets have large center medians containing at least double rows of larger trees plus smaller species at each end and alongside some of the larger trees. An occasional narrower Median can be found in some of the steeper sections of road, such as on Bollinger Canyon.

These medians are flanked by wide parkstrips, sidewalks and sloping landscapes. In some medians the species is consistent, but for the most part, the species vary greatly from one block to another. For example, the tree selection may also change within the block from live oak to pistache or plums or crape myrtle. Some long flat areas were planted in large expanses of purple-leaf plums. There were two different varieties used and one is not performing well. In many areas, the number of trees of one species presents a risk of high tree loss if an insect or disease or insect, such as Dutch Elm Disease or Emerald Ash Borer, attacks a specific species or genus.

Photo 6. Bollinger Canyon Road median, containing London Plane trees with adequate growing space. The trees are healthy and growing vigorously. The under planting has recently been replaced.

The Dougherty Valley Tree Inventory12 identified 59 medians, slopes or parkstrips that are wider than 10’.

Most of the trees are doing well, with the notable exception of the plums. A few dead trees can be found in many medians. Landscape successes are inconsistent, especially after the drought. Many of the landscapes are in the process of being renovated with plant replacements because of conversions to reclaimed water,

12 West Coast Arborists (WCA) have been contract pruning the tree in Dougherty Valley and San Ramon for several years. Their database of the current tree inventory was provided to the consultants for this project.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 33 of 51
water conservation and testing new plant materials as an alternative to turf. There are few remaining medians along the arterials that include turf. The more turf that is replaced, the more water savings and maintenance savings will be experienced.

Collector Streets
The Community Design Handbook states the following about the Collector streets:
“Collectors will not have medians…. Tree planting strips shall contain trees at 30’ intervals with groundcover between them. Each collector shall have one primary dominant type of tree…to provide lower broader, leafy canopies with ample vegetation under 50 feet in height. This is intended to create a more sheltered pedestrian route…”
The Collectors were intended to have one or two sides of the streets with traditional planting strips 6’ to 7’ wide, with additional planting areas between the sidewalk and sound walls that were to be 8’ wide. In some areas, the space between the walls and the sidewalk is too narrow for trees, and trees were planted anyway.

In other areas, the “standard Collector” was to not have landscaping behind the sidewalk, as the planting strips were intended to be 7’ wide.

The collector streets were planted with limited species diversity, containing only a few tree species, and two species make up almost 2/3rds of the population: 40% are London Plane and 25% are Ornamental Pears. The pear trees should provide a long-term tree canopy in 7’ wide planting strips. The London Plane trees were recommended to be planted where the planting strips are at least 12’ wide. Those planted in smaller planting strips will not provide long term canopy without infrastructure conflicts and additional maintenance expense.

Photo 7. Ornamental Pears
growing in a 7’ wide planter
strip along Bollinger Canyon
Road.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 34 of 51
Local Streets
Local streets are residential, and were intended to be planted with smaller trees to shade sidewalks and provide aesthetic appeal. As a result, the planting strips were designed smaller, from 3.5 feet to 6 feet wide.

Larger size tree species were planted in these narrow planting strips. It has been common for new developments to choose a fast-growing species and overplant for a more instant appearing landscape. During development, the soil was compacted, with little soil remediation or tilling in the planting strip taking place before planting. Circular root barriers were used around the larger trees in narrow planting strips to address the limited planting area and attempt to control the natural root growth of the larger trees. However, the barriers were not successful in most cases, and large diameter roots have grown over the barriers and on the surface.

The placement and spacing of trees was inconsistent, with some streets being clearly over-planted – trees placed on 20’ centers, while other streets were more logically planted with trees placed on 30’ to 40’ centers.

Where wider bulb-outs were created, trees were not planted in the larger areas. There was no apparent concern for the proximity of utilities, street lights, and concrete improvements to the tree planting locations.

Table 2, below, shows the numbers of trees planted in the narrower 4-foot wide, 5-foot wide, and 6-foot wide planting strips. These narrower strips are not recommended in the DV guidelines and accepted horticultural practice for larger scale trees due to the likely infrastructure damage, and the potential for premature removal of the trees. The three trees of the greatest quantity are London Plane (4,174), Ornamental Pear (2,038), and Chinese Hackberry (1,178). Other large-scale trees too large for narrow planting strips included: Sawtooth Zelkova (431), Raywood Ash (236), Coast Live Oak (113), Southern Live Oak (88), Redwood (71), European Hackberry (49), Valley Oak (43), Italian Stone Pine (40), Evergreen Chinese Elm (26), Monterey Pine (23), Deodar Cedar (9), Cork Oak (5), and Red Maple (3).

In summary, a total of 8,526 larger sized trees and 1,247 medium to smaller sized trees were planted in the 4, 5, and 6-foot-wide planting strips. This ratio of tree plantings highlights the extent of the potential problem given that only 13% medium to smaller sized trees were planted in the appropriate planting strip width.

The Development Process
The main challenge the City of San Ramon has experienced with the Dougherty Valley landscape maintenance is the large number of trees causing infrastructure damage and the resulting disruption of the growth of the expected canopy over City streets.

Every location where a larger tree than provided by the guidelines was planted in a limited size planting space will likely result in additional City maintenance costs for irrigation and hardscape repairs. Because the trees cannot grow to maturity, the growth of an extensive canopy will be delayed.

Trees Species
In residential areas, London plane is performing well in many locations, and not as well in other locations. We found at least 2 different varieties, Columbia and Bloodgood, while some trees were unknown varieties. The canopies of the trees were quite inconsistent. In most locations, the surface roots were overtaking the planting strip and utilities. Observed roots were found to be 4” to 8” in diameter on 6” to 8” diameter trees.

Roots that grew over the circular barriers are much greater width than unconstrained growing roots.

The Ash trees plantings are universally taking up the entire planting strips and have completely inundated the available growing space with roots. The two most common varieties were Raywood and Autumn purple ash.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 35 of 51
Unfortunately, both varieties are grown on ash root stock that have large diameter roots that have inundated the planting strips, and are also growing into the adjacent yards.

Pears have their own unique issues. The roots are generally not as aggressive as some of the other species, but the trees tend to be stunted, have extensive dieback, and in some cases, are beginning to get Fire Blight disease (Erwinia amylovora). In addition, they tend toward poor branch structure, with upright, tight branch attachments with included bark; and were often planted too close together. On streets that are being irrigated with recycled water, they are as much as double the size of those growing on potable water. The reasons could be a combination of cut back for the drought and more nutrients in the water.

African sumac trees are not growing well, nor were the few Podocarpus trees we observed. They appeared anemic and had very slow growth.

Crape myrtle and Trident Maple are being planted as replacement trees in the areas where the original trees were causing damage to utilities and sidewalks. Muskogee Crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei ‘Muskogee’) has been used almost exclusively, creating more limited diversity in the tree population.

Trident maple (Acer buergeranum) is a medium sized tree that is doing fairly well in the locations it has been planted to replace trees causing infrastructure damage. Its mature size is noted as 25’ tall and 25’ wide, so it should do well long-term in the smaller planting strips.

Ground covers
Most of the planting strips were originally planted with turf grass for ground cover. On some blocks, other ground covers have been planted; most commonly to Asian jasmine (Trachelospermum asiaticum), coprosma (Coprosma Kirkii) prostrate juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), Wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), and Lowfast Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri ‘Lowfast’). Of these the Asian jasmine is consistently in good shape, cotoneaster performs well if irrigation is consistent, and the others are fair to good performers. There are opportunities to add more ground cover species to the list. Coordination with a landscape architect will support using the correct ground covers for the available sites. All require consistent irrigation for good performance, although water use will be approximately half the quantity required for turf.

