Public Comment — San Ramon City Council, September 21, 2026

From: Brian Swanson
To: City Clerk (Public)
Cc:

Subject: Public Comment: Agenda Item 4/5.6 — Request to Pull Proposed $2,059,133 Mark Thomas Design Agreement; Crow Canyon Road/Iron Horse Trail (IHT) Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 905531; Federal Project No. CPFL 5437
Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 3:47:37 PM
Attachments: 09.21.2026 Agenda Item 5.6 Supporting Records Attachments 1-6 July16 Response.pdf ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
City Council:

I request that the Council pull Agenda Item 5.6 from the Consent Calendar and continue consideration of Resolution No. 2026-119. The Council should not authorize this $2,059,133 design agreement on the present record. Publish the negotiated agreement and exhibits, the actual environmental determinations and supporting review, the current design and operating assumptions, the complete funding picture, and a meaningful public participation program before returning for approval.

My objection is not to engineering work that supplies information needed for environmental review. It is to treating environmental requirements as settled for the design now being authorized without showing the scope and assumptions that were reviewed, the disposition of current coverage questions, and the process for evaluating subsequent changes. The report cites the earlier state review and August 2026 federal categorical exclusion before describing a Notice to Proceed for design services through completion. The agreement and its environmental tasks are not in this packet. (Staff report, packet pp. 57–58.) This comment renews the accountability concerns in my July 13, 2026 public comment for the July 14 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 5.5, concerning the San Ramon Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Citywide Communications Infrastructure Project. The projects have different environmental histories, and their legal treatment should not be conflated. The common problem is asking the Council to approve consequential infrastructure commitments without a sufficiently transparent account of the actual project, environmental basis, public obligations, and limits on delegated authority. (Attachment 1, original PDF pp. 1–3; supporting PDF pp. 2–4.)
This comment also addresses Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation, the California Supreme Court decision discussed in Section IV below. The agenda's general exemption language includes the Class 1 existing facilities exemption, while the itemspecific report relies on an earlier environmental document. Please identify whether Class 1 is actually being invoked for any part of Agenda Item 5.6. The analysis and records requested depend on that answer. (September 21 agenda, packet p. 1; staff report, packet p. 57.)
A bicycle and pedestrian safety objective does not answer every question about a bridge, its roadway changes, connecting infrastructure, construction effects, or ultimate operating assumptions. Nor does outside funding establish that a particular design is necessary, proportionate, environmentally supported, or affordable over its useful life.

Item No. 4.0 and 5.6 Public Comment
I.

The agreement and the decision record should be available before authorization.

The staff report identifies a proposed agreement of $2,059,133, a $2,233,232 available design balance, and a $174,099 balance after the proposed award. Yet the only listed attachment is the proposed resolution. The supplied Agenda Item 5.6 materials do not contain the negotiated agreement, scope of work, task budget, schedule, consultant and subconsultant assignments, or the environmental documents on which staff relies. These are omissions from this decision packet; I am not claiming that no relevant documents exist elsewhere. (September 21 staff report, packet pp. 56–58; Attachment A, packet pp. 59–60.) Before approving an agreement of this scope, the Council and public should be able to determine exactly what it purchases. Publish the proposed execution version with its exhibits, deliverables, task and subtask costs, contingencies, reimbursable expenses, amendment authority, termination provisions, professional responsibilities, and procedures for addressing design errors or changed conditions. Identify which tasks involve environmental work, public involvement, agency coordination, bridge and roadway design, drainage, utilities, trail connections, easements, construction support, and future operating arrangements. An earlier solicitation is not a substitute for the negotiated agreement now presented for authorization.

The request is not based on an invented rule that every large contract must include every supporting document in its agenda. It requests informed approval and compliance with applicable public access requirements. Any nonexempt writings distributed to all or a majority of the Council in connection with Agenda Item 5.6 should be made available as required by Government Code section 54957.5. The present omissions do not, by themselves, establish a completed Ralph M. Brown Act violation. (Government Code § 54957.5.)
II.The environmental chronology needs correction and a current explanation.

The report describes an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) completed in 2018 and updated in 2019. The underlying City records provide a more precise chronology. Resolution No. 2017-129 adopted the environmental document on November 28, 2017; the subsequently assembled Final IS/MND is dated January 2018. The August 8, 2019 addendum confirms the 2017 adoption and identifies revised Bollinger Canyon Road bridge and roadway features in its revised project discussion. A later compilation date should not be confused with the adoption date, and that addendum should not be presented as an unexplained, comprehensive update of the current Crow Canyon proposal. (Resolution No. 2017-129, pp. 1, 5–6, in the Final IS/MND compilation; August 8, 2019 addendum memorandum, pp. 1–3.)
Most importantly, the November 2023 Crow Canyon concept update reported an initial environmental screening of the three bridge options and expressly anticipated a new revalidation memo documenting changes. Agenda Item 5.6 neither identifies that completed memo nor provides it. Produce the promised memo, its supporting studies, and the City's disposition of it, or identify the specific later document that superseded it. An initial screening conclusion is not the same thing as producing the follow-through that the City's own concept report contemplated. (November 2023 Concept Update Report, printed p. 6, "Environmental"; September 21 staff report, packet p. 57.) Use accurate agency roles and terminology. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City adopts a mitigated negative declaration; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is certified. The 2019 addendum identifies the City as the CEQA lead agency. Federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a separate responsibility. The appropriate request is for the City's actual CEQA actions and the authorized federal or assigned state agency's NEPA determination—not for a single, generic "certified CEQA/NEPA" document. (2019 addendum, p. 1; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162, 15164.)
III.Apply the subsequent review standards to the actual project and circumstances.

My objection is not that an environmental document expires after a fixed number of years.

Under the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162, the relevant inquiry concerns substantial project changes, changed circumstances, or qualifying new information that meet the section's standards for new significant effects, substantially more severe effects, or specified mitigation and alternatives issues. Age alone is not that showing. Conversely, citing an old approval without explaining the material changes does not establish that those standards have been applied. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)–(c).) Provide a dated comparison of the previously reviewed project and the design now proposed: footprint, bridge and approach geometry, roadway modifications, utilities, drainage, construction methods and duration, trail detours, adjacent development, expected use, and operating restrictions. For each material difference, identify the prior analysis by page, the present evidence, the potential environmental consequence, and the City's conclusion. Address facts that were already anticipated in the earlier analysis separately from genuinely changed circumstances or new information.

Apply that comparison to conditions and project features already known at this decision, not only to changes that might arise later. If information currently needed to support the chosen CEQA pathway remains to be developed, identify the lawful investigations or preliminary engineering needed, the decision they will inform, and the commitments that must await the result. A promise of future design review does not, by itself, establish that the present authorization is supported. The applicable timing and subsequent review standards govern; this is not a request to complete every final engineering detail before environmental review. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004(a)–(c); § 15162(a)–(c).) The City should identify the further discretionary decision being made through Agenda Item

5.6 and explain its treatment under section 15162. Where no subsequent EIR is required, the appropriate result may be a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation, depending on the circumstances. An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but the decision-making body must consider it with the underlying environmental document before deciding on the project. The explanation supporting the selected course must rest on evidence, not merely the project's age or title. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(b)–(c), 15164(b)–(e).)
Keep the comparison under section 15162 separate from any Class 1 comparison. The former addresses the previously reviewed project and the significance of qualifying changes or new information. The latter addresses the facility's existing or former use and the nature and extent of the proposed alteration. An answer to one question should not be presented as an answer to the other. Section IV explains the additional, conditional exemption issue. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162; § 15301.)
IV.Identify any Class 1 reliance and apply Sunflower Alliance to the actual scope.

A.Identify the asserted pathway before applying an exemption test.

The agenda lists section 15301 among several general CEQA provisions. By contrast, the staff report and proposed resolution describe the earlier IS/MND, its 2019 update, and an August 2026 federal categorical exclusion. Neither supplies an item-specific Class 1 explanation. I therefore do not characterize Agenda Item 5.6 as an established Class 1 approval. Please state expressly whether the City relies exclusively on the prior IS/MND and subsequent review provisions, invokes Class 1 as an additional or alternative basis, or relies on a different provision. (Agenda, packet p. 1; staff report, packet p. 57; proposed resolution, packet p. 59.)
The requested Sunflower Alliance analysis is conditional on actual Class 1 reliance. I do not assert a freestanding requirement to commission a document bearing that title. Where the City invokes the exemption, identify the supporting analysis and evidence in a reviewable record. Where it does not, explain the applicable alternative pathway rather than leave the agenda's generic exemption language unresolved.

B.The holding concerns the facility's use, not a substitute no harm finding.

In Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (June 25, 2026, S287414), the Supreme Court held that Class 1's negligibility inquiry concerns changes in the nature or degree of a facility's use, rather than the risk of environmental harm from those changes.

New uses can qualify when the expansion is negligible. The Court reversed and remanded; it did not decide whether the particular well conversion ultimately qualified. It also left unresolved the separate question concerning approval conditions and mitigation. (Sunflower Alliance, majority slip opn., pp. 1–2, 14–20, 31–33, and p. 18, fn. 4.) For this bridge, the resulting question is not answered merely by stating that the work stays within a transportation right-of-way, provides safety benefits, reduces some emissions, or has received federal environmental clearance. If Class 1 is asserted, please explain what existing facility is being altered, what its use has been, what the proposed work enables, and why the alteration and any expansion fit section 15301. This application applies the decision to the present record, not a claim that the Court adjudicated this project.

C.Address both the existing facility requirement and the listed transportation examples.

Section 15301 covers specified activities involving existing facilities, including minor alterations, with negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Subdivision (c) expressly includes existing streets, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and specified improvements such as bicycle facilities and pedestrian crossings that do not add automobile lanes. Those examples must be considered; adding new construction elements or a new function does not, by itself, establish exemption eligibility. (CEQA Guidelines § 15301, introductory text and subdivision (c).)
Identify whether the claimed existing facility is the trail, Crow Canyon Road, the current crossing, or a specifically defined combination. Explain how the proposed elevated structure, approaches, foundations, roadway changes, and connections compare with the actual existing facility and the regulation's examples. An existing corridor is not, without further explanation, an existing bridge. Conversely, the label "new bridge" does not replace evaluation of the applicable regulatory language and project facts. Provide drawings and a functional description supporting the City's position, rather than relying solely on the project title.

D.Provide a documented comparison of uses and operational functions.

To make any Class 1 conclusion understandable, I request a comparison addressing the following subjects to the extent material to this project. This is a proposed organization of the evidence, not an assertion that CEQA mandates a particular table, traffic model, or separately commissioned study for every exempt project. Existing competent records may supply the answers if the City identifies the relevant pages and explains their applicability.

Existing and former uses. Identify the existing facilities and supported historical uses being used as the reference point. Distinguish permitted operations, documented actual operations, unauthorized device use, and a reserved future transportation use. The concept report's reference to an easement for future light rail transit does not establish that every proposed transit function is an existing or former use of the facility now being designed. Any reliance on historic rail or other former transportation use should identify the actual use, facility, period, and relevance to the present scope. (November 2023 Concept Update Report, printed p. 3; CEQA Guidelines § 15301.)
Nature and degree of trail use. Describe the proposed user groups, operating rules, direction of travel, clear widths, grades, design speeds, anticipated volumes, and access arrangements. Explain the basis for material changes from the supported reference condition. An increase in bicycle or pedestrian activity is not automatically disqualifying; identify its magnitude and functional significance instead of treating either increased use or environmental benefit as a conclusive answer.

Roadway and crossing functions. Account for the proposed removal of the traffic signal and at-grade crossing, not just travel on the bridge deck. Explain the resulting crossing routes, road and trail movements, access changes, and any changed operating capacity or traffic management function. The City's project description identifies these components.

The necessary comparison should address them, whether the conclusion is that use remains within Class 1 or that another CEQA pathway applies. (City project webpage, "Project Summary".)
Connected improvements. Identify which approach, drainage, utility, communications, and trail transition works are part of this authorization and which belong to separate projects. Explain the bridge's interface with the operating Bollinger crossing and the proposed second trail in San Ramon and Danville. Proximity alone does not establish a single project; equally, separate contracts or agency names do not answer whether an omitted component is integral to the undertaking. Define the whole activity before applying the exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a), (c).)
Design vehicles and possible future conversion. Disclose structural loading, design vehicle assumptions, clearance, turning geometry, barriers, communications provisions, and any specified allowance for future passenger service. Identify the purpose of each material requirement. Maintenance access, emergency access, and lawful mobility device accommodation do not prove an undisclosed shuttle project. Nor should a reserved future use be treated as already authorized through an unexplained design assumption.

Distinguish ordinary engineering provisions from work specifically directed toward a different service.

Evidence and conclusion. Identify the preparer, date, version, drawings, operating assumptions, and approval supporting each material conclusion. Explain separately why the activity fits the existing facility category and why any expansion of use is negligible.

State the limits of the determination and the changes that would require renewed review.

Missing documentation in this packet is a reason to request the supporting record, not proof that no such record exists.

E.Keep exemption eligibility separate from exceptions and impact analysis.

The City's obligation to support exemption eligibility is distinct from a challenger's burden concerning an exception. The Court also cautioned that an agency must consider evidence in its record even without public opposition. I request an explanation of both inquiries, rather than treating lack of opposition as proof of eligibility. (Sunflower Alliance, majority slip opn., pp. 28–31, especially p. 30, fn. 7.)
For section 15300.2(b), identify any relevant successive projects of the same type in the same place and address whether their cumulative impact is significant. Adjacent housing projects are not automatically projects of the same type as a trail crossing. For section 15300.2(c), address any evidence of unusual circumstances and a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to those circumstances. Neither a costly bridge nor nearby development alone establishes that exception. Identify the disposition of other exceptions where supported by the site and project record. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)–(f).) The broader construction, receptor, circulation, and cumulative issues in Sections VI through IX should also be evaluated under whichever environmental review provisions actually apply. Do not narrow a subsequent review inquiry to the same type test merely because that test appears in a categorical exemption exception. Conversely, do not equate a request for corridor-wide study with proof that a Class 1 exception has already been established.

F.Preserve the separate subsequent review inquiry for the adopted IS/MND.

A Class 1 analysis would not supply the missing comparison under sections 15162 and 15164 if the City continues to rely on the earlier IS/MND. Nor would failure to establish Class 1 by itself require discarding that adopted document and starting over. The applicable subsequent review provisions still govern the evaluation of qualifying project changes, changed circumstances, and new information. Those provisions may support further review or a documented conclusion that further review is unnecessary. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162; § 15164.)
The practical request is for two clearly distinguished explanations if both pathways are asserted: the existing-or-former-use comparison supporting Class 1, and the priorreviewed-versus-current-project comparison supporting continued reliance on the IS/MND.

The Supreme Court's decision should not be used as an automatic reopening device; the City should identify the actual current approval and the facts or legal pathway relevant to it.

The previously identified 2023 revalidation commitment remains a separate, concrete document production question. (November 2023 Concept Update Report, printed p. 6, "Environmental".)
G.Distinguish scope restrictions, mitigation, and design-only authorizations.

The scope limitation proposed in Section XI identifies what this design agreement would and would not authorize. It is not offered as proof that the entire project qualifies for an exemption. Suppose the City relies on conditions to support an environmental conclusion, identify their purpose, enforceability, implementing party, and relationship to the actual project description. Do not characterize every condition as prohibited, or every condition as an automatic cure. In particular, do not cite Sunflower Alliance as having decided the conditions question that it expressly left open. (Sunflower Alliance, majority slip opn., pp. 31–32.)
Similarly, calling Agenda Item 5.6 a design contract does not identify its CEQA treatment. If staff invokes the feasibility-and-planning provision in section 15262, identify the qualifying study tasks and explain how its limits are satisfied. If staff invokes the administrative activity provision in section 15378(b)(5), explain the absence of direct or indirect physical changes. Otherwise, identify how the already adopted environmental review covers the authorized design work. The actual scope and commitment matter, not the contract's administrative form. (CEQA Guidelines § 15262; § 15378(b)(5); § 15004.) H.State the decision basis and retain the supporting record.

Please provide an item-specific environmental explanation before authorizing the agreement. Where Class 1 is invoked, identify the defined facility, comparison of uses, supporting evidence, and applicable exception analysis. Where it is not invoked, say so and identify the actual basis for proceeding under the prior IS/MND or another provision.

Retain the final drawings, scope, assumptions, and underlying documents supporting that explanation with the project record. A citation to Sunflower Alliance without applying the relevant test to these facts would not answer this request.

V.Produce the August 2026 NEPA determination and explain continuing design coverage.

The report expressly presents the NEPA requirements as completed.

The staff report states: "A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was determined in August 2026, completing the requirements for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." The proposed resolution repeats that representation. The completion claim therefore appears in both the explanation to the Council and the resolution proposed for adoption. (Staff report, packet p. 57; proposed resolution, packet p. 59.)
That sentence expressly concerns NEPA. It does not itself constitute a new CEQA determination or establish that every environmental topic has been reanalyzed. The report separately cites the earlier IS/MND and its update, then describes executing the agreement and issuing a Notice to Proceed for design services through completion. Although the report does not expressly prohibit later environmental review, it presents the cited environmental steps as satisfied for advancing final design without explaining the continuing review process. (Staff report, packet pp. 57–58.) Neither the report nor resolution identifies the CE approval date, signer, assigned authority, regulatory category, approved project description, or incorporated environmental commitments. Produce the actual CE and supporting record. Identify the design version, impact assumptions, and changes since the earlier CEQA review that were examined, as well as any conditions on later design or approvals. The August 2026 date alone does not establish the age or scope of the underlying studies. (Staff report, packet p. 57; proposed resolution, packet p. 59.)
This is not a new request. On July 30, 2025, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4 Local Assistance Environmental Branch Chief Tom Holstein informed me that Caltrans was processing NEPA for CPFL 5437 (034), proposed a CE under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 771.117(c)(3), and was awaiting documentation, primarily concerning section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

That was the status in July 2025, not proof of the status today. The reported August 2026 approval should now be accompanied by the records showing how those outstanding matters were resolved. (Correspondence with Caltrans District 4 Local Assistance, compiled July 31, 2025, PDF pp. 1–3.)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may assign qualifying CE responsibilities to Caltrans. Caltrans's current Section 326 assignment includes qualifying bicycle and pedestrian CEs. Accordingly, a proper Caltrans determination may be the operative NEPA approval; do not demand a separate FHWA signature where the responsibility was validly assigned. Identify the authority actually used for this project. (Caltrans, 23 United States Code § 326 Categorical Exclusion Assignment.)
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an eligible CE category, but section 771.117 also addresses unusual circumstances requiring appropriate studies. Provide the support for the category selected and the disposition of relevant resource, controversy, and related law issues. A CE does not automatically require an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement; equally, the category label does not disclose the project's supporting analysis or commitments. (23 CFR § 771.117(a)–(c)(3).) Provide the nonconfidential section 106 findings and consultation outcome. Also identify the applicable treatment of the trail and other potentially protected resources under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act: no use, an applicable exception, a de minimis determination, or another approval, as appropriate. I do not assume every trail improvement requires an individual section 4(f) evaluation; the regulations contain specific exceptions. Identify the actual determination, supporting facts, jurisdictional concurrence where required, and any applicable public involvement. (23 CFR § 774.13.) B.Caltrans' July 16 response distinguishes the draft determination from the final approval now being relied upon.

Caltrans' July 16, 2026 response to California Public Records Act (CPRA) Request R051022-051826 states that Caltrans prepared a draft NEPA categorical exclusion for final review, expected within the next few weeks, and included the draft in its updated environmental files. I acknowledge that representation and do not contend that Caltrans produced no categorical exclusion documentation. A draft awaiting final review, however, is not the signed August determination now cited in the staff report and proposed resolution. (Attachment 6, response pp. 1 and 3; supporting PDF pp. 51 and 53.) The staff report at printed packet page 57 and proposed Resolution No. 2026-119 at printed packet page 59 state that the CE was determined in August 2026. Please make available the complete signed determination, its approved project description and design assumptions, incorporated commitments, final review disposition, and transmittal to the City. The Council and public should be able to compare the approved scope with the design work now proposed for authorization. Distinguish that federal determination from the City's separate reliance on the earlier IS/MND and 2019 update. If an already released file contains the final determination, identify its exact filename and pages. (Staff report, printed packet p. 57; proposed resolution, printed packet p. 59.) Caltrans' July 16 response also states that it omitted cultural resource drafts because additional redaction work was required, while it provided the final cultural resource documents with the necessary redactions. It identifies the confidentiality of tribal information in its treatment of Section 106 documentation. Please identify the nonconfidential final findings and review disposition supporting the CE, and explain how the issues raised during that review were resolved without disclosing protected information. (Attachment 6, response pp. 1 and 3; supporting PDF pp. 51 and 53.) For Question 5, "Project Scope, Segmentation, and Cumulative Impacts," the response assigns criterion 3, defined as a determination that no responsive records exist after a reasonable search. That classification needs to be reconciled with Mr. Holstein's July 31, 2025 correspondence discussing cumulative impacts and public outreach. The response separately describes search limitations and exclusion of emails sent by the requester.

Please explain how Mr. Holstein's correspondence was accounted for, including whether it was classified elsewhere or excluded, rather than leaving the Question 5 disposition unexplained. (Attachment 6, response pp. 2–4, particularly the criterion definitions on p. 3 and Question 5 on p. 4; Attachment 2, source p. 1, supporting PDF p. 14.) These record issues do not, standing alone, establish that the final CE is invalid. They reinforce the need to disclose the actual supporting record and explain how the issues raised during review were resolved. Attachment 5 remains evidence of the displayed portal listing, not the contents of every listed file. I do not assume that a completed August approval could have been supplied in July, or that portal closure establishes the adequacy or inadequacy of the environmental review. The CPRA production and the City's current approval record are related but distinct matters.

C.Design should inform environmental analysis, not bypass it.

Design and environmental review should inform one another. CEQA Guidelines section 15004(b) calls for review early enough to influence design but late enough to provide meaningful assessment information; subdivision (c) calls for timely coordination with existing planning and approval processes. Environmental findings should therefore shape design, while engineering information should test whether the assumptions and conclusions relied upon remain supportable. For this previously reviewed project, sections 15162 and 15164 govern the applicable subsequent review determination. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)–(c); § 15162; § 15164.)
I do not contend that the August CE had to await every final design detail. Section 771.113(a) expressly includes related engineering studies within environmental review and generally requires the environmental classification or decision before final design proceeds. That sequence can be proper. The question is whether the reviewed project adequately covers the actual work to be released, not whether environmental review preceded completion of all engineering. (23 CFR § 771.113(a)–(b).) The technical work should address, where relevant, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air quality, noise and vibration, public services, and public safety. It should use the actual design and operating assumptions: bridge and approach geometry, signal and crossing changes, design vehicles and user groups, drainage, construction methods, detours, adjacent receptors, emergency access, and related corridor projects. Identify which existing analyses or screening conclusions remain applicable, which need additional information, and which require further review. Apply CEQA and NEPA separately; do not imply that each requires an identical checklist, model, or new document.

Two questions must be answered separately: whether the current design and circumstances were adequately covered when the August 2026 CE was issued and when the City relied on the earlier IS/MND; and how later design information or changes will be evaluated. A future consultation commitment is not evidence that an existing coverage question has already been resolved. Conversely, discovery of a design change does not automatically require a new environmental document. The responsible agencies must apply the applicable standards to the facts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)–(c); 23 CFR § 771.129(c).)
Caltrans's Standard Environmental Reference, Chapter 33, identifies engineering and design changes, changes to the setting, and changes to environmental commitments as potential reevaluation triggers. It describes possible outcomes ranging from continued validity to additional documentation or a different environmental determination. The agreement should identify who screens changes, obtains technical input, consults with the authorized NEPA agency, and records the outcome. These responsibilities are not exhausted merely because an initial CE has been issued. (Caltrans, Chapter 33, "Triggers for Consultation or Reevaluation" and "Project Changes".) VI.Evaluate the complete undertaking and the contemporary surrounding projects.

The September 17, 2026 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Technical Coordinating Committee materials identify both this overcrossing and the County's Iron Horse Corridor San Ramon Double-Tracking Project (Phase 1) and Iron Horse Corridor Danville Double-Tracking Project (Phase 2). These are identifiable current proposals, not merely hypothetical future infrastructure. Their presence in a funding applications list does not establish an award or construction authorization, but it does warrant a reasoned assessment of their relationship to the bridge. (CCTA September 17, Agenda Item 4.B, Attachment A, p. 1, rows S1 and S6.)
The current environmental comparison should address the operating Bollinger Canyon Road overcrossing; completed, ongoing, and proposed widening or related work on Crow Canyon and Bollinger Canyon Roads; the adjacent Bishop Ranch 11 (BR-11)/Trumark development; the proposed second trail between Bollinger and Crow Canyon Roads and the Danville segment; and relevant Bishop Ranch and downtown redevelopment. Identify each project's actual status and schedule rather than treating all projects as approved, under construction, or certain to proceed. The City announced the Bollinger crossing's opening in July 2025, creating an opportunity to evaluate actual use and operations rather than rely only on earlier forecasts. (City's Bollinger opening announcement; CCTA Attachment A, p. 1.)
The geographic and temporal analysis should follow the potential effects: overlapping construction, truck routes, drainage and utility interfaces, tree removal, trail closures and detours, new residential receptors, school access, emergency response, and changed movements through the corridor. Ask whether two nominally separate projects rely on the same drainage works, easements, trail transitions, or operating assumptions. Identify interface responsibilities among the City, Contra Costa County, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and the Town of Danville, as applicable.

Project segmentation and cumulative effects are different inquiries. Proximity alone does not make every nearby development part of this bridge project. Necessary or functionally interdependent components should not be omitted from its description; other projects belong in the appropriate CEQA cumulative and changed circumstances evaluation where their effects are relevant. Under the current FHWA regulation, even a CE action must have logical termini and independent utility and must not restrict alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. Explain how the defined federal project satisfies those requirements. (23 CFR § 771.111(f).)
I am not assuming that CEQA and NEPA impose identical cumulative effects procedures.

The City and Caltrans should identify the currently applicable requirements separately, rather than using a conclusion under one statute to answer obligations under the other.

VII.Address roadway operations and VMT without relying on labels.

The City's project webpage expressly includes removal of the existing traffic signal and atgrade crosswalk, with improved vehicular flow among the stated benefits. Thus, the environmental inquiry is not confined to whether automobiles will travel on the bridge deck.

It also concerns the roadway and access changes below and beside the bridge. (City project webpage, "Project Summary".)
Provide the current transportation screening or analysis for the entire undertaking, including the signal and crossing changes. Explain the treatment of VMT, travel patterns, speeds, local access, pedestrian routes, and connections to adjacent projects. Identify the factual basis for any conclusion that the changes will reduce VMT or have no material effect on it.

Increased trail use, improved vehicle flow, and reduced automobile travel are not interchangeable performance measures.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)(2) provides a less-than-significant transportation presumption for transportation projects that reduce or do not affect VMT. A detailed numerical model is not automatically required for every bicycle and pedestrian bridge. The provision also applies prospectively; the subsequent review question cannot be answered solely by observing that a 2017 document predates statewide VMT implementation. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)–(c).)
The Office of Planning and Research's December 2018 Technical Advisory includes grade separations and traffic control changes among project types that generally do not require induced travel analysis. It also discusses analysis where a transportation project would increase vehicle travel. Staff should explain why the screening rationale fits the complete current project and its actual roadway and corridor functions, rather than treating a listed project category as a substitute for defining those functions. Removal of this signal alone does not establish a significant VMT increase, and I am not asserting that it does. (Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, pp. 19–22.) Any transportation screening should also be distinguished from the conditional Class 1 inquiry in Section IV. A supported conclusion about vehicle miles traveled answers a transportation impact question; it does not identify the facility, its former use, or the extent of the alteration. Please identify which question each memorandum actually addresses, without treating the requested distinction as a demand for unnecessary duplicative modeling. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3; § 15301.)
VIII.Explain the General Plan 2040 and climate policy relationship.