In several areas, the turf grass was observed to be brown, or trees have been replaced with wood chip mulch.

In these cases, the irrigation has been shut off because of breaks in the lines from tree roots. While requests have been to remove the trees, the City has been delaying further removal and replacement in anticipation of the decisions to be made from this study and the Citizen’s Tree Committee’s recommendations.

New Plantings Installed
In those areas where new trees have been planted, we did not observe the surface rooting so prevalent in the original plantings. This is likely due to the trees being younger and smaller in size, although some of the older replacements are beginning to approach the size of the younger trees in parts of the development. A reason for reduced surface roots could be improved planting quality with city staff taking the time to spread out the roots, and dig wider holes following industry guidelines. Another possibility is the combination of stump and surface root grinding and excavation tilled the soil where the trees were planted.

Species Selection
One area of discussion with the committee was the choice of tree species. We listened to their preference for certain trees, and as previously stated, there was committee agreement to follow the community design plan and DV Community Design Handbook. It is clear the selection of tree species planted during the construction work was different than the species descriptions in the guidelines. The list below shows the trees in the DV

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 36 of 51
Community Design Handbook. The main reason tree species are sorted by planting area size is their expected size at maturity. The planting space width is the minimum space the trees need to grow to their mature size.

Tree species should not be planted in spaces less than the minimum size planting strip. If the growing space is too small, the trees will displace the adjacent infrastructure.

Table 3. Species Recommended by the Original Guidelines Based on Planter Strip Widths 3’- 4.5’ Wide Planting Strip 5’- 6.5’ 7’- 8’ 8.5’- 16’
Eastern Redbud Trident Maple Japanese Pagoda Tree Silver Maple Chitalpa Japanese Maple Goldenrain Tree California Buckeye Crepe Myrtle Red Maple Holly oak Marina Arbutus
Flowering Cherry Red Horsechestnut Pin oak White birch
Callery Pears Forest Pansy Redbud English oak Deodar cedar Hawthorn Red oak Chinese Hackberry
Chinese pistache African Sumac California Black Walnut
European Hornbeam Southern Magnolia
Sweetbay-Grecian Laurel Chinese Elm
Sour gum (Tupelo gum) Chinese Flame tree
Western Catalpa London Plane
Italian Alder Coast Live oak
Australian willow California Black Oak
Carob Valley oak
Ash species Cork Oak
Southern Live oak
California Pepper
Zelkova
Canary Island pine
Species Diversity
A major tenet of Urban Forestry is species diversity. Diversity is important because most insect and disease complications are species specific. While there are some insects and diseases that bridge a Genus or even attack several Genuses, that is rare in the current urban tree growth experiences. A long-standing diversity goal developed by the National Arboretum is to target having no more than 10% of any species, 20% of any Genus, and 30% of any Family in the plant biological kingdom. The population of Dougherty Valley trees has two species that exceed those targets - London Plane at almost 24%, and Ornamental Pear at almost 20%.

Table 3 shows the species diversity of the tree population growing in Dougherty Valley.

The Existing Plan as the Basis for Recommendations.

The Committee agreed that sticking to the plan and following the guidelines were high priorities.

The Community Design Handbook provides for the following, which were not adhered to:

1. Long, narrow strips of turfgrass such as traffic medians and between the curb and sidewalk are not permitted.

2. Soil tests shall be required to determine type of soil, soil structure and water holding capacity and fertility. Soil is to be amended according to report recommendations

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 37 of 51
The Landscape Standards within the current Zoning Ordinance for San Ramon recognizes the problems associated with planting large trees in small spaces. These call for specific items that were not followed in Dougherty Valley:

1. Landscaped planter areas shall have a minimum inside width of five feet where trees are provided and four feet where turf or shrubs are provided;

2. Trees planted near public sidewalks or curbs shall be of a species and maintained in a manner which prevents physical damage to the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and other public improvements;

3. Ground cover shall be of live plant material. Bark, colored rock, gravel, and similar materials may be used in combination with a living ground cover. Non-plant materials may be approved for use in limited areas by the Zoning Administrator.

Once the sites are annexed into the City, the City’s Public Works Department becomes the authority to approve changes to the design. This plan will guide the Public Works Department in their work moving forward.

Planting Strips, Compacted Soils and Turf
Research and practice by horticultural and arboricultural professionals has shown that lawns and trees don’t mix well.13 During the construction process, the soil left in planting strips is substandard for growing trees. It has been cut down on the road side, and compacted in the process by the equipment to install the roads, utilities and sidewalks. Utility lines (also surrounded by sand resulting in areas of poor drainage), house foundations, curb and gutter, and sidewalks are installed a few feet away. It has been found that the contractors are putting or leaving leftover cement, sand, and gravel in the planting strips.

Even though landscape plans (and the DV Planting Guidelines)14 almost always call for the soil to be left clean, amended according to soils tests, and tilled to alleviate compaction; the specification appears to be regularly ignored by all parties, including the developers, the contractors, the landscapers, and building inspectors.

The trees are usually one of the last installations of the projects. The holes are often dug too deep and soil placed back in that will settle, the trees are pulled out of their pots and stuck in the ground without proper root pruning and root straightening, cement chunks and debris are left in the planting strips, and lawn is neatly laid over the soil – smoothing over the contents below.

Unfortunately, the homebuyers and the City are the recipients of the potential long-term impacts of these planting practices. The consequences of the situation have begun to appear 6 to 10 years later, and the conflicts and damages will only increase over the next 15 to 20 years.

The trees usually survive despite their poor treatment, and begin to shade the streets as promised. But the compacted soils and turf irrigation encourage roots that are shallow. These roots are near or on the soil surface that is kept moist to 4” to 6” for the lawn; growing alongside the pipes where water and air are more available, and under the sidewalks which condense moisture. Eventually, these roots grow into the irrigated yards. Because the tree roots disrupt the utilities and displace concrete, complaints are received, and the need for expensive repairs increase.

13 Green, Thomas L. and Gary W. Watson. 1989. Effects of Turfgrass and Mulch on the Establishment and Growth of Bare-root Sugar Maples. J. of Arboriculture 15(11): 268-276.
14 Dougherty Valley Community Design Handbook, October 1992. Contra Costa County.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 38 of 51
Trees and Utilities
Most site installations did not include adequate space between trees and utilities. In some situations utilities were placed in locations apparently designed for trees such as bulb-outs. Trees were planted too close to utilities to allow for a utility line or fixture to be repaired without having to remove the tree.

Photo 8. Trees planted in Dougherty Valley in the spring of 2017.

The soils are compacted and construction debris is present.

The trees are too often included in the projects as an
amenity without long term maintenance considerations.

At first, the Public Works department is kept busy keeping things green and attractive. As the trees grow larger, they begin breaking apart the neat tidy, planting strips,
sidewalks, and in many cases front yards. An unintended result is that property owners often do not want trees
replanted because they are wary of the recurring damages.

The option and recommendation for removing turf in the
turf strips and changing them to planting strips was
discussed with the Citizen’s Tree Committee and initially met with some resistance - partly due to aesthetics; but also, partly due to a commitment to what they thought was the original design. However, support to replace the turf was achieved once our research and committee discussions revealed that the Community Design Handbook specifically stated that “Long, narrow strips of turfgrass such as traffic medians and between the curb and sidewalk are not
permitted.”
15 Also supporting the turf conversion, the State of California now has requirements16 that landscapes installed or renovated after 2009 cannot have the above ground spray heads that result in water running down the street rather than percolating into the soil for the roots. These regulations state that every urban area must reduce their water usage by 20% as of 2020. All these facts, further support that the turf grass should be replaced with drought tolerant plants and retrofitted irrigation systems.

The cost for converting turf to shrubs, can be as much as $4.00 per square foot. The cost to only install mulch would be less. The appearance of only mulch would likely be much less desirable for most homeowners. The State of California Department of water resources and some water agencies have been providing grants to reduce lawns, and may continue to do so in the future. We recommend this be considered and investigated as a potential funding source for future projects.

15 Dougherty Valley Community Design Handbook, October 1992. Contra Costa County., page 39. 16 California Senate Bill X7-7 was enacted in November 2009, requiring all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 39 of 51
The change from turf to mulch covered areas would benefit from placing stepping stones or walking steps or modular pathways across the planting strip to guide pedestrians, and improve the long-term traffic across the planting strips. Several options for walkways can be offered and selected by HOA or homeowner preference as the City works with different neighborhoods for implementation.

Citizen Requests
The City of San Ramon has a messaging system to allow citizens to request service regarding tree issues in Dougherty Valley. We were shown the current list of 132 requests, which shows the extent of the damages present at the time of the request. The requests fell into the following areas of concern (there are 139 requests because some complaints contained multiple issues):
• Surface Roots 32
• Damage to water lines 31
• Irrigation breaks or leaks 26
• Sidewalk damage 17
• Replace tree that was removed 15
• Tree is dead or dying 6
• Tree is leaning, may fall 6
• Leaves are a problem 3
• Tree is too big 2
• Allergy to leaves 1
Summary
In summary, the roots of trees planted in
Dougherty Valley residential areas are
overpowering the planting strips, and
causing extensive damage to irrigation lines
and utility boxes and are beginning to
disrupt sidewalks, curbs and even private
property. The overarching reason for having
a Citizen’s Tree Committee work with the
Consultants is to identify and confirm the
elements of the problem, come up with
alternative solutions and develop an action
plan that the citizens will deem acceptable.

The goal is to find a sustainable solution that
retains a canopy of trees in residential areas
while reducing both the costs and the
inconvenience of infrastructure damage.

Photo 7. An ash tree that has inundated the planting strip, broken the irrigation and is clearly too large for the space allotted.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 40 of 51
APPENDIX 6 – BENEFIT VALUES OF TREES
The question was raised by the committee on whether the benefits and services the trees provide is real, and when do they make sense for the community. We researched the i-tree program and the USFS data for Northern California.17 The benefits calculated for trees only include energy saving, air pollution reduction, carbon sequestration, and storm water interception. The figures are for a representative small tree, medium tree, large tree, and large conifer tree growing in a public space (planting strip) and calculated for net benefits at year 10, year 20, year 25, year 30, year 40, and the 40-year average. The last column is when the benefits surpass the 40-year average. The models are based on measuring and modeling hundreds of trees in 16 different climate zones across the US. This zone is the coastal zone and trees were measured and modeled in Berkeley.

Total Annual Tree Benefits Over Time
Tree Size Year 10 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 40 40 Yr Ave Yr surpass Ave Small $20.84 $29.44 $51.71 $62.38 $81.85 $46.67 25
Medium $52.70 $68.35 $73.42 $75.60 $78.88 $65.59 20
Large $96.59 $120.83 $134.15 $147.31 $171.66 $129.20 25 Large Conifer $156.76 $175.87 $182.68 $190.77 $201.06 $175.59 20 The 40-year average was used to determine when the tree is maximizing positive benefits for the community. In all models, the trees continue to provide greater benefits as they grow larger. The pages are available in Appendix 2 of the Northern California Coast Community Tree Guide Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planning. The guide is available at:
https://www.itreetools.org/streets/resources/Streets_CTG/PSW_GTR228_Northern_California_Coast_CTG.pdf Based on the benefits findings, planting trees that can grow for at least 25 years or more without causing significant expensive infrastructure repairs will grow a sustainable tree canopy in Dougherty Valley. The definition of sustainable used for this determination is that for every dollar invested in the tree population, San Ramon receives at least one dollar or more back in net benefits.

While it is possible to grow trees on a 20-year cycle and achieve some shade, if there is associated infrastructure damage, those costs aren’t sustainable. A better long-term plan is to grow the trees that the site was designed for, a smaller scale canopy that can grow for more than 25 years without significant infrastructure conflicts.

Another action discussed in the committee is to re-design the growing space by moving the sidewalk towards the houses, and/or use a thinner modular alternative material for the sidewalks which should increase the length of time the larger trees can grow in the site. There is a cost to the re-design. If the trees can be root pruned and retained, the saving of tree removal and replacement costs and retaining the larger canopy are a more sustainable approach.

The committee’s request for planning and review can be accomplished by starting with the service requests on hold and creating the plans to address the situations discussed by the Committee. As those sites are addressed, the costs, tree species choices, and turf transitions will be completed and then reviewed.

17 April 2010. E. Gregory McPherson, James R, Simpson, Paula J. Pepper, Aaron M. N. Crowell, and Qingfu Xiao., Northern California Coast Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planning, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, PSW-GTR-228, pgs. 92-101.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 41 of 51
APPENDIX 7 – PLANTING AND NURSERY STOCK SPECIFICATIONS
Tree Planting Specifications
Trees shall be free of major injury such as scrapes that remove greater than 20% of the bark circumference, a broken central leader, or constrictions from staking or support. The graft, if present, shall be consistent for the production of the cultivar or species. The trunk flare shall be at grade, not buried by soil, and adventitious roots shall not be growing from above the trunk flare.

The tree shall not be root bound in the container, and the trunk diameter relative to the container sizes, within the limits of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z-60 Nursery Standards.

Prior to acceptance, upon delivery, sample trees shall be pulled from their container, so the root ball can be inspected for compliance with the specifications. An agreed upon maximum percent of trees should be checked for compliance. The nursery should provide post-delivery care specifications to keep the trees in optimum condition until planting.

Tree Planting

1.0 INSPECT THE TREE

1.1 Carefully remove the soil at the top of the container to locate the trunk flare. Check for girdling roots and damage to the root system and lower trunk.

1.2 Until a relationship is established with the supplying nursery, randomly select an acceptable sample for the delivery. Inspect the root system by taking the root ball out of the container, and remove all the soil from the root system. Inspect the inner roots to verify that the roots were properly pruned when moved from the initial container to the next larger size. Keep the root system moist during the check. If the roots were properly pruned during container transfer, and the roots have been kept moist, the tree can be planted as a bare root tree.

1.3 If the trees are acceptable, each tree shall be removed from the container prior to digging the hole, and the depth of the root ball from the trunk flare to the bottom of the root ball shall be measured. This measurement, less 1” is the depth the pedestal in the center of the planting hole shall be excavated to.

2.0 DIG THE HOLE

2.1 Shave and discard grass and weeds from the planting site.

2.2 The hole should be a minimum 3 times the diameter of the container diameter.

2.2.1 Square containers shall be dug with a circular hole 3 times the container measurement.

2.3 Dig the hole, leaving an undisturbed pedestal in the center that the root ball will be set on.

2.4 The pedestal shall be excavated to the depth measurement determined above

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 42 of 51

3.0 ROOT BALL PREPARATION

3.1 Loosen and straighten outside and bottom roots prior to placing the root ball on the pedestal. The trunk flare (the point where the trunk meets the roots) should be 1” above ground level.

3.2 Winding and girdling roots shall be pruned to either the point they are perpendicular to the root ball, or a point where they can be straightened and placed perpendicular to the root ball.

3.3 Keep the roots moist during this process so they do not dry out.

4.0 BACKFILL

4.1 Hold the tree so the trunk and central leader are in a straight upright position.

4.2 Backfill soil with the soil you removed around the base of the pedestal and root ball no higher than 2/3, so the tree stands in the upright position

4.3 Tamp the soil to remove air gaps, or fill with water and allow soil to settle and drain. Continue to fill the entire hole with existing soil in layers and tamping, up to finished grade. Backfill soil shall not be placed on top of the root ball.