The General Plan 2040 findings identify significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative operational VMT impacts. Its Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) accepts those impacts for the General Plan based on stated benefits; it does not establish that this particular bridge has no transportation effects. Nor does it automatically require a new SOC for every later public project. (Resolution No. 2023-132, Exhibit 1, printed pp. 27– 30 and 42–43; CEQA Guidelines § 15093.)
State whether the City relies solely on the bridge IS/MND and subsequent review provisions, relies on the General Plan 2040 EIR for particular effects, or proposes another lawful approach. For any reliance on the General Plan EIR, identify the actual analysis, applicable mitigation, and basis for concluding the current activity and effects are adequately covered. Do not imply that mentioning the General Plan or its SOC supplies that comparison. (CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c).)
The Council adopted the updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report on June 10, 2025, through Resolution No. 2025-073.

Explain their relevance to this discretionary infrastructure decision and to any claimed reliance on the earlier environmental review. This explanation does not claim that adopting a new threshold automatically invalidates an older CEQA approval. (City CAP adoption notice.)
The adopted GHG report distinguishes consistency-based review from quantitative analysis and develops efficiency thresholds for residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use development. Staff should not mechanically apply a residents-or-employees denominator to a bridge without explaining why it is appropriate. Identify the applicable method, emissions sources, construction treatment, and any supported mode shift assumptions. If CAP consistency is invoked to streamline review, identify the provisions relied upon and the enforceable project measures supporting that conclusion. (Adopted GHG Thresholds and Guidance Report, pp. 1–3, 24–25, 30, and 32; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4, 15183.5(b).) Do not count this public investment as mitigation for other projects without identifying the relevant commitments, funding obligations, additional reductions attributed to each project, implementation schedule, and monitoring. The Council should know whether the bridge is offered simply as an improvement or also as a basis for claims that development-related VMT or GHG impacts have been mitigated.

Likewise, any reliance on climate policy consistency, the General Plan's findings, or anticipated environmental benefits should be linked to the specific analytical question it supports. None supplies the missing description of present and proposed uses requested in Section IV. This comment requests separate, supported explanations rather than interchangeable assurances of plan consistency, environmental benefit, and exemption eligibility.

IX.Construction, accessibility, safety, and public services require specific commitments.

Provide a current construction and operating effects assessment proportionate to the project and the applicable CEQA review. Address dust and equipment emissions, noise and vibration, excavation and foundation work, staging, hauling, nighttime work, lighting, drainage, utilities, vegetation, and exposure of existing and future adjacent occupants.

Compare the anticipated bridge construction schedule with nearby development and roadway work. Identify which earlier mitigation measures remain applicable and whether current conditions require different measures.

The VMT framework does not eliminate other transportation-related environmental questions. Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(3) expressly preserves analysis of air quality, noise, safety, and other transportation-associated impacts. Public services concerns should identify potential physical effects and necessary facilities, not merely assert that every staffing or budget issue is itself a CEQA impact. (Public Resources Code § 21099(b)(3).)
Specify an accessible, continuous construction detour and evaluate whether eliminating the at-grade crossing would create materially longer or more difficult routes for some users.

Address grades, resting opportunities, wayfinding, visibility, emergency access, and the connections between the bridge and any second trail. Include people with mobility, hearing, and vision disabilities in evaluating the design and operating plan; general assertions of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance are not a substitute for reviewing the actual route.

Publish the current rules governing pedestrians, conventional bicycles, electric bicycles, scooters, and e-moto type devices, including the agency responsible for each segment. Do not treat observed e-moto use as proof that it is authorized. Identify enforcement, maintenance, incident reporting, emergency access, and interagency responsibilities. Any relied-upon Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) should identify the responsible entity, timing, funding, verification, and corrective action, and carry applicable commitments into design and construction documents.

X.Renew substantive public engagement before design commitments harden.

The City's historical record identifies outreach in 2013–2015, the 2017 environmental process, and Council consideration of bridge design in November and December 2023. I do not contend that no public meeting ever occurred. My objection is the absence, in the current approval record, of a demonstrated substantive process addressing the present scope, changed surroundings, agency interfaces, construction effects, operating assumptions, and full financial commitments. A preference survey about bridge appearance cannot answer those questions. (City project webpage, "Project History" and "Public Meetings"; Resolution No. 2017-129, pp. 2–5.)
On July 31, 2025, Caltrans also relayed the City's representation that it proposed further outreach during final design. Identify what has occurred since that representation and what the proposed Mark Thomas agreement requires. Publish a funded engagement schedule with identifiable deliverables, opportunities to consider meaningful alternatives, and a response to comments matrix. (July 30–31, 2025 correspondence, PDF p. 1.) Hold a dedicated, accessible workshop on the current project before critical design choices become expensive to change. Include nearby residents and businesses, trail users, school communities, disability stakeholders, emergency responders, County and EBRPD representatives, and affected adjacent developers. Make readable plans and explanatory materials available beforehand. Explain what remains open to public influence and what earlier decisions the City considers settled.

A CE does not automatically require a new hearing in every case. Nevertheless, the City and Caltrans should identify the applicable public involvement and hearing opportunity requirements, including whether the roadway and facility changes implicate 23 CFR section 771.111(h). The request for a current workshop also stands as a sound governance measure independent of the minimum legal procedure. (23 CFR § 771.111(h).) XI.Prohibit undisclosed accommodation of a different transportation use.

I oppose using this bicycle and pedestrian design authorization to advance an undisclosed motorized transportation corridor. The packet does not establish that the bridge is being designed for autonomous shuttles, conventional transit, or a dedicated guideway system such as Glydways. I do not present that concern as a proven secret plan. I request disclosure and binding scope limits now, while the design agreement can still be written to prevent that outcome. (Glydways system description identifies the type of technology referenced here; it is not evidence that the City has selected it.) The City's November 2023 concept report also identifies an easement for future light rail transit within the trail right-of-way. Identify the easement holder, current legal status, mapped location, and constraints on this bridge and its approaches. Explain whether any design provision serves that reserved use. An existing easement does not prove the pedestrian bridge is being designed for rail or autonomous vehicles. (November 2023 Concept Update Report, printed p. 3.)
Publish the design basis: clear widths, structural loading and design vehicles, geometry, barriers, pavement and foundations, utility and communications provisions, maintenance access, emergency access, and any allowance for future conversion. Explain why each material design feature is needed for the authorized uses. Identify any instruction, study, funding representation, or agreement contemplating passenger shuttles, automated vehicles, exclusive operating lanes, stations, or conversion of trail space to another transportation use.

A bridge may legitimately need maintenance vehicle loading, emergency access, accessible mobility device accommodation, and prudent safety margins. Those features are not, by themselves, evidence of a transit scheme. The concern is whether additional scope or cost is being incurred for a different use without public authorization and environmental disclosure. Any claim that the project is proportionately designed should be supported by an engineering and cost explanation, not merely by the availability of grant money.

The requested design disclosures also make the Class 1 comparison in Section IV verifiable, should the City invoke that exemption. Please distinguish what the agreement currently authorizes from a hypothetical future use that would require another decision. A load rating, utility sleeve, or protected easement alone does not establish a passenger service project; an actual instruction to design for such a service should be disclosed and evaluated as part of the scope it creates.

Requested contract and resolution limitation: "This authorization does not approve, fund, or direct design for autonomous passenger vehicles, public or private motorized passenger service, a dedicated transit guideway, or conversion of the Iron Horse Trail to such uses. Any work specifically intended to accommodate such a use must be separately disclosed, evaluated under applicable environmental and other requirements, and approved through a separately noticed action before that work proceeds. This limitation does not prohibit lawful accessibility accommodations or reasonably necessary maintenance and emergency access."
The City should coordinate this limitation with other agencies having authority over the corridor. It should not suggest that the Council can unilaterally determine all County or EBRPD operating rules.

XII.Disclose the larger funding exposure and justify the design cost.

Agenda Item 5.6 concerns design, not construction. The $2,059,133 amount should not be described as the total price of building the crossing. The report identifies an overall budget of $2,534,471 for the funded predesign, environmental, and design work, including $2 million in Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending (CPF/CDS), $434,121 from the General Fund, and $100,350 in CCTA Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funding. (Staff report, packet pp. 56–58.) A separate and highly relevant record is missing from that fiscal explanation. CCTA's September 17 applications summary lists a $23 million request from San Ramon for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Crow Canyon Road (row S1). The same summary lists $3.53 million requested for the County's San Ramon and Danville double-tracking phases (row S6). These amounts are requests—not awards, confirmed total project costs, or amounts that can automatically be added to the City's design budget. Publish the underlying applications and reconcile their scopes, phases, estimates, match assumptions, and potential overlap with Agenda Item 5.6. (CCTA September 17, Agenda Item 4.B, Attachment A, p. 1, "Request Amount" column.)
Provide a current estimate for completing and maintaining the selected bridge: design, environmental work, rights and easements, utilities, construction, inspection, escalation, contingency, operations, inspections, and eventual rehabilitation. Identify committed versus sought funding, local match, recurring General Fund exposure, and the consequence of an unsuccessful grant application. Explain the cost and safety tradeoffs among a simpler compliant structure, the selected architectural form, and feasible crossing alternatives.

More than $2 million in engineering expense warrants scrutiny, but the amount alone does not prove overdesign.

Staff reports that negotiations reduced the proposed fee by more than $240,000 and that Caltrans completed a Financial Document Review without comments. Publish the costreasonableness explanation and the review's actual scope and outcome. For federally assisted engineering procurement, applicable requirements include an independent estimate and documented negotiation; the process is not simply a lowest-bid construction competition. A financial review does not establish environmental adequacy or show that every design task is necessary. Provide a nonconfidential explanation and identify any protected material specifically. (Staff report, packet pp. 57–58; 23 CFR § 172.7(a)(1)(v).) The same distinction applies to financial review. The July 16 upload entries include a Financial Document Review request and document list, an overhead rate audit report, negotiation records, and a Mark Thomas fee-by-task file bearing a May 28, 2026 date in its filename. Those entries identify available records, but the filenames alone do not establish the final disposition of the recently completed review described by staff. Please identify the final disposition, its date, reviewing office, contract and project identifiers, firms and rates covered, and transmittal to the City. Explain its relationship to the negotiated scope and cost package now before the Council, including any intervening revisions. (Attachment 5, screenshots 5–6; supporting PDF pp. 44–45; staff report, printed packet p. 57.) Caltrans' Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI) describes this Financial Document Review process as a review of consultant indirect cost rates before contract execution. I therefore do not assume that an indirect-cost-rate determination approves every task or independently validates the entire negotiated fee. Identify the actual scope and limits of the completed review. Do not leave an earlier overhead rate audit or review submission unexplained as the apparent substitute for that final disposition. If an already released record supplies the answer, identify its exact filename and pages. (Caltrans IOAI, Instructions for Requesting A&E Consultant Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) Financial Document Reviews (FDR), opening paragraph; Source L6 below.)
XIII.Identify the real grant conditions and control the notice to proceed.

The report warns that extensive delay may result in loss of grant funding. Still, it supplies no actual deadline, award condition, expiration notice, or explanation of the delay that would create that risk. Produce the award and applicable project agreements, authorizations, obligation and expenditure deadlines, extension options, eligible activities, reimbursement conditions, required match, and any current agency warning. A documented deadline deserves consideration; an unspecified possibility should not substitute for disclosure. (Staff report, packet p. 58.) In June 2025, Caltrans Local Assistance told me it had not then received notice of a nonstandard clawback risk from FHWA. That historical statement does not disprove a present deadline. It reinforces the need to provide the current facts rather than reuse generalized concern about losing federal money. (June 4, 2025 email in the July 31 correspondence compilation, PDF p. 4.)
Earmarked funding does not, by itself, demonstrate satisfaction of environmental, procurement, accessibility, or phase authorization requirements. Under 23 CFR section 771.113, final design generally cannot proceed before the applicable environmental classification or decision and other specified requirements are completed, subject to stated exceptions. Confirm the approval and authorization covering the exact work to be released; distinguish any lawful preliminary or compliance work from final design. (23 CFR § 771.113(a).)
The agreement should identify the consultation required under section 771.129(c) before the applicant requests major federal approvals or grants after a CE designation, and the process for assessing design changes that may affect that designation. The regulation leaves documentation of those consultations to the Administration when determined necessary. Identify the applicable Caltrans Local Assistance procedure, responsible officials, and records to be retained; this is not a demand for a new environmental document for every minor revision. (23 CFR § 771.129(c); Caltrans, Chapter 33, "Project Proceeding to Next Major Federal Approval".)
Before issuing the Notice to Proceed described on packet page 58, disclose the environmental tasks actually included in the agreement, their budget and deliverables, and the design review points at which environmental coverage must be checked. Identify whether existing coverage questions must be resolved before release of particular final design tasks, and distinguish those tasks from lawful investigations or preliminary engineering needed to resolve them. Provide a procedure for reporting changed conditions and integrating required mitigation into the drawings and specifications. The packet does not establish whether these provisions already exist in the undisclosed agreement. (Staff report, packet p. 58.)
Requested design and environmental review conditions: "The consultant shall identify proposed scope changes, new technical information, and changed circumstances that may affect environmental coverage and submit them for City review and consultation with the authorized NEPA agency, as applicable. Work dependent on unresolved coverage shall not advance beyond the applicable review point until the responsible agency has resolved the issue. This condition does not prohibit separately authorized, lawful investigations or design work needed to support environmental review, and does not transfer environmental decision-making authority to the consultant. The City shall retain the determinations supporting each released phase and incorporate applicable environmental commitments into the design and construction documents."
XIV.Correct the resolution and return with a complete, reviewable record.

The staff report states that two firms submitted sealed cost proposals, while the proposed resolution describes the top three as submitting them. Correct that factual inconsistency.