4.4 Build a berm at the outside edge of the root ball. The berm shall be a minimum 3 inches high and wide.

4.5 Cover the remainder of the backfill soil outside the berm with a set level of mulch (2 to 4 inches deep).

Container tree
Balled and Burlap or Bare Root tree

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 43 of 51

5.0 STAKING

5.1 Remove the nursery stake (the thin stake tied to the trunk) that is secured to the tree.

5.2 Install the appropriate number of stakes – for example, two stakes on the windward and leeward side of the tree, set at least 2 feet into the native soil outside the root ball.

5.2.1If the area is exceptionally windy, high traffic, or when specified, install 3 or 4 stakes spaced evenly around the circumference, outside the root ball.

5.3 One tie per stake shall be placed at the lowest point on the trunk where the tree crown stands upright.

Ties shall be placed using a “figure 8” crossing pattern wrapped around the trunk and firmly tied or attached to the stake.

5.3.1 Ties shall be loose enough so the tree crown moves up to 3 times the trunk diameter in the wind, and taut enough that the trunk does not rub the stakes during movement.

5.4 The stakes shall be cut off above the tie point so branches do not rub the stake above the tie point.

5.5 Check the stakes and ties periodically, removing them when the tree is able to stand on its own.

5.6 If a leader that should be vertical is drooping, the leader may be temporarily straightened using a bamboo or small diameter wood splint approximately 25% longer than the drooping section of stem, tied to the stem at the top and bottom of the splint to hold the stem vertical. The splint shall be removed prior to girdling or constricting the stem, and may be re-installed as necessary.

Three Stake Detail Top View
Root
Ball Stem
Stake
Tie
Planting Hole
Side View

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 44 of 51

6.0 MULCH

6.1 Apply a set depth (2 to 4 inches) of wood chips or other organic mulch over the planting hole excavated soil.

6.2 Mulch may be placed inside the berm and shall be kept at least 4” away from the trunk flare.

6.3 The soil area of the planting hole shall be kept clear of grass and landscape plantings.

7.0 WATER/IRRIGATION

7.1 Apply water using a low-pressure application, i.e.: trickle from a hose, soaker hose, or bubbler.

7.2 Use low water volume to apply the water. Add water long enough to saturate the root ball and planting area.

7.2.1 Lawn sprinklers shall not be considered an acceptable method of applying irrigation to newly planted trees.

7.3 The initial watering frequency shall be checked by monitoring the soil moisture. Based on the temperature and humidity, learn how long the soil retains the moisture.

7.4 After the soil is below field capacity, and before it dries out, repeat the watering process, every so determined days.

7.4.1 As the weather and seasons change, the irrigation frequency may change. This will be evaluated by checking soil moisture following water application.

7.4.1.1 For example: you may learn irrigation should be applied twice a week during the fall, except in cool or rainy weather. Irrigation may need to be applied every two days during hot dry summer periods.

7.5 Irrigation shall be continued for the first three years after planting.

7.5.1 Avoiding drying out the root ball and adjacent soil is critical for tree growth and establishment.

8.0 PROTECT THE TRUNK

8.1 Avoid damage from mowers and string trimmers to the tender bark of the young tree.

8.2 Maintain a clear area free of vegetation around the trunk in the berm or basin area.

8.3 Keep the set depth of mulch (2 to 4 inches) coverage of the area around the tree.

8.4 Retain temporary low branches along the trunk to shade and feed the trunk.

9.0 PRUNING NEWLY PLANTED TREES

9.1 Broken and dead branches shall be pruned.

9.2 A central leader shall be identified and retained if present. If co-dominant leaders are present, they shall be pruned to be shorter than the central leader by 20%.

9.3 All low temporary branches on the lower trunk shall be retained, and if needed shortened for clearance.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 45 of 51

10. FUTURE CARE

10.1 During subsequent years, the berm should be enlarged or removed to in order to provide water to the increasing root growth. The watering area should target new root growth and projected root growth.

10.2 Pruning should retain a dominant central leader; and retain low temporary branches until trunk bark hardens or remove before branch diameter becomes too large.

NURSERY STOCK
Nursery Stock Purchase
Trees purchased for the subject project shall be the Genus, species, and cultivar specified in the purchase documents. Trees shall be grown to be free of bound root systems caused by winding roots or kinked roots from a previous smaller container. As trees are moved to larger containers, circling roots shall be either pruned to a point where they can grow straight, straightened in the new container, or removed. Kinked roots shall be pruned to a point where they will grow straight outward or downward. The trunk and branches shall be of a structure where a central leader is defined, or the central leader can be easily selected. The competing leaders have a smaller diameter, and can be pruned shorter.

Nursery Tree Quality

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Proper Identification: All trees shall be true to name as ordered or shown on planting plans and shall be labeled individually or in groups by species and cultivar (as appropriate).

Compliance: All trees shall comply with federal and state laws and regulations requiring inspection for plant disease, pests, and weeds. Inspection certiVicates required by law shall accompany each shipment of plants. Clearance from the local county agricultural commissioner, if required, shall be obtained before planting trees originating outside the county in which they are to be planted. Even though trees may conform to county, state, and federal laws, the buyer may impose additional requirements.

Inspection: The buyer reserves the right to reject trees that do not meet speciVications as set forth in these guidelines or as adopted by the buyer. If a particular defect or substandard element can be corrected easily, appropriate remedies shall be applied. If destructive inspection of a root ball is to be done, the buyer and seller shall have a prior agreement as to the time and place of inspection, number of trees to be inspected, and Vinancial responsibility for the inspected trees.

Delivery: The buyer shall stipulate how many days prior to delivery that delivery notiVication is needed. Buyer shall stipulate any special considerations to the nursery prior to shipment.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 46 of 51

HEALTH AND STRUCTURE SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications apply to deciduous, broadleaf evergreen, and coniferous species. They do not apply to palms. Note that leaf characteristics will not be evident on deciduous trees during the dormant season.

Crown: The form and density of the crown shall be typical for a young specimen of the species or cultivar. The leader shall be intact to the very top of the tree.

Leaves: The size, color, and appearance of leaves shall be typical for the time of year and stage of growth of the species or cultivar. Trees shall not show signs of moisture stress as indicated by wilted, shriveled, or dead leaves.

Branches: Shoot growth (length and diameter) throughout the crown shall be appropriate for the age and size of the species or cultivar. Trees shall not have dead, diseased, broken, distorted, or otherwise injured branches.

Trunk: The tree trunk shall be relatively straight, vertical, and free of wounds (except properly made pruning cuts), sunburned areas, conks (fungal fruiting bodies), wood cracks, bleeding areas, signs of boring insects, cankers, girdling ties, or lesions (mechanical injury). The terminal bud on the leader shall be intact to the very top of the tree, and it shall be the highest point on the tree.

Roots: The root system shall be substantially free of injury from biotic (e.g., insects and pathogens) and abiotic (e.g., herbicide toxicity and salt injury) agents. Root distribution shall be uniform throughout the container substrate, and shall be appropriate for the species or cultivar. At time of inspection and delivery, the root ball shall be moist throughout. Roots shall not show signs of excess soil moisture conditions as indicated by stunted, discolored, distorted, or dead roots.

Shade trees that grow to be large shall have one relatively straight central leader. Heading the tree is acceptable provided the central leader is reestablished in the nursery.

Main branches shall be well distributed along the central leader, not clustered together. They shall form a balanced crown appropriate for the cultivar or species. The largest branches shall be free of bark inclusions that extend into the branch union.

Small-diameter branches, particularly on trees less than 1 inch caliper, should be present along the lower trunk below the lowest main branch. These branches shall be no larger than 3/8 inch in diameter.