Correct the environmental chronology, identify the CE approval and authority, and replace generalized completion language with a precise description of the determinations and continuing commitments. The agenda's generic list of CEQA provisions does not explain the item-specific basis for proceeding. These are substantive clarity concerns, not a claim that grammatical errors alone invalidate an approval. (Staff report, packet p. 57; resolution, packet p. 59; agenda, packet p. 1.)
The revised environmental explanation should expressly resolve the Class 1 ambiguity identified in Section IV. If section 15301 is relied upon, provide the project-specific eligibility and exception record. If it is not, identify the operative CEQA pathway and the evidence supporting continued reliance on the prior IS/MND. Neither the general agenda language nor the reported federal categorical exclusion should be presented as a substitute for that state law explanation. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061; § 15162; § 15301.) The revised resolution should also distinguish the reported completion of NEPA for a defined project from continuing obligations as design develops. Identify the actual CE and operative CEQA basis, describe the review points governing design changes, and incorporate the work release condition requested in Section XIII. Do not leave either the public or the consultant to infer that the August 2026 CE closes all environmental questions, or that future engineering automatically cures any gap in the present record. (Staff report, packet pp. 57–58; proposed resolution, packet p. 59.) Please address the July 16 response and the records distinctions in Sections V.B and XII expressly: identify the signed August CE, its final review disposition, and the completed Financial Document Review disposition by document, date, scope, and transmittal, or identify the exact previously released file and pages containing each. Reconcile the Question 5 classification with Mr. Holstein's earlier correspondence and identify the nonconfidential disposition of the cultural resource review. Retain Attachment 6 as Caltrans' response describing its production and the draft's status; retain Attachment 5 separately as evidence of the displayed listing.

I renew my request to pull Agenda Item 5.6 from the Consent Calendar and continue consideration until the relied-upon environmental determination, the negotiated agreement and scope, and the completed Caltrans financial review disposition are available for meaningful consideration. My objection is not to engineering that informs environmental review; it is to treating that review as settled for the authorized design without providing the records that establish its scope, conditions, and limits. The revised resolution and agreement should identify the approved scope, exclusions, funding limitations, environmental commitments, public participation deliverables, and points requiring further Council approval.

Should staff contend that a limited immediate action is essential, identify the particular lawful task, amount, deadline, and authority separately. Any such authorization may distinguish investigations and preliminary engineering needed to inform environmental review from final design or other commitments dependent on unresolved environmental coverage. Do not use a narrow funding concern to obtain unrestricted release of the full design program. Preserve the feasible alternatives and mitigation choices required by the applicable review, and the Council's authority over later commitments. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004; 23 CFR § 771.113.)
Please post this comment with Agenda Item 5.6, provide it to all Council members, retain the cited correspondence and supporting materials in the project record, and respond to the substantive requests in writing. A general assurance that the project is beneficial, previously reviewed, or grant-funded will not answer the specific missing record, current scope, and implementation questions presented here.

I support safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian travel. I object to advancing this agreement without a transparent demonstration of what the City is buying, what the environmental review actually covers, what the public will ultimately finance, and what uses the design is—and is not—intended to accommodate. This comment does not concede the adequacy of the existing review, the applicability of any claimed exemption or streamlining provision, or the absence of a need for further review. It requests an evidence-based determination before making additional commitments.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian C. Swanson, AICP
San Ramon Resident, Voter, and Taxpayer

ATTACHMENTS AND SOURCE INDEX
Agenda Item 5.6 — September 21, 2026 City Council meeting Attachments 1–6 are supplied in the accompanying supporting records PDF. Linked sources and requested records are identified separately. Attachment 6 supplies Caltrans' July 16 response; Attachment 5 supplies portal screenshots, not the contents of the listed records.

Attachment numbers label this submission. "Supporting PDF" refers to the combined PDF's page count; source-page references refer to the underlying document. Please retain the attachments and identified sources with Agenda Item 5.6.

A. Attachments supplied in the supporting records PDF.

Attachment 1 — Original July ITS public comment. Brian C. Swanson, July 13, 2026, for the July 14 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 5.5. Supporting PDF pp. 2–13. All twelve supplied PDF pages are unchanged, including the email header and forwarded notice. This is the original PDF, not the earlier text reproduction; it documents the prior comment, not an agency finding about this bridge.

Attachment 2 — Caltrans correspondence. July 31, 2025 compilation concerning CIP 905531/CPFL 5437 (034). Nine pages; supporting PDF pp. 14–22. Source p. 1 addresses cumulative impacts and outreach; pp. 2–3 address then-pending NEPA/section 106 work; p. 4 addresses funding. Referenced in Sections V, X, and XIII; historical status only.

Attachment 3 — CCTA applications summary. September 17, 2026 Technical Coordinating Committee, Agenda Item 4.B, Attachment A, "Coordinated Call for Projects — Summary of Applications Received." One page; supporting PDF p. 23. Rows S1 and S6 list the $23 million overcrossing and $3.53 million double-tracking requests, not awards.

Referenced in Sections VI and XII.

Attachment 4 — General Plan 2040 excerpts. Resolution No. 2023-132, December 12, 2023; supporting PDF pp. 24–39. Sixteen source pages: the resolution and opening of Exhibit 1; Exhibit 1, printed pp. 27–30 and 42–43; Exhibit 3, printed pp. 20–23. Original pagination retained; former enclosure cover omitted. Referenced in Sections VIII–IX; full source linked below.

Attachment 5 — Caltrans portal listing. Eleven September 21, 2026 screenshots for Request R051022-051826; supporting PDF pp. 40–50. They show status, dates, and filenames, not the listed records. Screenshots 5–6 show financial entries. Only browser address bars are omitted; portal content is unchanged. Not a certified production inventory. Referenced in Sections V.B, XII, and XIV.

Attachment 6 — Caltrans July 16, 2026 response. CPRA_request_R051022_16th_ July_response.docx, converted to a four-page PDF without substantive changes; supporting PDF pp. 51–54. Response pp. 1 and 3 state the draft CE status and inclusion; p. 1 explains cultural resource draft omissions; pp. 3–4 define criterion 3 and apply it to Question 5. Referenced in Sections V.B and XIV. This response is not the draft CE itself or the final approval.

B. Project and policy sources — linked or already in the City packet.

S1 — September 21, 2026 decision packet. Agenda, original packet pp. 1–3; Agenda Item 5.6 staff report, pp. 56–58; proposed Resolution No. 2026-119, pp. 59–60. The supplied eight-page extract retains these packet numbers. Cited throughout, including the environmental completion language and proposed Notice to Proceed. This is the City's own meeting record and is not duplicated in Attachments 1–6. Council agenda portal — select September 21, 2026
S2 — November 2023 Project Concept Update Report. Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing, prepared by BayPac Consult Inc. in association with Nutt Redfield Valentine. Full source: 41 PDF pages, including appendices. Printed p. 3 (PDF p. 4) addresses site conditions and the light rail easement; printed p. 6 (PDF p. 7) addresses initial environmental screening and the anticipated revalidation memo.

Referenced in Sections II, IV, and XI. Full report
S3 — Original CEQA approval and 2019 addendum. Resolution No. 2017-129, adopted November 28, 2017, appears at PDF pp. 1–6 of the January 2018 Final IS/MND compilation (172 PDF pages). The separate August 8, 2019 final addendum has 21 PDF pages; its LSA memorandum's printed pp. 1–3 are PDF pp. 2–4, following the City transmittal. Referenced in Sections II, III, and X. These historical records are not a representation of current environmental coverage. Final IS/MND and resolution | 2019 addendum
S4 — City project description and Bollinger opening notice. Crow Canyon project webpage: "Project Summary," "Project History," and "Public Meetings"; cited in Sections IV, VII, and X. Bollinger opening announcement, posted July 21, 2025; cited in Section VI.

These sources distinguish the proposed Crow Canyon work from the operating Bollinger crossing. Read webpage schedules and other status descriptions with their dates, not as updated design approvals. Crow Canyon project page | Bollinger opening notice S5 — Complete General Plan 2040 source record. Resolution No. 2023-132 and exhibits, December 12, 2023. Attachment 4 provides the identified excerpts, not the complete Environmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan page links the full adopted resolution and the Final EIR. City General Plan record page | Full resolution and exhibits
S6 — Adopted CAP and GHG thresholds. City adoption notice posted June 13, 2025, identifying the June 10, 2025 adoption through Resolution No. 2025-073; the adopted CAP; and the CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report. Section VIII cites the thresholds report's printed pp. 1–3, 24–25, 30, and 32. The notice links the adoption resolution. These documents are linked, not attached in full. Adoption notice | Adopted CAP | Adopted GHG report
C. Legal and technical sources — linked, not attached.

L1 — Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation. California Supreme Court, June 25, 2026, S287414. The link is to a reproduction of the court's opinion, not a case summary. Section IV cites majority slip-opinion pp. 1–2, 14–20, 28–33, p. 18 footnote 4, and p. 30 footnote 7. Page citations refer to the majority opinion's printed pagination. Its relevance remains conditional on Class 1 reliance, as stated in Section IV. Court opinion L2 — California provisions cited in the comment. CEQA Guidelines, title 14, sections 15004, 15061, 15064.3, 15064.4, 15093, 15162, 15164, 15168, 15183.5, 15262, 15300.2, 15301, 15378; Government Code § 54957.5; and Public Resources Code § 21099.

Individual citations in the body identify the pertinent subdivisions.

L3 — Federal transportation provisions and Caltrans guidance. 23 CFR sections 172.7, 771.111, 771.113, 771.117, 771.129, 774.13; Caltrans section 326 CE assignment; and Standard Environmental Reference, Chapter 33 — Reevaluations. Referenced principally in Sections V, VI, X, XII, and XIII.

L4 — Transportation technical advisory. Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, printed pp. 19– 22; cited in Section VII. The complete advisory is linked so the screening discussion can be read in context. Technical advisory
L5 — Glydways background source. The system description is cited only to identify the technology type mentioned in Section XI. It does not show that this technology was selected for the Crow Canyon project. System description L6 — Caltrans financial review instructions. Independent Office of Audits and Investigations, Instructions for Requesting A&E Consultant Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) Financial Document Reviews (FDR), opening paragraph. Cited in Section XII to distinguish indirect-cost-rate review from the City's scope and fee negotiations. General guidance only; not the project's final review disposition. Official instructions D
Requested records — not supplied as attachments.

Requested, not attached: the signed August 2026 CE, approved scope and design assumptions, incorporated commitments, final review disposition, and transmittal; its supporting studies and nonconfidential section 106 and section 4(f) outcomes; the Crow Canyon revalidation memo anticipated in 2023 or identified successor; and the negotiated Mark Thomas agreement and scope, fee, schedule, public involvement, and environmental review exhibits. Attachment 6 describes the earlier draft and production; it does not supply the draft CE itself or the final determination.

Please also provide the final Financial Document Review disposition and transmittal, including the reviewed firms, rates, contract/project identifiers, and an explanation of their relationship to the scope and cost package presented for authorization. Attachment 5 supplies only the portal views, not the listed financial submissions or a final approval. If a requested determination is in an already released file, identify its exact filename and pages.

Also requested are reconciliation of the Question 5 classification with the July 31, 2025 correspondence; current design, surrounding project, technical, mitigation, monitoring, and outreach records; and the underlying CCTA applications and current grant conditions. "Not attached" does not mean nonexistent. These requests ask for records and explanations, not claims that every released file has been reviewed or that final determinations are absent from every source.

SUPPORTING RECORDS
Agenda Item 5.6 | Attachments 1–6
San Ramon City Council • September 21, 2026
Crow Canyon Road / Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing CIP 905531 • Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)
Submitted by Brian C. Swanson, AICP
This compilation accompanies the revised public comment and its Attachments and Source Index. Page ranges refer to this combined PDF. Existing attachment page ranges are unchanged.

Attachment 1 | pp. 2–13
Original July 13, 2026 public comment for the July 14 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 5.5. All 12 supplied PDF pages are included unchanged, including the email header and final forwarded notice.

Attachment 2 | pp. 14–22
Caltrans correspondence compiled July 31, 2025 (nine pages). The June 4 and July 30–31 exchanges document statements at that time, not September 2026 clearance.

Attachment 3 | p. 23
CCTA, September 17, 2026, Technical Coordinating Committee Agenda Item 4.B, Attachment A: applications summary. Rows S1 and S6 show funding requests, not awards.

Attachment 4 | pp. 24–39
General Plan 2040, Resolution No. 2023-132 and identified findings/monitoring excerpts (16 original source pages).

This is not the entire General Plan EIR.

Attachment 5 | pp. 40–50
Eleven Caltrans portal screenshots for Request R051022-051826, supplied as September 21, 2026 captures. These show the displayed listing, not the contents of the listed records.

Attachment 6 | pp. 51–54
Caltrans’ July 16, 2026 response, converted from the supplied DOCX. Response pp. 1 and 3 address the draft CE; p. 1 addresses cultural-resource draft omissions; pp. 3–4 define criterion 3 and apply it to Question 5. This is the response, not the draft CE itself or the final approval.

Source handling: Attachment 5 omits only browser address bars containing session-specific URLs; portal content is unchanged.

Attachment 6 retains the supplied response text and four-page layout, with compilation footers added. It bears a “CCC 680” heading, while its body identifies CPFL 5437 (034). The signed August CE and final Financial Document Review disposition remain requested records, not records represented as included here.

Revised supporting records • Use with the July 16 response revision 1 of 54 Brian Swanson >
Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for San Ramon ITS and Communications Infrastructure Project for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Planning and Development (CPD) Community Project Funding (CPF) Grant - City Council Meeting - July 14, 2026 1 message
Brian Swanson >
To: Clerk City <[email protected]> Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 11:31 AM City Council:

Please accept this written public comment for the July 14, 2026 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 5.5, Resolution No. 2026-098, concerning the San Ramon Intelligent Transportation System ("ITS") and Communications Infrastructure Project.

I respectfully request that Agenda Item 5.5 be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. This item should not be approved as a routine consent item because the record raises unresolved questions regarding: (1) the City's California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") exemption determination; (2) the relationship between the federal National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA")/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") environmental review and the City's separate CEQA obligations; (3) the validity, timing, and delegated authority for the May 20, 2026 Notice of Exemption ("NOE"); (4) the adequacy of the City's analysis of vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"), transportation throughput, vehicle speeds, public safety, and cumulative transportation impacts; and (5) the City's failure to evaluate the project against its own Updated Climate Action Plan ("CAP") and CEQA Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report.

The issue is not whether replacing aging traffic signal communications infrastructure may be useful. The issue is whether the City has made a legally adequate CEQA determination supported by substantial evidence before proceeding with a project that is expressly intended to support expansion of the City's smart traffic signal system, improved automated license plate reader ("ALPR") connections, high-speed public facility communications, continuation of autonomous vehicle testing on public roadways, and other public uses. The City's own project description characterizes the project in those operational terms.

I. Requested City Council Action
I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Pull Agenda Item 5.5 from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.

2. Clarify whether the Council is making any CEQA determination tonight, or only authorizing the Mayor to execute the HUD/NEPA document.

3. Identify the project approval date supporting the City's May 20, 2026 NOE filing. 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 1/12

4. Identify the City official or body that made the CEQA exemption determination and the legal authority or delegation supporting that action.

5. Clarify whether Deborah Fehr, as Senior Civil Engineer/Project Manager, was authorized to make and file the CEQA exemption determination on behalf of the City as lead agency, identify the source of that delegated authority, and identify the City action that constituted project approval before the May 20, 2026 Notice of Exemption filing.

6. Direct staff to prepare a corrected CEQA record addressing:
· CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(c), 15302(c), 15303(d), and 15304(f); · the exceptions to categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2; · VMT and transportation impacts under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3; · induced or redistributed vehicle demand;
· increased throughput;
· signal progression;
· changed vehicle speeds;
· public safety;
· pedestrian, bicycle, transit, school, senior, disabled-user, and emergency-response effects; · cumulative transportation effects from approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable Bishop Ranch, City Center, Chevron Park, Camino Ramon, Crow Canyon, Bollinger Canyon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and I-680 access area projects;
· whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; · whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of capacity; · whether Class 3 and Class 4 cover only construction components or the full operational ITS project.

7. Direct staff to evaluate the project against the City's CAP and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, including any applicable CAP consistency checklist, transportation-sector assumptions, the VMT/GHG relationship, and the quantitative threshold pathway, where applicable.

8. Withdraw and re-file the NOE, if necessary, after a valid project approval and an adequate CEQA exemption determination.

II. CEQA Applies; the Issue Is Whether the Claimed Exemptions Are Valid This project constitutes a CEQA project unless a statutory or categorical exemption applies. The existence of a claimed exemption does not eliminate CEQA obligations; it requires the lead agency to establish that the project qualifies for the exemption and that no exception to the exemption applies. A categorical exemption is not the absence of CEQA; it is a CEQA compliance pathway that requires the lead agency to determine that the project fits within the claimed exemption and that no exception to the exemption applies.

Public Resources Code section 21065 defines a CEQA "project" to include an activity that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is directly undertaken by a public agency or supported by public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or similar assistance. This ITS and Communications Infrastructure Project is a City public works and transportation infrastructure project, supported by a $2 million HUD Community Project Funding grant, involving physical work in public rights-of-way and reasonably foreseeable operational transportation effects.

The City's own record confirms that CEQA applies. The staff report includes a "CEQA Compliance" section stating that staff filed an NOE with the Contra Costa County Clerk on May 20, 2026, and that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(c), 15302(c), 15303(d), and 15304(f). The County-filed NOE likewise identifies the project as categorically exempt and includes a Verdantas memorandum titled "CEQA Notice of Exemption: Memorandum of Findings."
The City therefore cannot treat CEQA as irrelevant. The question is whether the City's exemption record is legally sufficient.

III. The City Should Not Conflate HUD/NEPA Review With CEQA Compliance Agenda Item 5.5 is primarily framed as a HUD/NEPA action. The staff report states that HUD-funded projects are subject to NEPA and HUD's NEPA-implementing regulations, that the NEPA environmental review was uploaded to HUD's Environmental Review Online System (HEROS), and that the project was "converted to exempt" in HEROS. The recommended action is to authorize the Mayor to execute the HUD "Environmental Review for Activity/Project that is Categorically Excluded Subject to Section 58.5."
That is a federal environmental review action. It does not, by itself, constitute the City's CEQA determination. The City separately prepared and filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption and relied on a Verdantas CEQA memorandum; however, the 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 2/12 administrative record should clearly distinguish the federal HUD/NEPA determination from the separate California CEQA determination and identify the City action, authority, and substantial evidence supporting the CEQA exemption decision.

The HUD environmental review package evaluates the project under 24 C.F.R. Part 58 and federal laws and authorities, including airport hazards, flood insurance, Clean Air Act conformity, contamination and toxic substances, endangered species, explosive and flammable hazards, farmland protection, floodplain management, historic preservation, noise, sole-source aquifers, wetlands, and wild and scenic rivers. Those federal compliance factors do not substitute for the City's obligation to determine whether the California CEQA categorical exemptions apply, whether any CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 exception applies, or whether VMT and transportation effects have been adequately addressed.

The HUD package itself confirms this federal orientation. It identifies the project as categorically excluded under 24 C.F.R. section 58.35(a), subject to federal laws and authorities, and converted to exempt under 24 C.F.R. section 58.34(a) (12) because no mitigation, formal permit, or license is required under those federal authorities. That federal conclusion does not answer CEQA's separate questions about categorical exemptions, VMT, cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances, or GHG consistency.

CEQA is intended to inform government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage. NEPA/HUD compliance may be required to preserve HUD grant funding, but it does not replace CEQA. The City's staff report provides substantially more discussion of the federal HUD/NEPA environmental review pathway than the separate CEQA exemption determination.

The CEQA discussion should therefore be evaluated independently to ensure that the record contains substantial evidence supporting the claimed CEQA exemptions. That is not adequate for a project whose own description includes smart-signal expansion, ALPR connections, autonomous vehicle testing support, and citywide communications functions.

IV. Resolution No. 2026-098 Does Not Appear to Make a CEQA Determination Resolution No. 2026-098 appears primarily intended to authorize the Mayor's execution of the HUD/NEPA environmental review document rather than to adopt a new CEQA exemption determination. The resolution recites the HUD grant, NEPA compliance requirements, HEROS process, Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, and the need for the Mayor's signature on the federal environmental review document.

The existence of a CEQA Notice of Exemption and Verdantas CEQA memorandum confirms that the City undertook a separate CEQA exemption pathway. The unresolved issue is whether the administrative record clearly identifies the City action that approved the project for CEQA purposes, the official authority under which the exemption determination was made, and the substantial evidence supporting that determination before the May 20, 2026 NOE filing.

The record, therefore, raises questions regarding its timing, authority, and clarity. The County-filed NOE reflects a May 20, 2026 filing date and identifies Deborah Fehr as the City contact and project manager. The Verdantas CEQA memorandum, dated May 13, 2026, states that the City, as the lead agency, determined the project was categorically exempt. The City should identify the administrative action that constituted project approval before the NOE filing, the delegation or authorization allowing staff to make the CEQA determination, and the record supporting that determination.

The Council should identify what City action constituted project approval before the May 20 NOE filing. If the project was approved by staff, the City should identify the delegated authority. If a prior Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget action approved the project, the City should identify the approval date and explain whether that action included or relied upon the CEQA exemption determination. If the project was not approved before the NOE was filed, the City should explain how the NOE complied with CEQA Guidelines section 15062.

The City Council should also identify whether tonight's action is:
a HUD/NEPA signature authorization only;
a CEQA approval;
a project approval;
a ratification of a prior CEQA determination;
or all of the above.

The present agenda packet does not make that clear.

V. The Verdantas CEQA Memorandum Exists, But the City Must Demonstrate That It Supports the City's Exemption Determination
The County-filed materials include a Verdantas "CEQA Notice of Exemption: Memorandum of Findings" dated May 13, 2026. That memorandum states that the project is exempt under Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. It also states that the City has determined the project would not result in a significant adverse impact and that none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.
8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 3/12 The existence of a CEQA memorandum does not end the issue. The question is whether the memorandum provides substantial evidence supporting each claimed exemption, whether the City relied upon that memorandum through an authorized CEQA decision process, and whether the administrative record clearly demonstrates that the exemption determination preceded the NOE filing.

The memorandum is inadequate because it treats the project primarily as replacement or modernization of physical communications infrastructure within existing public rights-of-way. That is an incomplete description of the project's environmental function. The project description states that the project will remove existing copper signal interconnect cable, upgrade pull boxes, install new conduit, install 288-strand fiber optic cable, and upgrade network equipment to accommodate fiber optic cable. It also states that the project's goal is to replace antiquated traffic signal communication infrastructure with a publicly owned comprehensive fiber optic network allowing expansion of the City's smart traffic signal system, improved ALPR connections, secure high-speed internet connections to public facilities, continuation of autonomous vehicle testing on public roadways, and many other public uses.

The CEQA memorandum does not meaningfully analyze the operational transportation consequences of that system.

VI. The Class 1 Existing Facilities Exemption Is Not Adequately Supported The City relies on CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c), the Class 1 Existing Facilities exemption. Class 1 applies to operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; the key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. (Justia)
The Verdantas memorandum concludes that the project does not entail an expansion of existing use because it renovates existing facilities, brings them up to modern standards, and does not substantially expand the physical size or scale of installations located in the public right-of-way.

That analysis is too narrow.

For an ITS project, "use" cannot be reduced to the physical size of pull boxes, conduit, or fiber. The relevant use includes the operational function of the traffic signal communications system. A project that replaces copper interconnect cable with 288-strand fiber, fills system gaps, upgrades network equipment, expands smart-signal capability, improves ALPR connections, and supports autonomous vehicle testing may change the nature or degree of the facility's use even if the physical construction footprint is mostly within existing rights-of-way.

The California Supreme Court's decision in Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation provides important guidance regarding interpretation of the Class 1 "negligible or no expansion of existing or former use" standard, emphasizing that the analysis concerns the nature and scope of the proposed use rather than merely the degree of environmental harm or physical alteration. (Justia)
The City's CEQA memorandum does not apply that framework. It focuses on the physical footprint and construction disturbance, not on changes in operational function. The City should provide additional substantial evidence explaining why replacing the copper traffic-signal interconnect infrastructure with a comprehensive fiber optic network supporting smart signals, ALPR connections, autonomous vehicle testing support, and other public uses constitutes a negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The issue is not the physical size of the improvements alone; it is whether the operational function and capacity of the transportation communications system remain within the scope of the existing use contemplated by CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c).

VII. The Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction Exemption Is Not Adequately Supported The City also relies on CEQA Guidelines section 15302(c), the Class 2 Replacement or Reconstruction exemption. Class 2 applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems or facilities that involve negligible or no expansion of capacity.

The Verdantas memorandum states that the project serves substantially the same purpose and capacity as the infrastructure being replaced. But the same memorandum acknowledges that the project would install new conduit, pull boxes, fiber optic cable, required ancillary components where system gaps exist, 288-strand fiber optic cable, and upgraded network equipment. The staff report likewise describes the project as a Citywide ITS Upgrade Project and identifies its purpose as expanding smart traffic signal capabilities and improving communications infrastructure.

The City has not adequately explained what "capacity" means for a traffic signal communications and ITS system.

Capacity for this project may include:
communications bandwidth;
8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 4/12 number of connected intersections or devices;
signal coordination capability;
real-time traffic management capability;
network reliability and redundancy;
ability to support ALPR connections;
ability to support autonomous vehicle testing;
ability to support active traffic management;
ability to improve signal progression;
ability to increase effective vehicle throughput;
ability to support additional traffic cameras, sensors, or connected devices.

The City should identify the baseline operational capability of the existing traffic signal communications system and compare it with that of the proposed fiber optic network. Without that comparison, the record does not clearly establish whether the project represents replacement within existing capacity or an expansion of system capability.

The CEQA memorandum does not compare the existing copper signal interconnect system to the proposed 288-strand fiber optic system in terms of operational capacity. Without that comparison, the Class 2 exemption is not adequately supported.

VIII. The Class 3 and Class 4 Exemptions Do Not Address the Full Operational Project The City also relies on Class 3 and Class 4. Class 3 covers certain limited new construction of small structures and utility extensions; Class 4 covers minor alterations to land, including minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. The City's memorandum relies on those exemptions for the installation of conduit, pull boxes, fiber optic cable, network equipment, and localized trenching.

Those exemptions may address discrete construction components. They do not automatically exempt the full operational ITS project that those components enable.

The project spans approximately 2 miles of Crow Canyon Road, 1.4 miles of Camino Ramon, and 2.9 miles of San Ramon Valley Boulevard, for roughly 6.3 corridor miles. It is not merely a single utility extension or isolated trenching activity. It is a multi-corridor traffic signal communications and ITS backbone project that the City says will enable smart signal expansion, ALPR connectivity, high-speed public-facility communications, autonomous vehicle testing, and other public uses.

The City should clarify whether Classes 3 and 4 are being used only for physical construction components, or whether the City is using those construction-related exemptions to exempt the full operational project. If the latter, the record is inadequate.

IX. VMT and Transportation Effects Are Missing or Inadequately Addressed CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 provides that VMT is generally the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For transportation projects, projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT should be presumed less than significant. At the same time, agencies must analyze roadway capacity projects under an appropriate transportation impact measure consistent with CEQA. The regulation also recognizes that effects on transit and non-motorized travel may be relevant, and that assumptions used to estimate VMT should be documented and explained. (Legal Information Institute)
The City's CEQA memorandum does not evaluate whether the project's operational characteristics raise transportationrelated considerations under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, nor does it explain why VMT-related assumptions, travel behavior, or transportation system effects are not relevant to the exemption determination.

It does not explain whether the ITS project will:
reduce VMT;
have no impact on VMT;
increase effective vehicle throughput in a way that could increase VMT; change route choice;
change trip timing;
change trip lengths;
change signal progression;
increase effective corridor capacity;
alter vehicle speeds;
affect pedestrian, bicycle, or transit operations;
affect safety for non-motorized users;
8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 5/12 interact with approved and foreseeable development in the same corridors.