The diameter of branches that grow from the central leader, or trunk, shall be no larger than twothirds (one-half is preferred) the diameter of the trunk, measured just above the branch.

The root collar (the uppermost roots) shall be within the upper 2 inches of the soil media (substrate). The root collar and the inside portion of the root ball shall be free of defects, including circling, kinked, and stem-girdling roots. Roots at the surface should grow mostly straight towards the side of the container. For inspection of root defects, one may need to remove soil near the root collar.

The tree shall be well rooted in the soil media. Roots shall be uniformly distributed throughout the container, meaning that roots should not be concentrated at the bottom of the root ball. Some

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 47 of 51
roots should contact the container wall in the top half of the root ball. When the container is removed, the root ball shall remain intact. When the trunk is lifted, both the trunk and root system shall move as one. The imprint of the liner or smaller container shall not be visible.

The root ball shall be moist throughout at the time of inspection and delivery. The roots shall show no signs of excess soil moisture as indicated by poor root growth, root discoloration, distortion, death, or foul odor.

The foliar crown shall show no signs of moisture stress as indicated by wilted, shriveled, or dead leaves or branch dieback.

The trunk caliper (diameter) and taper shall be sufficient so that the tree remains vertical without a stake. The trunk shall be free of wounds, sunburned areas, conks (fungal fruiting bodies), wood cracks, bleeding areas, signs of boring insects, cankers, or lesions. Properly made recent or closed pruning cuts are acceptable. Copyright © 2011 Brian Kempf and Ed Gilman. For illustrations visit:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/CALFIRE_Nursery_Standards_and_Specs11_12.pdf

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 48 of 51
APPENDIX 8 - PRUNING GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
Guidelines
As the trees are determined to be retained and grown long term, the tree pruning that will maintain the optimum canopy should be performed in a block by block pruning cycle. Block by block pruning is the least expensive highest return on investment pruning. All trees should be pruned during the visit, with specific objectives for the trees based on their age:

Young trees receive structural pruning to establish the central leader, remove co-dominants, shorten competing leaders, retain temporary branches, and remove dead branches. This is typically low cost pruning, and can also be performed by trained residents who want to care for their trees. The tool of choice is hand pruners, which have a fairly safe work history. Young tree pruning actually is best performed over time, with few pruning actions at a time. They are best performed by trained homeowners and landscapers who can make a small snip today, watch the trees’ responses and make other snips next week or month. Pruning for clearance is simple and usually does not require much foliage removal, and on small trees needs to be pruned routinely.

Middle aged trees usually need pole pruners, hand saws, lopper, and pole saws. Some work can be done with hand pruners on branch tips, but the height of the pruning and amount of foliage removed is usually a greater effort than trained volunteers are expected to perform. These trees are also pruned less frequently than young trees, and are starting to finalize their architecture. By medium size, if pruned well during their younger years, the structure should be in place, so clearance and long laterals are the focus of the pruning.

Occasionally there will be crossing branches that may need to be removed to avoid interior foliage conflicts and rubbing branches. The main focus of pruning will begin to reduce end weights and retain the permanent branch structure.

Mature trees are trees too large for most volunteers to prune. The work is higher above the ground and needs to be performed by a climber or an aerial lift. The structure should be in place, and the main focus is clearance, end weight reduction, and removing dead branches.

The ability of Dougherty Valley to prune their trees from start through growth is an advantage to maintain the trees in good structure and minimize the risk of branch failure. The routine visits by tree care professionals should monitor the tree conditions, and reduce whole tree failures.

There are many young trees that have experienced lawn mower damage at the lower trunk, and some of these trees will end up requiring removal due to deterioration and decay of the base of the trees. The intent is to monitor these trees and phase removals growing the trees as long as possible, or at least balancing the removals with adjacent trees so several trees in a row are not removed at the same time.

Pruning Specifications
Pruning Small Trees
A central leader shall be selected and retained. Competing leaders and laterals shall be reduced to at least 12” below the central leader in height. Fast growing laterals that are growing taller than the central leader shall be shortened to allow the central leader to be taller and more vigorous. Branches are to be pruned by either reduction or branch removal cuts to achieve the appropriate structure, clearance over the area, and remove the desired branches. Temporary branches shall be left along the lower stem to shade the trunk. Temporary branches shall be shortened for necessary clearance, and shall be removed when they exceed 1” diameter.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 49 of 51
The natural shape of the tree species shall be retained. The smallest diameter branches shall be removed to meet the objective, working from the branch tips towards the center, removing none to minimal interior foliage inside the final outward branch cut. Trees shall be pruned to remove dead branches to ½” diameter, weakly attached branches, and branches where significant damage has occurred by rubbing, animals, insects, or critical disease. All pruning cuts shall be made in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part 1 Pruning Standards and International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices for Pruning.

Pruning Medium Sized Established Trees
On trees up to six inches in diameter, all dead branches greater than one-half inch diameter shall be removed.

All weakly attached branches and potential co-dominant branches shall either be reduced by at least 20% or be removed, as most appropriate for the long-term structure of the tree. The weakest or most damaged branch of a pair or group of rubbing branches shall be shortened to avoid rubbing, or removed. All temporary branches along the trunk should be retained and shortened to obtain necessary clearance. When either temporary branches exceed one-inch diameter, or the trunk forms mature bark, the temporary branches shall be removed.

Stakes shall be installed as necessary to support a straight growing tree, and reduce crooked growth caused by high wind. The trunk shall be supported at the lowest point to keep the crown supported straight, and the portions of the stake above the tie point cut off to avoid rubbing branches. After the tree becomes firmly rooted, and the stake is no longer necessary to support the tree, the stakes shall be removed.

Depending on the location and site needs, clearance should be performed by pruning the smallest branches inward from the branch tips until the permanent branches are in place. Clearance minimums should be set, for example: 7.5’ over sidewalks, 10 feet over parking spaces, and 14.5 feet over truck traffic streets. Clearance pruning shall be carefully performed until the permanent branches are identified. Up to 25% of the total foliage on any tree should be the maximum removed during any planned pruning cycle. Follow-up pruning for structure or clearance on young trees can be performed at any time if pruning small amounts of foliage (up to 10%) and retaining the central leader and branch size relationships.

Any special site issues for utility clearance or conflicts with other objects shall be managed by early pruning to direct growth away from the target lines, overhead lights, flags, or buildings.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 50 of 51
APPENDIX 9 - BMPS FOR RETAINING, REPLACING AND GROWING NEW TREES This plan is designed to create the best practices for the City to make decisions about tree removal, replacement species, and tree spacing to grow the optimum sustainable tree canopy for the available space.

We will organize the BMP’s by work activity.

In those older locations that used the circular root barriers, if the trees are small enough, and the turf will be converted to mulch, the sites can be addressed with a combination of root pruning or trenching along the walkway and curb and gutter, and using the trench to install a root barrier and the new irrigation lines. If the existing trees are small enough, the linear root pruning should not require tree removal at this time. If the trees are too large, the root pruning may cause instability and the trees will need to be removed. In most situations, the root pruning can be performed, and the trees checked with a pull test for stability. If stable, they can be retained, if found unstable, they will need to be removed.

When sidewalk repairs occur, some root cutting will need to be performed, or the sidewalk would not need repair. If the root cutting is too extensive, the tree may become unstable, and the tree should be removed for safety to avoid unplanned failure. Additionally, when a tree is root pruned, the cut roots typically grow back to where they were just cut and removed from, and a root barrier should be installed to reduce the likelihood of the roots causing recurring damage. There are two types of root barriers recommended for use: plastic linear or chemical linear. The plastic linear barriers require a linear trench to be cut to install the barrier to deflect roots. The chemical barrier works with a fabric material with the chemical nodules embedded and smaller sections of the material can be installed around the cut root and reduce root tip elongation towards the area the roots were cut from.

Turf and Trees – can they be separated?
Removing turf and replacing mulch where there are no trees is simple – remove the turf and till the soil, adding amendments to reduce compaction, improve fertility and permeability; install the irrigation, trees, plants, and mulch.

There will need to be different methods of changing the turf to mulch around existing trees.

Young trees can likely have the turf removed, carefully close to the tree trunk; soil remediation outside the dripline of the trees or a minimum distance based on species and trunk diameter; replacement of landscape plants and mulch.

Older trees may need to have a combination of herbicide sprayed on the turf; careful installation of irrigation; installation of landscape plants and mulch.

Large trees that have filled most of the planting strip with surface roots and the root plate, is the result of a tree that is too large for the planting strip. In these situations, complete tree and root removal as well as soil remediation in the planting strip is appropriate. The renovation will occur when a new tree is planted.

If the sidewalk is being repaired, and the tree will be retained, turf can be killed with herbicide. The irrigation lines can be installed with the sidewalk replacement, which will be simpler if the sidewalk is being relocated, and landscape plants can be placed where room exists, and mulch installed.

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan) Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management Plan 9/1/2017 Consulting Arborists Page 51 of 51
APPENDIX 10 - ROOT PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS
Root loss can affect tree health and stability. “Cutting roots at a distance of greater than 6 times the trunk diameter (DBH) minimizes the likelihood of affecting both health and stability. At this distance, approximately 25% of the root system would be lost.”
“Linear cuts on one side of a tree can reduce stability when the cut is made at a distance from the trunk that is less than three times the trunk diameter. Severe loss of stability is common when cuts are made at a distance that is less than 1 to 1.5 times the trunk diameter.”18 Root pruning is less disruptive the younger and smaller the tree is. Young trees at planting can be extensively root pruned to retain a viable root structure, and the tree will survive and grow. As trees grow larger, root pruning can have a bigger impact on stability. The larger the foliar crown in both height and spread, the greater the force and leverage on the root system.

The optimum method to root prune is to excavate the soil and view the roots before cutting. This is very expensive and time consuming, and not usually possible in large scale community tree populations. The alternative is to perform either select root cutting on one or two visible roots, or linear root cutting adjacent to concrete or structures.

The following specification language should be followed for root pruning:

Linear root pruning shall occur at a distance of 3 times DBH or greater from the base of the trunk. If root pruning closer than this distance is necessary to mitigate a conflict, either selective root pruning shall be performed, or the tree will need to be removed.

Linear root pruning should not be performed on two sides of a tree during the same growing season.

Selective root pruning of individual roots shall not exceed greater than 2 roots per tree per growing season, performed on roots greater than 2 inches up to 6 inches, at a distance from the base of the trunk of 2 times the DBH or greater. If root pruning closer than this distance is necessary to mitigate a conflict, the tree will need to be removed.

For individual roots larger than 6 inches, one root may be pruned not closer than 3 times DBH from the base of the trunk. If root pruning closer than this distance is necessary to mitigate a conflict, the tree will need to be removed.

If stability is a concern, a pull test can be performed. The pull test will verify if root plate movement occurs at the root cut. If the root plate is found to move, the tree is found to be unstable. It will need to be removed.

18 2017. Costello, Larry; Gary Watson; and Tom Smiley. ROOT MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. International Society of Arboriculture; page21 Consequences of Root Pruning on Tree Stability

4.2.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: A: Dougherty Valley Tree and Planting Strip Management (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan)

KENWICK DR
I L
AL
C
RIDGE
RD

ENFIELD ST

WINDEMERE PARKWAY

EAST BRANCH PARKWAY

KYLER LN

BOLLINGER CYN RD (EB)

DOUGHERTY RD

ALBION RD

STONELEAF
RD

LILAC RIDGE RD

IVY HILL
WAY

HARCOURT WAY

DOUGHERTY
RD
(NB)

NORTH MONARCH RD

WE L LS
LN

BOLLINGER CYN RD (NB)

ALCOSTA BLVD (N
B)

JAPONICA WAY

WINDEMERE PKWY (EB)
SOUTH

MONARCH
RD
CANYON

HILLS RD
LUCY
LN

NORTH G
S

ALE RIDGE RD

WEETG ALE DR

BAYBERRY VIEW LN

VERACRUZ
DR

ASTERBELL DR
R
O

SINCRESS
DR

CRO W CAN YON R D (EB)

FEATHERMIN T DR

ROWAN DR

SATINLEAF
WAY

BAROSSA DR

WATERMILL
R
D
ALPINE
B
L
U
E
D
R

BASSWO OD DR

TERRA ALTA DR
T
OLUC
A DR

LAK EVIE W DR

SLEEPING MEADOW WAY

IRIS LN

CANYON VIEW CIR

CINNAMON
RIDGE
RD

IRONWOOD DR

BRIAR OAKS DR

GREENWICH DR

MALAYAN ST

JOREE LN

IVY LEAF SPRINGS RD

BRITANNIA DR

HOLLYVIE W
DR

CAMASSIA

MORNINGTON LN
C

ATTLEYA
DR

BRI Z A L
O
O
P

SATURN PARK DR

VELVETLEAF CIR

CARPENTER WAY

CORTONA DR

CANYON WOODS PL

WYCLIFFE LN

SUNROSE RD

BLAKESLEY DR

SHORELINE CIR

MAGNOLIA BRIDGE DR

CRESTFIE LD
D
R
TO
LED
O
D
R

SORRELWOOD
D
R

ROCK ROSE LN

WATSONIA DR
M
E

DIAR DR

PADDINGTON WAY

ANDREAS WAY

WATERCRE SS PL

COPPERSET RD

BROWER CT

GINGER CT

LABRO CT

CASELLA CT

DAHLIA CT

CALICO CT

JADECREST CT

BROWNTAIL WAY

SILK HILL CT

CANYON GREEN PL

ALISMA CT
B
RO

OKCLIFF CIR

RASHELLE WAY

MACEDON CT

LEVANT CT

CHILENSE CT
IAN CT

COMPLETED ANNUAL

WORK PLAN (AWP)
2017/2018 (Turf Only)
Windemere PArkway
Camino Tassjara Road

INSET MAP
2017/2018
2018/2019
2019/2020
2020/2021
2021/2022
2022/2023
2023/2024

BANDOL WAY
(In-Progress)

4.2.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: B: Tree Planting Maintenance - Completed FY 201718 – FY 202324 AWP Map (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan)

ENFIELD ST

WINDEMERE PARKWAY

EAST BRANCH PARKWAY

EME RSON LN

KENN ARD LN

BALMORAL WY

PENZANCE WY

WINDEMERE PKWY

SHERWOOD WAY

ENFIELD ST

EAST BRANCH PKWY

EMERSON LN

HARCOURT WAY

YORK LN

KEATS LN

HOSKINS LN

CHANCERY WAY
HO
L
B
ORN
WAY
PAI
GE
WAY
K
E
A
R
NY
WAY

BYRON LN

ARLINGTON WAY

BETHA NY
RD

MORNINGT
O
N LN

MANDY WAY

WATERVALE
WAY

JAMIE PL
BALM
O
RA
L
W
AY

LONGLEAF CIR

KARINA CT

WYCLIFFE LN

AVALON WAY

STONEHENG E
WAY

BAKER WAY

BARONS LN

ROSEMONT LN

MILFORD DR MCL A REN LN

TAMWORTH LN

PERCY LN

HARLOW LN
JASPE
R
H
I
LL
DR

KINGS RD AVALON CT

LAMBETH WAY
AB
E

RDALE CIR

KNIGHTSB
R
I
D
G
E
W
AY
P
E
M
B
R
O
KE
WAY

VERNON WAY
YARD
L
EY LN

DAWES CT

SALISBURY WAY

PAIGE CT
G
L
E
N
C
O
E
CIR

BOWEN CT

ALDWYCH WAY

BALMORAL CT

SPALDING CT

MORNINGTON CT

SHERWOOD CT

PROPOSED FY
2024/2025AWP
SUBDIVISION 8717
SUBDIVISION 8715
SUBDIVISION 8926

4.2.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: C: Proposed FY 2024-2025 AWP Map (4338 : DV Trees Annual Work Plan)