The HUD/NEPA package does not fill that gap. The HUD review includes federal air quality, historic preservation, floodplain, noise, contamination, wetlands, and related federal compliance screens. It does not provide a CEQA VMT analysis under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. That is especially important because the project's purpose is tied to traffic signal communication, smart traffic signal expansion, support for autonomous vehicle testing, and active transportation system management.

VMT is not evaluated through the NEPA/HUD checklist in this record. It is a CEQA transportation-impact consideration that must be evaluated within the context of the project's actual operational purpose and reasonably foreseeable effects.

The City should not treat the HUD/HEROS conversion-to-exempt status as a substitute for a CEQA analysis of whether this ITS project's operational functions may affect transportation conditions, VMT assumptions, travel behavior, or related environmental effects.

The issue is not whether every Intelligent Transportation System project necessarily requires a standalone VMT analysis.

Rather, the issue is whether the City has provided substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that this specific project — which is intended to expand smart traffic signal capabilities, improve transportation communications, support connected and autonomous vehicle testing, and enhance active traffic management capabilities — will not result in transportation-related environmental effects requiring further consideration under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

The City should therefore explain whether and how the project's operational characteristics affect, or do not affect:
· VMT assumptions underlying the General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), CAP, and CEQA GHG Thresholds Report;
· vehicle throughput and effective corridor capacity;
· route choice and travel behavior;
· signal progression and vehicle speeds;
· pedestrian, bicycle, transit, school, senior, and disabled-user conditions; · emergency response operations; and
· cumulative transportation conditions associated with approved and reasonably foreseeable development within the affected corridors.

Without that analysis, the CEQA record evaluates the physical installation of infrastructure while failing to address the operational transportation functions that the completed ITS system is specifically intended to enhance.

X. Increased Throughput, Signal Progression, Vehicle Speeds, and Public Safety Were Not Adequately Evaluated
The project is an Intelligent Transportation System project. Its stated purpose includes expansion of the City's smart traffic signal system and improved communications for public infrastructure.

Coordinated signals and upgraded traffic communications may improve operations. But operational efficiency is not automatically environmentally neutral. Signal coordination and active traffic management can:
increase vehicle throughput;
increase effective corridor capacity;
stabilize or increase vehicle speeds;
change platooning;
affect left-turn and side-street gaps;
reduce crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists; change pedestrian and bicycle exposure at crossings;
affect school, senior, disabled user, and transit user safety; shift traffic from parallel routes;
interact with freeway access and ramp operations;
affect emergency response movement.

The CEQA memorandum does not address these issues. It states that the project supports General Plan 2040 and ITS Master Plan goals for smart traffic engineering, connected and autonomous vehicle support, active traffic management, and freeway operations. Still, it treats those as planning-consistency points rather than as operational changes that require environmental analysis.

Automobile delay itself is no longer the CEQA transportation-impact metric. But that does not mean changes to the transportation system disappear from CEQA. VMT, transit effects, non-motorized travel, public safety, speeds, and cumulative transportation conditions remain relevant where supported by the project record. 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 6/12 The City should analyze whether the ITS project affects vehicle speeds, signal progression, throughput, conflict exposure, pedestrian/bicycle crossing conditions, or other public safety conditions along Crow Canyon Road, Camino Ramon, and San Ramon Valley Boulevard.

XI. The Cumulative Impact Analysis Is Woefully Inadequate CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b) provides that categorical exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant. Section 15300.2(c) also prevents use of a categorical exemption where there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. (Legal Information Institute)
The Verdantas memorandum acknowledges the cumulative-impact exception but does not conduct a meaningful cumulative impact analysis. Instead, it relies heavily on consistency across the General Plan 2040 Traffic and Circulation Element, ITS Master Plan integration, fiber optic network expansion, traffic cameras, Internet of Things devices, smart traffic engineering, connected and autonomous vehicle support, active traffic management, freeway operations, and CIP consistency. It then concludes that the annual review and approval of the CIP, including this project, ensure consistency with the General Plan 2040 and therefore "avoids any potential for adverse cumulative impacts." That is not a cumulative impact analysis. It is a consistency assertion. Consistency with adopted planning documents may inform a CEQA analysis. Still, it does not replace project-specific evaluation of whether the project contributes to significant cumulative effects or whether a categorical exemption exception applies.

A project may be consistent with the General Plan 2040, ITS Master Plan, and Capital Improvement Program and still contribute to cumulative transportation impacts on VMT, throughput, speed, safety, or multimodal impacts. Consistency with a plan does not automatically establish that no CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 exception applies.

The cumulative analysis is also too narrow. It should not be limited to successive ITS, signal coordination, fiber, communications, roadway, and transportation projects. Those projects matter, but they are not the whole cumulative setting.

The City must also evaluate the approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable development projects that will use the same transportation network, affect the same intersections and corridors, and rely on the same traffic, VMT, signal timing, throughput, public-safety, and circulation assumptions.

That includes the broader Bishop Ranch/City Center/Chevron Park growth context, including but not limited to:
approved Bishop Ranch and City Center projects;
the Orchards/Chevron Park redevelopment;
BR-7 and BR-11;
BR-8/Canopy;
BR-12/Annabel;
the Bishop Ranch affordable housing/service center project; CityWalk/Bishop Ranch redevelopment concepts;
DMU-N zoning and floor-area-ratio changes;
parking reductions and exceptions;
cumulative development along Camino Ramon, Crow Canyon Road, Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and I-680 access routes;
future projects identified in the General Plan 2040, CIP, ITS Master Plan, specific plans, or related planning documents;
reasonably foreseeable projects affecting the same intersections, signal systems, crossings, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, transit stops, and emergency response routes.

The cumulative transportation setting is the network into which all of these projects feed. The ITS project may increase system efficiency, signal coordination, throughput, and active traffic management at the same time the City is approving substantial development in the Bishop Ranch/City Center/Chevron Park area.

A meaningful cumulative analysis should ask whether this ITS project, together with approved and reasonably foreseeable development and transportation projects, may:
increase vehicle throughput;
increase effective corridor capacity;
improve signal progression in a way that changes route choice or trip timing; induce or redistribute vehicle demand;
increase or stabilize vehicle speeds;
8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 7/12 change VMT or trip length;
affect pedestrian and bicycle exposure;
affect school, senior, disabled user, and transit user safety; affect emergency response movements;
affect transit operations;
compound transportation impacts from nearby housing and mixed-use approvals; rely on stale or generalized assumptions from the General Plan 2040 EIR rather than on current conditions.

The CEQA memorandum does not do that work.

XII. The General Plan 2040 EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations Undermines the City's Conclusory Cumulative-Impact Reasoning
The City's CEQA memorandum relies on consistency with the General Plan 2040 and CIP to dismiss cumulative impacts.

But the City's own General Plan 2040 page states that on December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-132, which adopted CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and certified the Final EIR for the San Ramon General Plan 2040 Project, related applications, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (San Ramon)
That prior Statement of Overriding Considerations cannot be used as a substitute for project-specific analysis or as a basis to assume that later transportation system projects are automatically within the scope of prior environmental conclusions. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is not a finding that impacts do not exist. Rather, it is adopted when significant environmental effects remain after consideration of feasible mitigation measures, and the agency determines that the project benefits warrant approval despite those remaining impacts.

Nor does the existence of a prior Statement of Overriding Considerations automatically require additional CEQA review for every subsequent activity. Rather, where a later project relies upon the same transportation-system assumptions, planning documents, and cumulative growth context, the agency should explain why the prior environmental conclusions remain applicable and why the later activity qualifies for the claimed exemption.

If the General Plan 2040 EIR identified significant and unavoidable transportation, circulation, or VMT impacts, then General Plan 2040 consistency alone does not establish that later transportation system projects are exempt from further consideration. Instead, the City should explain whether the later activity remains within the assumptions, mitigation framework, and cumulative conditions evaluated in the prior program-level analysis. It underscores the need for later analysis, especially where the subsequent project implements transportation-system technology, smart signal coordination, active traffic management, freeway operations, fiber optic network expansion, and connected/autonomous vehicle support.

The City should not rely on General Plan 2040 and ITS Master Plan consistency as both:

1. the policy basis for expanding smart signal, active traffic management, fiber optic communications, and connected/autonomous vehicle support; and

2. the reason no cumulative transportation analysis is needed.

Such reasoning would create an internal inconsistency in the administrative record: the City relies on transportation system expansion objectives to justify the project's purpose, while simultaneously relying on those same objectives as evidence that expanded transportation system effects do not require further analysis.

If the City intends to rely on the General Plan 2040 EIR or ITS Master Plan as context for this project, it should explain whether this later ITS project:
implements or extends transportation-system improvements assumed in the General Plan 2040 EIR; contributes to impacts previously found significant and unavoidable; changes corridor throughput, signal progression, speed, route choice, or VMT; interacts with approved and foreseeable Bishop Ranch/City Center/Chevron Park growth; remains within the scope of prior program-level analysis; requires additional project-level analysis before the City may rely on categorical exemptions.

CEQA Guidelines section 15168 provides that whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question based on substantial evidence in the record. The City's current CEQA memo does not appear to make that factual showing. It instead treats General Plan 2040 and CIP consistency as the conclusion.

XIII. The City Must Also Evaluate the Project Against the CAP and CEQA GHG Thresholds Report 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 8/12 The City's CEQA memorandum relies on consistency with the General Plan 2040 and the Capital Improvement Program to dismiss cumulative impacts. It also invokes the General Plan 2040 Traffic and Circulation Element, the ITS Master Plan, smart traffic engineering, support for connected and autonomous vehicles, active traffic management, fiber optic network expansion, traffic cameras, Internet of Things devices, freeway operations, and "Sustainability & Smart City" policies.

That reliance creates an additional omission: the City does not appear to evaluate the ITS and Communications Infrastructure Project against the City's CAP and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report.

That omission matters because the City adopted the CAP and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report on June 10, 2025, by Resolution No. 2025-073, effective immediately, replacing the 2011 CAP. The City describes the CAP as the primary implementation strategy of the San Ramon General Plan 2040 for establishing a long-term GHG reduction strategy consistent with State GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2045. (San Ramon) CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, to the extent possible, based on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate project GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 provides a framework for GHG reduction plans, including quantification of emissions, substantial-evidence-based reduction levels, measures or performance standards, monitoring, and amendment mechanisms. (Legal Information Institute)
The City's own CEQA GHG Thresholds Report states that CEQA requires discretionary plans and projects to undergo environmental review that includes evaluation of plan- or project-related GHG emissions, and that CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 establishes a framework for qualified GHG reduction plans that cumulatively reduce GHG emissions and allow lead agencies to analyze and mitigate plan- and project-level GHG emissions. (Plan San Ramon) The ITS project is not merely a neutral administrative or paperwork item. The project description states that the project would replace antiquated traffic signal communication infrastructure with a publicly owned fiber optic network, enabling expansion of the City's smart traffic signal system, improved ALPR connections, secure, high-speed internet connections to public facilities, the continuation of autonomous vehicle testing on public roadways, and other public uses. The Countyfiled CEQA memorandum similarly describes the installation of 288-strand fiber optic cable, the upgrade of network equipment, and the modernization of traffic signal and communications infrastructure.

Those operational features may have implications for GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Signal coordination and active traffic management may reduce idling in some circumstances. Still, they may also increase vehicle throughput, stabilize or increase travel speeds, change route choice, affect trip timing, affect mode choice, or interact with induced or redistributed demand. Those same operational issues are directly related to VMT, transportation sector emissions, and public safety.

The City's current CEQA record does not explain how the project relates to the City's own adopted CAP and CEQA GHG Thresholds framework, despite relying on General Plan 2040 policies, ITS Master Plan objectives, smart-city strategies, sustainability objectives, and transportation-system improvements to support the exemption determination.

This comment does not suggest that every categorically exempt project requires a separate GHG analysis or CAP consistency checklist. Rather, where a lead agency relies upon adopted climate policies, transportation-system strategies, smart-city objectives, or General Plan consistency as evidence supporting a CEQA exemption determination, the administrative record should explain how the project relates to the City's adopted climate framework and whether the operational assumptions underlying those policies remain valid.

The ITS project presents precisely that question. The City describes the project as enabling expansion of the smart traffic signal system, improved ALPR connections, secure high-speed public facility communications, continued autonomous vehicle testing, and other public uses. Those operational changes may provide benefits, including reduced delay or improved efficiency. Still, they may also affect vehicle throughput, travel speeds, route choice, travel behavior, VMT assumptions, and transportation sector GHG emissions.

The City should therefore explain whether the project:
· implements a CAP transportation sector measure;
· relies upon transportation or VMT assumptions incorporated into the CAP or CEQA GHG Thresholds Report;
· reduces or increases transportation-sector GHG emissions; · changes transportation demand, travel behavior, or operational conditions in a manner relevant to CAP implementation; and
· remains consistent with the assumptions supporting the City's adopted climate strategy. 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-7563245275623673… 9/12 The City should not rely upon the CAP, General Plan 2040, ITS Master Plan, and sustainability policies as affirmative evidence supporting a CEQA exemption determination while omitting discussion of whether the project remains consistent with the City's adopted CAP/GHG assumptions and implementation framework. If the project is exempt, the City should explain why the exemption remains valid after considering the City's own CAP/GHG framework. If the City relies on CAP/GHG consistency to support that there is no significant GHG or cumulative impact, the record must contain the consistency analysis and substantial evidence supporting it.

The present record does not clearly demonstrate that analysis. It relies on consistency with the General Plan 2040 and CIP, invokes smart-city and sustainability objectives, and concludes that there are no cumulative impacts without evaluating the City's own adopted CAP/GHG Thresholds Report. That is not an adequate CEQA record for a project whose purpose is to expand smart signals, fiber optic, transportation communications, and roadway operational capabilities.

The issue is therefore not whether the ITS project is beneficial or whether improved communications infrastructure may support climate objectives. The issue is whether the City has demonstrated, through substantial evidence, that the operational consequences of this transportation-system investment are consistent with the same VMT, GHG, and implementation assumptions that the City relies upon elsewhere in its planning and regulatory framework.

XIV. The Significant Effect/Unusual Circumstances Analysis Is Conclusory The Verdantas memorandum states that there are no unusual circumstances on or next to the project site and that no unusual circumstances are anticipated with construction. It also states that nearby sensitive receptors include residential homes adjacent to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, but that construction and operation would not create unusual circumstances resulting in significant environmental impacts.

That analysis is conclusory.

The unusual circumstance is not merely the presence or absence of sensitive receptors. The unusual circumstance is that this project is not simply small-scale underground utility maintenance. It is a multi-corridor ITS communications backbone supporting smart traffic signals, active traffic management, ALPR connections, autonomous vehicle testing, and other public uses.

The City should analyze whether those operational functions create a reasonable possibility of significant effects related to VMT, throughput, vehicle speeds, public safety, pedestrian/bicycle exposure, transit operations, emergency response, GHG emissions, or cumulative transportation conditions.

XV. The Scenic Highway and Hazardous Materials Discussions Do Not Cure the Transportation and GHG Defects
The Verdantas memorandum recognizes that a portion of the project would occur along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, adjacent to Interstate 680, an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but dismisses the issue because the improvements are primarily subterranean and would not affect the visual character after completion.

That may address part of the scenic-highway exception, but it does not address transportation operations, VMT, throughput, speed, safety, or GHG implications.

The memorandum also identifies the Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Management Agreement for aerially deposited lead-contaminated soils and notes that the Electro Test Inc. site, located approximately 0.2 miles north of Crow Canyon Road, is listed on EnviroStor. The City may be able to manage those issues through construction specifications and monitoring. Still, the memorandum does not explain how those controls will be incorporated into project plans, specifications, contracts, or construction oversight. That is an implementation issue, separate from the missing transportation and CAP/GHG analysis.

Neither the scenic highway discussion nor the hazardous materials discussion cures the absence of meaningful VMT, throughput, speed, safety, cumulative transportation, and CAP/GHG analysis.

XVI. The Agenda's Generic CEQA Disclaimer Is Not a Substitute for Item-Specific CEQA Review The first page of the agenda states that unless otherwise stated, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323, and/or Public Resources Code section 21065.

That generic agenda language is not an item-specific CEQA determination.

For Agenda Item 5.5, the staff report separately relies on CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(c), 15302(c), 15303(d), and 15304(f). The City cannot rely on generic agenda boilerplate, NEPA/HUD forms, or a conclusory CEQA memorandum to 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-756324527562367… 10/12 support a categorical exemption for a multi-corridor ITS and communications infrastructure project.

XVII. This Item Reflects the Same CEQA Posture at Issue in Pending Matters Involving the City I recognize that the City Council is not adjudicating pending litigation through this agenda item. However, this project raises similar implementation concerns regarding CEQA process, transportation assumptions, cumulative analysis, mitigation implementation, and administrative record completeness. Agenda Item 5.5 reflects the same recurring CEQA posture that is at issue in pending matters involving the City:
reliance on abbreviated or streamlined CEQA pathways;
use of prior planning consistency as a substitute for current analysis; insufficient cumulative impact analysis;
insufficient VMT and transportation documentation;
insufficient analysis of mitigation, implementation, and monitoring; lack of integration with the City's CAP and CEQA GHG Thresholds Report; reliance on exemption paperwork without a clear Council-level CEQA finding or identified delegation.

Those concerns are directly relevant here. This project affects the same transportation system that must accommodate growth and transportation assumptions related to Bishop Ranch, City Center, Chevron Park, Camino Ramon, Crow Canyon, Bollinger Canyon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and I-680.

The City should not continue to treat CEQA as a form-processing exercise. CEQA exemptions are intended to provide administrative efficiency where the factual circumstances support them. They are not intended to replace project-specific analysis of operational changes, cumulative conditions, or consistency with the City's own adopted environmental and climate planning framework.

XVIII.Conclusion and Requested Action
The City may be able to pursue HUD funding and modernize traffic signal communications infrastructure. But it should not do so through an inadequate CEQA record.

Before approving Agenda Item 5.5, the City Council should clarify:

1. whether the Council is making a CEQA determination tonight;

2. whether the May 20, 2026 NOE was filed after a valid project approval;

3. whether Deborah Fehr, Public Works/Engineering Services, or Traffic Engineering had delegated authority to make and file the CEQA exemption determination, and identify the ordinance, resolution, administrative policy, or other delegation document supporting that authority;

4. whether the Verdantas CEQA memorandum adequately supports Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4;

5. whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use under Class 1, especially after Sunflower Alliance;

6. whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of capacity under Class 2, given the 288-strand fiber, network upgrades, smart signal expansion, ALPR connections, and autonomous vehicle testing support;

7. whether Class 3 and Class 4 apply only to construction components or to the full operational ITS project;

8. whether CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 exceptions apply;

9. whether VMT, induced or redistributed demand, signal progression, throughput, vehicle speeds, public safety, pedestrian/bicycle exposure, transit effects, and cumulative transportation effects have been adequately evaluated;

10. how the City's December 2023 General Plan 2040 EIR Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations affect the City's ability to rely on categorical exemptions for this ITS and Communications Infrastructure Project;

11. whether the project was reviewed for consistency with the City's CAP and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, including the CAP consistency checklist, transportation sector assumptions, VMT/GHG relationship, and quantitative thresholds where applicable.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council pull Agenda Item 5.5 from Consent, direct staff to correct the CEQA record, and refrain from relying on the May 20, 2026 NOE unless and until the City identifies the valid project approval, delegated authority, and substantial evidence supporting the claimed exemptions.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian C. Swanson, AICP
San Ramon Resident, Voter, and Taxpayer
On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 5:45 PM City of San Ramon <[email protected]> wrote:
8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-756324527562367… 11/12 The City Council meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2026.

The meeting agenda is now available at, https://sanramonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/13/files/agenda/1530 Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in.

If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact [email protected] or visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.

This service includes a Public Alert System for San Ramon. Subscribers will receive real-time Public Safety and Emergency Alerts both via email and wirelessly. In order to receive these time-sensitive emergency notifications, you MUST subscribe to the service. To subscribe, please click here. For wireless alerts, text message and data rates may apply. This service is provided to you at no charge by City of San Ramon.

City of San Ramon | 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 | (925) 973 2500 | www sanramon ca gov 8/11/26, 8:12 AM Gmail - Public Comment: Agenda Item 5.5 — Request to Pull Consent Agenda Item 5.5; Inadequate CEQA Exemption Record for S… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=73ed25eff8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-5315867113090780905%7Cmsg-a:r-756324527562367… 12/12 Brian Swanson >
Re: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)
1 message
Brian Swanson > Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:23 AM
To: "Holstein, Thomas@DOT" <[email protected]>
Cc: Carl Roner <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Theresa Peterson <[email protected]>
The only public outreach I am aware of is a webpage-based survey (SurveyMonkey, if I remember correctly) on design preferences, which helped inform the bridge design type specified in the Request for Design and Engineering Services, on the purpose and need for the project, or potential environmental impacts.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:11 AM Holstein, Thomas@DOT <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for the follow up.

As you will be aware I can only talk about NEPA and not CEQA.

The City informed us that they have undertaken public outreach during preliminary design and the project was redesigned to address public concerns. Further outreach is proposed during final design. The requirement to consider cumulative impacts in NEPA, formerly part of the 40 CFR 1500 federal regulations, was rescinded earlier this year. Nevertheless, across the Bay Area we see many projects work successfully in close proximity to each other. I see you have copied Contra Costa County and East Bay Regional Parks in too.

I hope that’s helpful.

Kind regards
Tom Holstein
Environmental Branch Chief
Caltrans D4 Local Assistance
(510) 960 0794
From: Brian Swanson < >
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 5:10 PM
To: Holstein, Thomas@DOT <[email protected]>
Cc: Panmai, Jimmy@DOT <[email protected]>; Carl Roner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034) EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

Thank you, Mr. Holstein.

You are the first to answer my questions directly.

Ms. Peterson has been consistently non-responsive (almost beligerantly so) or solely restates the obvious and plainly understood without ever addressing my specific questions.

As you may expect, I am interested in learning more about the public outreach/disclosure involved. This means predocument preparation and certainly well before NEPA (or CEQA) document certification.

I also have concerns related to Contra Costa County's "double-tracking" project along the Iron Horse Trail between Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road, which I have been informed will require significant installation of stormwater infrastructure. Still, the "double tracking," I believe, will connect to both the Bollinger and Crow Canyon Overcrossings. Similarly, the cumulative environmental impacts of any proposed active transportation infrastructure along Crow Canyon Road, which may connect to the overcrossing, east or west, must also be analyzed.

All this to say, I have "segmenting" concerns due to the piecemeal approach, with various projects being pitched as "separate" (but ultimately a single multi-use trail). Due to the multiple agencies/jurisdictions involved, adequate cumulative environmental impact analysis may become a victim of this hodgepodge of responsibility, for the planning, design, environmental review, construction, operation, and ownership of the various connected projects and the entirety of the Iron Horse Trail at least between Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon Roads.

Thank you,
Brian Swanson, AICP
(925) 785-4013 - mobile
On Jul 30, 2025, at 4:21 PM, Holstein, Thomas@DOT <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Brian Swanson,
Thanks for the email below. I was actually on vacation when your previous email came in to our Office.

As you state, Caltrans is the NEPA lead for the CPFL 5437 (034) Crow Canyon overcrossing project and my team are processing the NEPA compliance and ultimately signing off on the NEPA. The project is proposed to be processed as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(3). However, the NEPA approval for this project is not yet complete – the City are still in the process of submitting documentation to us, primarily relating to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Any question regarding project status, schedule or community feedback should be directed to the City of San Ramon as the project proponent. Our contact there is Theresa Peterson (cc’d) in the Engineering Services Division. To learn more about how Caltrans processes NEPA, please refer to our Standard Environmental Reference website: Volume 1: Guidance for Compliance | Caltrans, in particular Chapters 30 Categorical Exclusions and Chapter 38 NEPA Assignment.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Kind regards
Tom Holstein
Environmental Branch Chief
Caltrans D4 Local Assistance
(510) 960 0794
From: Brian Swanson >
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Meharena, Ephrem@DOT <[email protected]>; ENV Webmaster@DOT <[email protected]>; Caltrans D4@DOT <[email protected]>; Wong, Alan@DOT <[email protected]>; OCCA@DOT <[email protected]>
Cc: Panmai, Jimmy@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: FW: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

Hello:

I still have not received any information related to the NEPA compliance process for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034).

An update on the status would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Brian Swanson, AICP
(925) 785-4013 - mobile
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Panmai, Jimmy@DOT <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 11:49 AM
Subject: FW: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No.

CPFL 5437 (034)
To:

Cc: Meharena, Ephrem@DOT <[email protected]>, OCCA@DOT <[email protected]>, Theresa Peterson <[email protected]>
Good morning Brian,
I was asked to follow up on this and hope to address some of your concerns. This project does include FHWA grant administered through our office, District 4 Local Assistance. Should there be nonstandard risk associated with “claw-back”, FHWA would inform Caltrans and the Local Agency – this has not occurred to-date.

While Caltrans has NEPA approval authority, the Local Agency is responsible for performing required studies/activities, and questions regarding NEPA or other project status should be directed to the agency’s contact. Please also contact appropriate agency staff for concerns regarding local advertising procedure or communication protocol.

Thank you,
Jimmy Panmai
Branch Chief CC|SF|SM
DBE Coordinator
Office of Local Assistance
<image001.png>
From: Brian Swanson >
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 12:19 PM
To: OCCA@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No.

CPFL 5437 (034)
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

I provided the Federal Project Number and informed Caltrans of the fact that IT has been identified as lead agency for the Crow Canyon IHT Overcrossing under NEPA, and that document preparation is supposedly underway (document type unknown), to be completed soon, with no public outreach to speak of to date.

The City of San Ramon is completely non-reponsive and in turn harming or decreasing the pool of potential bidders as several have reached out to me as a local resource and questioned the premanancy or the risk of potential clawback of the $2 M grant awarded for the project. Bidders are going to submit bids if funds will eventually be clawed back, that's a financial and legal risk, and also impacts staffing levels and project pipelines.

At the very least if a federal project number exists and NEPA compliance is underway, someone in Caltrans is responsible, not only for design review and acceptance, but also environmental/NEPA compliance.

I have scattered my concerns far and wide to many general Caltrans department level email address and even left a voice mail with Engineering Services in Sacramento, because they have no email address and all I am getting is deflection of responsibility, with design oversight, contract compliance, or environmental/NEPA compliance.

This is concerning, especially given all the focus at the federal level on waste, fraud, and abuse.

Regards,
Brian Swanson
- mobile
On May 23, 2025, at 11:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Hi Brian,
From my review, this contract is not being advertised or monitored by Caltrans Construction Contract Awards. Additionally, based on the information currently available, it does not appear that Caltrans is providing oversight on this project. If there is Caltrans oversight in any capacity, you will need to reach out through the City of San Ramon, as I’m not aware of whom they might be working with at Caltrans.

I apologize that I’m not able to assist further on this matter, but it would be best for you to communicate directly with the City of San Ramon for more definitive information.

Thank you and have a great day,
Adelia Fonseca
Department of Transportation
Construction Contract Awards
1727 30th Street, MS-43
Sacramento, CA 95816
Phone: 916-227-1995
Fax: 916-227-6282
From: Brian Swanson
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 2:36 PM
To: OCCA@DOT
Cc: DPAC Protest-Disputes-Terminations@DOT ; Loera, Juan@DOT Subject: Re: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034) EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

I have and they claim they did not receive my question when I sent on May 7, 2025, before the May 12, 2025 question deadline. It is also clear Caltrans will be the lead agency for NEPA compliance, which was noted by the City of San Ramon project manager to happen soon. No public noticing or outreach relative to the NEPA compliance has occurred to date for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing.

On May 21, 2025, at 2:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Swanson,
From what I can tell, this is not a project being advertised by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Below is the link to the advertisement on the City of San Ramon’s website.

Unfortunately, you will need to contact them directly for assistance with your questions.