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: May 8, 2024
TO: Infrastructure Committee/City Manager
FROM: Maria Fierner, Interim Public Works Director
By: Maria Fierner, Interim Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Infrastructure Maintenance Fund Update

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Infrastructure Maintenance Fund was created to fund facilities and infrastructure that have reached their useful life or are in need of repairs or renovations, based on the Department’s Facilities and Signals Maintenance and Renovation Plans. Replacement items that come up for the next fiscal year go through a prioritization process before programming the work. All items scheduled are verified by staff as to their condition and the need for replacement before they are programmed for repair/replacement in the Capital Budget. Based on a five-year projection with a General Fund contribution of $700,000 in Year 1 and $1.5M in Years 2 through 5, the Fund remains positive.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the Infrastructure Committee receive the report and provide direction to staff regarding the funding and management of the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Infrastructure Maintenance Fund (IMF) is currently used for items that are part of a facility or infrastructure amenity that have reached their useful life based on the Department’s Facilities and Signals Maintenance and Renovation Plans. This Fund is also used for repairs or renovations of facility amenities. For over 10 years, $200,000 was transferred from the General Fund into the IMF to partially fund the identified needs. Based on the balance of the Fund, staff would prioritize and defer items that need repairs or require replacement by either postponing the work or providing remedial repairs, until such a time the work could be funded. This resulted in unplanned repairs and higher deferred maintenance costs.

As part of the FY 2016/17 budget review process, staff went through an extensive analysis of unfunded infrastructure needs. Staff presented the projects based on the Facilities and Signals Maintenance and Renovation Plan and identified repairs. This process showed the true shortfall for FY 2016/17, as well as the needs and funding shortfall through five (5) years. After several

4.3 Packet Pg. 95
iterations of Council review of items and prioritization, Council allocated enough General Fund money to take care of the FY 2016/17 priority work (approximately $1M, combination of General Fund and remaining IMF).

In FY 2016/17, with Council’s desire to come up with a way to address deferred maintenance, staff built in the Five-Year budget projections of $1.5M each year going into the IMF from the General Fund. Additionally, at Mid-Year FY 2016/17, Council approved seed money in the amount of $1.5M to start building up the Fund; for FY 2017/18, Council approved an additional $2.0M for a total of $3.5M.

Year to year, funding needs fluctuate, depending on the timing of when amenities reach their end of useful life. The consistent funding stream allows all the scheduled items to be funded in any given year. The Fund will build up in some years and reduce in others, depending on the identified items and the General Fund contribution.

Replacement items that come up for the next fiscal year, annually go through a prioritization process:
o Priority No. 1
▪ Repair safety issue/hazard
▪ Comply with regulatory requirements/mandates
▪ Support General Plan/Master Plans goals
▪ Operational breakdown eminent resulting in shut down
o Priority No. 2
▪ Reduce ongoing repair
▪ Increase functionality or enhance recreational experience ▪ Sustainability – address energy measures or water conservation o Priority No. 3
▪ Planned replacement
▪ Expenditure offset/generate revenue
▪ Aesthetics
All items scheduled are verified by staff as to their condition and the need for replacement before they are programmed for repair/replacement in the Capital Budget. This annual prioritization and verification process ensures that the projects being funded for the fiscal year have been verified as true priority needs and have gone through this well-thought-out screening process.

When desired by Council, staff can re-analyze the funding allocation and reduce the General Fund contribution to the IMF accordingly for that year, which could be due to budget constraints or competing priorities.

The IMF is generally used for facilities, aquatics, and traffic signal equipment CIP projects, more specifically:

CIP 925432 City Facilities Floor Covering Replacement
CIP 925425 City Facilities HVAC Duct Cleaning/Equipment Replacement

4.3 Packet Pg. 96
CIP 925433 City Facilities Roof Covering Maintenance/Replacement CIP 925532 Citywide Exterior Painting & Sealing
CIP 925574 Dougherty Valley Aquatic Center Equipment Replacement CIP 925418 Forest Home Farm Structures
CIP 925515 Interior Amenities Renovation
CIP 925479 San Ramon Olympic Pool Equipment Replacement CIP 975526 Traffic Signal Improvements & Enhancements
Additionally, two projects were presented to the Infrastructure Committee and ultimately funded by the IMF in FY 2017/18:

CIP 5605 Alcosta Senior Center Landslide Repair $300,000 CIP 915548 Citywide Drainage Infrastructure Repair $346,000 During the FY 2018/19 Capital Budget process, staff proposed to the Finance Committee and City Council the concept to renovate one building at a time. The facility chosen would be closed for a specified period of time to complete a large-scale renovation. The work would include modernizing finishes and renovating areas to better match the current use of the facility and the needs of the community. Using this methodology would improve the efficiency of the work and reduce the impact on the facility and the public. During the budget process, the City Council and Finance Committee acknowledged that renovating one facility at a time would be preferred.

With this methodology in mind, two facilities were proposed to be renovated in FY 2019/20, funded by the IMF:

CIP 200002 Alcosta Senior & Community Center (ASCC) $950,300 CIP 200003 San Ramon Community Center (SRCC) $1,300,000 2019 Certificate of Participation (COP) Debt Financing
On October 8, 2019, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2019-099 authorizing the execution, delivery, and sale of Certificates of Participation (COP) to finance various capital improvements. The City had $24M in proceeds for capital improvement projects to be utilized over a three-year period. Projects that would have been funded by the IMF, now funded by COP include:

1. Alcosta Senior and Community Center Renovation Project – CIP 200002 (portion)

2. Citywide Drainage Infrastructure Repairs Project – CIP 915548

3. City Hall Reconfiguration Project – CIP 200001

4. Dougherty Station Community Center and Library Renovation Project – CIP 200004

5. San Ramon Community Center Renovation Project – CIP 200003

6. San Ramon Olympic Pool and Aquatic Park Renovation Project – CIP 200006 Total COP funding for these projects is approximately $11.8M. As a result, there was no General Fund contribution to the IMF in FY 2020/21.

4.3 Packet Pg. 97
There are still projects in the CIP that continue to have funding source needs, which could be funded by the IMF:

Various projects in the Dougherty
Valley area (i.e. trees, irrigation
upgrades, street landscape planting
renovations)
Funded by CSA/General Fund
Drainage infrastructure
(CIP 915548 – Citywide Drainage
Infrastructure Repairs)
Funded by Drainage Mitigation Fund; limited
funding available based on current development
projections; IMF to fund shortfall as necessary
Park-related CIP projects
(CIP 955584 – Citywide Park Amenities
Replacement and Improvements)
Funded by Park Development Fund; limited
funding available based on current development
projections; IMF to fund shortfall as necessary
For FY 2024/25, there are currently no CIP projects that fall within one of the criteria noted above.

FY 2024/25 IMF Budget Reductions
The goal is to provide $1.5M per fiscal year from the General Fund to the IMF. The amount fluctuates based on General Fund budget constraints or other available funding sources. The FY 2024/25 budget review process thus far has shown a significant funding shortfall to balance the budget. Therefore, requesting a $1.5M contribution is not feasible.