Crow Canyon Road/IHT Overcrossing - City of San Ramon
Thank you,
Adelia Fonseca
Department of Transportation
Construction Contract Awards
1727 30th Street, MS-43
Sacramento, CA 95816
Phone: 916-227-1995
Fax: 916-227-6282
From: Honebein, Kimberly@DOT <[email protected]> On Behalf Of DPAC Protest-Disputes-Terminations@DOT
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Brian Swanson >
Cc: OCCA@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail BicyclePedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)
Good afternoon, Mr. Swanson,
I believe your email should be directed to the Division of Engineering Services based on the RFP documents I found online. They will most likely have some questions related to the missing recipient information from the forwarded message pasted below.

Thank you,
“Kimberly” Honebein, Branch Chief
Bid, Protest, and Dispute Branch
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Division of Procurement and Contracts (DPAC)
Cell: (916) 639-6322
Please Rate My Service
Track the Status of a Contract
Caltrans Vision: A thriving and connected California
Caltrans Mission: Improving lives and communities through transportation From: Brian Swanson >
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 7:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: City of San Ramon Requests for Proposals - Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail BicyclePedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.

Hello:

I have asked specific questions below (May 7, 2025, 10:35 pm) of the City of San Ramon Project Manager, for Design and Engineering Services, for the Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing Project CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034), as of May 20, 2025, 3:50 pm, Questions Response Update https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/ Business/RFP/Questions-Response%20May%2020%202025.pdf?
utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_medium=
email&utm_source=govdelivery, have gone unanswered. The bidders' question period formally closed on May 12, 2025, at 10 am.

Given Caltrans and federal involvement, can you please advise on how best to get my questions answered?
Should I expect to submit a formal protest?
Thank you,
Brian Swanson, AICP
- mobile
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brian Swanson >
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: City of San Ramon Requests for Bids, Proposals & Qualifications Update - Crow Canyon Road/IHT Overcrossing To: Peterson, Theresa <[email protected]>
Ms. Peterson:

I don't see my questions answered in the Questions Response Update sent May 20, 2025, at 3:15 pm.

Can I expect to have them answered, or should I expect to file a protest? On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 10:35 PM Brian Swanson
> wrote:

Dear Ms. Petersen:

As written in the Request for Proposals, I understand this project's primary purpose is to enhance the safety for active transportation users along the Iron Horse Trail (IHT) and improve recreational opportunities. Please confirm or restate for clarity.

Will all the work done under this project be strictly related to the butterfly arch style bridge structure only? Will it include any connecting infrastructure, resurfacing, or striping either on the Iron Horse Trail (IHT) or on Crow Canyon Road itself? If on Crow Canyon Road, what specific institutions, businesses, or residences will be connected to the Crow Canyon Road/IHT Overcrossing? Will it consist of any elements related to the proposed IHT double tracking between Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon Roads, or any related efforts associated with the potential future use (including operation changes, exemptions, or restrictions) of the overcrossing by e-scooters, e-bikes, shared autonomous vehicles, or connections to Shared Mobility Hubs and/or the San Ramon Transit Center? If so, please provide extensive details.

Please also provide details as to the efforts that either are currently underway or will be underway during the performance period under this expected contract, especially as they relate to California Environmental Quality Act and/or National Environmental Policy Act, and the need for a new analysis of cumulative impacts, given all the changes occuring currently and planned in San Ramon that are nearby, adjacent, and/or will be connected to the Crow Canyon Road/IHT Overcrossing, including allowable operational changes, exemptions, or restrictions on this segment of the IHT beginning at Bollinger Canyon Road and extending to the City limits to the north shared with the Town of Danville.

Please provide all the necessary details regarding the funding to be used under the Federal Community Project Funding/Congression Directed Spending, including the specific Federal nexus section code, federal funding agencies responsible, and other potential states, including Caltrans, regional, county, or local funding stewards and specific agency personal contact information (including email addresses and direct office phone numbers).

Please also include specific further detail on what funding source this project is directly tied to (Iincluding and beyond CIP 905531, Federal Project No. CPFL 5437 (034)), including specific federal appropriation (including what fiscal funding year), and the connection to any of the federal infrastructure bills or other possibly "uncommon non-transportation related" sources, which may include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's, Community Development Block Grant Program, and administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Or, please confirm the Federal Highway Administration as the sole federal funding agency responsible.

Please also identify all the elected officials (at all levels - federal, state, regional, county, and local) who endorsed or sent letters of support for the Crow Canyon/IHT Overcrossing funding.

Thank you,
Brian Swanson
- mobile
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 9:09 AM City of San Ramon
<[email protected]> wrote:

You are subscribed to Requests for Bids, Proposals & Qualifications for City of San Ramon. This information has recently been updated, and is now available here:

LIKE FOLLOW SUBSCRIBE CRM REGISTER WATCH
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page.

You will need to use your email address to log in. Please click unsubscribe to be removed from this topic, or click unsubscribe_all to be removed from all topics. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact [email protected] or visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.

This service is provided to you at no charge by City of San Ramon.

City of San Ramon | 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583 | (925) 973-2500 | www.sanramon.ca.gov
Coordinated Call for Projects - Summary of Applications Received App # Application Title Sponsor/Applicant Subregion Request Amount CC1 Countywide Wayfinding Improvements Project BART Countywide $ 1,650,000 CC2 Countywide LED Lighting Upgrades BART Countywide $ 1,260,000 CC3 Contra Costa Countywide Smart Signals, Phase II Project CCTA Countywide $ 24,080,000 CC4
Countywide Safe Routes to Schools Non-Infrastructure
Program CCTA Countywide $ 5,000,000
CC5 Countywide Student Clipper BayPass Program CCTA Countywide $ 17,700,000 Subtotal $ 49,690,000
W1 Hercules Hub: Multi-Modal Transportation Hub Hercules West $ 6,000,000 W2
Sycamore Ave. Bicycle & Pedestrian East-West City
Connector Hercules West $ 1,525,000
W3
Transforming San Pablo Avenue: Improving Safety and Access for All WCCTAC/CCTA West $ 17,457,144
W4
Richmond Ferry Terminal Integrated Access and
Electrification Study WETA West $ 250,000
W5
El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station Multi-modal Connectivity Improvements El Cerrito West $ 6,461,000
W6
Complete Streets: Cutting Blvd. and Macdonald Avenue Road Diet and Bikeway Project Richmond West $ 25,500,000
W7 Northeast Richmond Neighborhood Greenway Project Richmond West $ 6,000,000 W8 Division 3 Security Enhancement Project AC Transit West $ 715,000 W9 San Pablo Ave. Bridge Replacement Project San Pablo West $ 4,500,000 W10 Willow Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Repair – Rodeo Contra Costa County West $ 3,187,000 W11 Richmond Bay Trail Gap Closure EBRPD West $ 1,000,000 Subtotal $ 72,595,144
C1 Coggins Drive Active Transportation Enhancements Project Pleasant Hill Central $ 1,820,000 C2 Contra Costa Boulevard Active Transportation Project Pleasant Hill Central $ 8,602,000 C3 Cowell Road Complete Street Improvements Project Concord Central $ 8,000,000 C4 Downtown Signal Safety & Connections Project Concord Central $ 9,284,000 C5
Franklin Canyon Road & Alhambra Avenue Complete Streets Improvements Martinez Central $ 2,974,000
C6
Pacheco Boulevard Improvements – Sunrise Drive to Arnold Drive Martinez (& County ConneCentral $ 2,910,000
C7
Newell Avenue Corridor Improvements Project – California Blvd to Maria Lane-Capwell St Walnut Creek Central $ 6,895,000 C8
Walnut Creek BART Shared Mobility Hub: N. California and Ygnacio Valley Road Protected Intersection and Bike Facilities Walnut Creek Central $ 7,301,225 C9
Walnut Creek Bus Stop Accessibility and Amenities
Improvements
Walnut Creek /
County Connection Central $ 1,822,924
C10 Marsh Drive Class I Bikeway – Pacheco Contra Costa County Central $ 7,369,000 C11
Martinez Intermodal Station–Crockett Bay Trail Gap Closure Project EBRPD Central $ 2,000,000
Subtotal $ 58,978,149
E1
Empire Avenue and Amber Lane Safe Routes Connectivity
Project Brentwood East $ 850,000
E2 Laurel Road Extension and Multimodal Connectivity Project Oakley East $ 3,000,000 E3 West Leland Safety Improvements Project Pittsburg East $ 3,992,000 E4 West Leland Pedestrian Overcrossing Pittsburg East $ 4,000,000 Subtotal $ 11,842,000
S1 Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Crow Canyon Road San Ramon Southwest $ 23,000,000 S2 Ivy Drive Sidewalk Gap Closure Orinda Southwest $ 540,000 S3 Camino Pablo Path Widening Orinda Southwest $ 910,000 S4 Orinda-Moraga Regional Trail Project Orinda-Moraga Southwest $ 3,500,000 S5
Lafayette Aqueduct Pathway - Brown Avenue to Pleasant Hill Rd Lafayette Southwest $ 2,890,000
S6
Iron Horse Corridor San Ramon Double-Tracking Project
(Phase 1) and Iron Horse Corridor Danville Double-Tracking Project (Phase 2) Contra Costa County Southwest $ 3,530,000 S7 Moraga Road HAWK Signal Moraga Southwest $ 500,000
S8 Rheem Blvd Bike & Pedestrian Gap Closure Moraga Southwest $ 1,490,000 Subtotal $ 36,360,000
Total $ 229,465,293

ATTACHMENT A

CPRA request R051022-051826 - CCC 680
16th July 2026 Response
General Points:
 The records provided have been taken from our files. If there are screenshots, duplicates or multiple versions in different files then that is what exists in our files. We have not created new records interpreting existing records.
 Previously submitted msg files have been converted to pdf. The thumb.db file was created/included by error and has been deleted.  Cultural Resources documents have been reviewed by Tom Holstein, Environmental Branch Chief to determine what needs redacting and what can be released. Due to resourcing constraints, only final versions are included with the necessary elements redacted.
 Apart from Cultural Resources drafts which as explained above would require additional redaction work, draft versions of documents on files and comments are included.
 An Initial Site Assessment equates to an Environmental Site Assessment  As of 16th July 2026 a draft Categorical Exclusion has been prepared for final review. It is expected that the final review will take place within the next few weeks. For updates on NEPA status of the CPFL 5437 (034) Crow Canyon Overcrossing project, please contact [email protected].  The requirement that Final Design activities only happen after NEPA can be found in 23 CFR 771.113 , and Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 12, Section 12.3.
 The email search request is still too broad. Instead a search was carried out for the following key terms related to the CPFL 5437 (034) Crow Canyon Overcrossing project:

CPFL 5437 (034)
Crow Canyon Overcrossing
Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing
Attachment 6 | Caltrans July 16, 2026 response | Source page 1 of 4 51 of 54 The CPFL 5437 (034) Crow Canyon Overcrossing project is handled by Caltrans D4 Local Assistance. The search was carried out by the following officials who are the only Caltrans D4 Office of Local Assistance officials determined by Tom Holstein likely to hold emails related to the CPFL 5437 (034) project:
o Ephrem Meharena, District Local Assistance Engineer/Office Chief o Jimmy Panmai, Senior Transportation Engineer overseeing projects in Contra Costa County
o Tom Holstein, Environmental Branch Chief
o David Pneh, Area Engineer managing projects in San Ramon o Thomas Premo, Associate Environmental Planner managing projects within Contra Costa County
Emails already held by the requestor (ie emails from the requestor) have been removed from the searches where found.

Please note that Caltrans IT policy is that all emails older than 3 months are deleted from everyone’s inbox/sent folder. Therefore only limited emails earlier than April 2026 will still be held – only if they were transferred to a different folder.
 No new records have been created to interpret where records belong within the requester’s questions. The file search was carried out by Tom Holstein/Jimmy Panmai of D4 Local Assistance files held on the Caltrans D4 server at the following file paths:
o \\ct\dfs04\PLAN\LocAssist\Project Files\Contra Costa County\David Projects\5437 San Ramon\5437(034) CPFL
o \\ct\dfs04\PLAN\LA-Env\Environmental Data\Contra Costa\5437 (034) CPFL
These locations are considered the only locations where files related to the CPFL 5437 (034) Crow Canyon Overcrossing project would be located. Since 2020, Caltrans D4 Local Assistance has only kept electronic files – no paper copies.
 In this submission, an updated version of the file ‘5437 (034) D4 OLA Environmental files’ has been included. This updated version includes the msg Attachment 6 | Caltrans July 16, 2026 response | Source page 2 of 4 52 of 54 files changed to pdf, draft documents if held, and the draft Categorical Exclusion which was prepared since the first submittal. It also includes the final Cultural Resources documents with the necessary redactions. No changes were made to the 5437 (034) D4 OLA Engineering file so that is not included in this submission.

Answers to the specific 8 questions
As requested, in the table below we have categorized the answers to the original 8 questions in accordance with the criteria provided, namely:

1. fully produced responsive records;

2. partially produced responsive records, with additional records pending;

3. determined that no responsive records exist after a reasonable search;

4. withheld or redacted records; or

5. declined to search or produce records based on a claimed objection.

Question Number
and Heading
Criteria Notes

1.NEPA Compliance
& Environmental
Documentation
1, with the exception
of parts of Section 106
documentation which
meets criteria 4, where
confidentiality
regarding tribal
information prevents
release

2. Federal
Authorization,
Funding, and FMIS
Records
1 3. Local Assistance
Oversight &
Communications
1 4. Public Outreach,
Public Involvement,
1 Attachment 6 | Caltrans July 16, 2026 response | Source page 3 of 4 53 of 54 and Disclosure

5. Project Scope,
Segmentation, and
Cumulative Impacts
3 6. Internal Caltrans
Communications
1, 4 As noted above, the search
was limited to those officials
involved with the 5437 (034)
project and project titles.

Emails involving tribal
information are not included.

Emails already held by the
requester (those sent by the
requester) were not included.

7. Records Related to
the City’s RFP and
Consultant
Procurement
1 Limited files were found.

These are all included.

8. Records
Identifying Federal,
State, Regional, or
Local Officials
3 Attachment 6 | Caltrans July 16, 2026 response | Source page 4 of 4 54 of 54

San Ramon City CouncilSeptember 21, 2026

San Ramon City Council
September 21, 2026