Based on the deferred maintenance plan schedules and the prioritization process, projects were identified for next fiscal year for a total amount of $1,489,285. Due to the limited funding that is available, staff prioritized the projects based on immediate need and deferred the other work to the following fiscal year. As a result, the total project expenditure for FY 2024/25 was reduced to $708,250. With a minimal IMF balance of $377,608, staff is requesting a General Fund contribution of $700,000 for FY 2024/25.

Details of the FY 2024/25 CIP IMF projects and their reductions are shown in Attachment A.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Since FY 2017/18, the General Fund contribution has been as follows:

Fiscal Year GF Contribution
to IMF
2017/18 $3,500,000
2018/19 $435,000
2019/20 $1,500,000
2020/21 $0
2021/22 $1,500,000
2022/23 $1,000,000
2023/24 $1,500,000

4.3 Packet Pg. 98
The General Fund contribution to the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund is proposed to be $700,000 for Year 1, and $1.5M for Year 2 through Year 5. The projects and fund balances per fiscal year are shown in Attachment B.

The table below summarizes all IMF funded expenditures over the next five fiscal years, and the corresponding fund balance for each fiscal year:

Fiscal Year
IMF
Expenditures ($)
IMF
Ending Balance ($)
FY 2024/25 708,250 381,358
FY 2025/26 1,833,115 60,243
FY 2026/27 931,168 641,075
FY 2027/28 1,185,340 967,735
FY 2028/29 2,163,150 316,585

NEXT STEPS

1. Incorporate feedback from Infrastructure Committee.

2. Present draft Five-Year CIP to Finance Committee on May 13, 2024.

3. Present draft Five-Year CIP at the Council Budget Presentation on May 28, 2024.

4. Obtain final feedback from Council as part of the FY 2024/25 Budget process and Five-Year CIP Budget process.

ATTACHMENT
A: Infrastructure Maintenance Fund FY 2024/25 Budget Reductions B: Infrastructure Maintenance Fund Five Year CIP Projects and Funding Projection

4.3 Packet Pg. 99

ATTACHMENT A

INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FUND
FY 2024/25 BUDGET REDUCTIONS
No. Pr # Project Name FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
revised Comments
1 100001 2023 Storm Damage Repairs - -
2 935404 Centralized Irrigation System Upgrade - -
3 200012 City Facilities Exterior Amenities 20,000 10,000 Cut repair to 50% 4 925432 City Facilities Floor Covering Replacement 64,612 - Defer project to 25/26 5 925425 City Facilities HVAC Duct Cleaning and Equipment Replacement 50,000 50,000 Keep repair funds 6 925433 City Facilities Roof Covering Maintenance and Replacement 135,000 25,000 Defer resealing of SRL, keep emergency repairs 7 915548 Citywide Drainage Infrastructure Repairs - -
8 925532 Citywide Exterior Painting & Sealing 35,000 - Defer painting of SROP exterior 9 955584 Citywide Parks Amenities Replacement and Improvement - - 10 200011 Dougherty Station Library Renovation - -
11 925574 Dougherty Valley Aquatic Center Equipment Replacement 25,200 - Defer painting of play equip, replacing of shade structure
12 935564 Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program - -
13 925418 Forest Home Farms Structures 294,000 - Defer roof of Glass House, and Boone House 14 955478 Fountain Repairs and Replacement - -
15 925515 Interior Amenities Renovation 1587721 59,773 10,000 AED replacement only, defer all others 16 200007 Police and Fire District Joint Public Safety Complex - - 17 905612 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Enhancements - - 18 200003 San Ramon Community Center Renovation - -
19 200006 San Ramon Olympic Pool and Aquatic Park Renovation - - 20 925479 San Ramon Olympic Pool Equipment Replacement 604,250 500,000 Lap Pool Replaster only 21 975526 Traffic Signals Improvements & Enhancements 201,450 113,250 Defer upgrades to signal controllers, inverters, opticom eyes, opticom flasher cards, (1) radar display unit, and (1) signal cabinet and address with limited backstock.

TOTAL: 1,489,285 708,250

4.3.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: A: Infrastructure Maintenance Fund FY 2024/25 Budget Reductions (4339 : IMF Update)

ATTACHMENT B

INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FUND

FIVE-YEAR CIP PROJECTS AND FUNDING PROJECTION
No. Pr # Project Name Prior Yrs 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Total 5Yr Beyond 5yr Total Project 1 100001 2023 Storm Damage Repairs 170,900 - - - - - - - 170,900 2 935404 Centralized Irrigation System Upgrade 8,169 - - - - - - - 8,169 3 200012 City Facilities Exterior Amenities - 10,000 10,000 - 8,400 - 28,400 230,000 258,400 4 925432 City Facilities Floor Covering Replacement 431,876 - 81,202 149,171 - 284,394 514,767 3,287,615 4,234,258 5 925425 City Facilities HVAC Duct Cleaning and Equipment Replaceme 2,510,686 50,000 368,000 90,000 160,000 154,000 822,000 4,236,000 7,568,686 6 925433 City Facilities Roof Covering Maintenance and Replacement 714,791 25,000 150,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 250,000 5,541,194 6,505,985 7 915548 Citywide Drainage Infrastructure Repairs 346,000 - - - - - - - 346,000 8 925532 Citywide Exterior Painting & Sealing 479,595 - 35,000 39,200 21,000 20,000 115,200 1,304,800 1,899,595 9 955584 Citywide Parks Amenities Replacement and Improvement 424,915 - - - - - - - 424,915 10 200011 Dougherty Station Library Renovation - - - - - - - 601,552 601,552 11 925574 Dougherty Valley Aquatic Center Equipment Replacement 1,687,515 - 142,409 193,929 156,508 981,734 1,474,580 1,858,096 5,020,191 12 935564 Dougherty Valley Tree Management Program 200,000 - - - - - - - 200,000 13 925418 Forest Home Farms Structures 452,800 - 294,000 - - - 294,000 - 746,800 14 955478 Fountain Repairs and Replacement 116,601 - - - - - - 551,188 667,789 15 925515 Interior Amenities Renovation 1,587,721 10,000 189,913 114,534 318,492 389,633 1,022,572 4,378,946 6,989,239 16 200007 Police and Fire District Joint Public Safety Complex 185,000 - - - - - - - 185,000 17 905612 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Enhancements 8,000 - - - - - - - 8,000 18 200003 San Ramon Community Center Renovation 68,202 - - - - - - - 68,202 19 200006 San Ramon Olympic Pool and Aquatic Park Renovation 633,879 - - - - - - - 633,879 20 925479 San Ramon Olympic Pool Equipment Replacement 2,677,041 500,000 284,221 131,884 311,460 122,739 1,350,304 2,626,709 6,654,054 21 975526 Traffic Signals Improvements & Enhancements 1,688,064 113,250 278,370 187,450 184,480 185,650 949,200 2,299,242 4,936,506 TOTAL: 14,391,755 708,250 1,833,115 931,168 1,185,340 2,163,150 6,821,023 26,915,342 48,128,120 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE: $ 377,608 $ 381,358 $ 60,243 $ 641,075 $ 967,735 GF CONTRIBUTION: $ 700,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 PCS CARPET CLEANING: $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $ 1,089,608 $ 1,893,358 $ 1,572,243 $ 2,153,075 $ 2,479,735 TRANSFERS OUT - CIPS: (708,250) (1,833,115) (931,168) (1,185,340) (2,163,150) ENDING FUND BALANCE: $ 381,358 $ 60,243 $ 641,075 $ 967,735 $ 316,585

4.3.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: B: Infrastructure Maintenance Fund Five Year CIP Projects and Funding Projection (4339 :

City Council Infrastructure CommitteeMay 8, 2024

City Council Infrastructure Committee
May 8, 2024