Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05012018 -CALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 FEDERAL D. GLOVER, CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, VICE CHAIR, 4TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES May 1, 2018                  9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Richard Bolanos. Employee Organizations: Public Employees Union, Local 1; AFSCME Locals 512 and 2700; California Nurses Assn.; SEIU Locals 1021 and 2015; District Attorney Investigators’ Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters I.A.F.F., Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; Prof. & Tech. Engineers IFPTE, Local 21; and Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(1)) Brian Cuevas, et al. v. Contra Costa County Health Services, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C09-01786 1. C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(4): One potential case 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on." ~ Robert Frost Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel  By unanimous vote the Board of Supervisors authorized the initiation of litigation against the manufacturers May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 1  By unanimous vote the Board of Supervisors authorized the initiation of litigation against the manufacturers and distributers of prescription opioid drugs for their role in the opioid epidemic. The intended lawsuit will include a cost recovery action to reimburse the County for taxpayer funds that already have been spent responding to the epidemic, as well as the costs of continuing the fight, including equitable relief to help alleviate opioid use dependence and fund local action to counteract this crisis.   CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.57 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION recognizing the month of May 2018 as "Community Action Month" in Contra Costa County. (Camilla Rand, Community Services Bureau Director)   PRESENTATION recognizing May 2018 as Older Americans Month in support of Intergenerational Network of All-Age Friendly Cities and Communities efforts. (Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director and Victoria Tolbert, Aging and Adult Bureau Director)   PRESENTATION recognizing Meals on Wheels Diablo Region on its 50th anniversary. (Supervisor Mitchoff)   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed from consent for discussion.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Ron Reynolds, spoke on difficulties with Rodeo Auto Wreckers, an employee of which hit his vehicle, and an unpleasant and lingering order and fumes emanating from the business; Paul Burgarino, Contra Costa Elections Division, Clerk-Recorder, the candidate roundtable conversations for the upcoming June elections are now available on the website for viewing at cocovote.us\election.preview. Additionally, a candidate workshop will be held on May 12, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Pacheco Community Center, to review the processes involved in running for public office. Thank you to Supervisor Burgis for volunteering as a moderator.   D.3 HEARING to consider appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny a proposal to merge three lots, defer road improvements, and allow a 13,887-square-foot single family residence in the Alamo Summit subdivision, Alamo area. (Discovery Builders, Inc., Appellant) (Alamo Land Investors, LLC, Owners) (Lashun Cross and Sean Tully, Department of Conservation and Development)       CONTINUED the hearing to June 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.   D.4 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-06 to regulate farm animal raising and keeping in residential zoning districts and rooster keeping in agricultural zoning districts, and adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2018-11 and 2018-12 to prohibit farm animal raising and keeping in residential zoning districts in Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. (Aruna Bhat and Stanley Muraoka, Department of Conservation and Development)       Mike Vigo, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association; Paula McCauley, 4-H; Norman Lott, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association; Jan pinkerton Spieth, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association. CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED that adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-06, Ordinance No. 2018-11, and Ordinance No. 2018-12 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-06, regulating the raising and keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts and the keeping of roosters in agricultural zoning districts; May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 2 ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-11, establishing an Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to exclude the raising and keeping of farm animals in specified residential district; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-12, applying the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to specified residential districts in Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.5 CONSIDER options for Board of Supervisors representation on the Countywide Redevelopment Successor Oversight Board. (Supervisor Mitchoff)       The Board appointed Supervisor Glover to Seat 1 on the Countywide Redevelopment Oversight Board.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.6 CONSIDER approving the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and authorizing staff to pursue funding opportunities for implementation, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. (Jamar Stamps, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Bruce Ohlson, Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.7 ACCEPT report regarding media coverage asserting that loads of soil that may not have been adequately screened for radioactivity were trucked from Hunters Point site to multiple different landfills in the state, including Keller Canyon Landfill. (Marilyn Underwood, Health Services Department and John Kopchik, Department of Conservation & Development)       Speakers: Laura Wright, Environmental Affairs Manager, City of Pittsburg; Joe Sbranti, Pittsburg City Manager; Wolfgang Roskey, resident of Pittsburg; Nancy Parent, resident of Pittsburg; Lisa Della Rocca, resident of Pittsburg; Frank Aiello, Citizen United; Luis Arroyo, Citizens United; Jesus Hernandez; Citizens United; A.J. Fardella, Oak Hills Community Group; Russel Row, resident of Pittsburg, Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg. The following did not wish to speak but left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached): Isvan G. Tolnay, resident of Pittsburg; Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg; Jen Borcic, resident of Pittsburg. Rick King, General Manager of Keller Canyon Landfill provided a powerpoint presentation (attached). Dr. Marilyn C. Underwood, Director of Environmental Health, presented an oral report. She said that regulatory agencies have found that a contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to clean up Hunter’s Point shipyard in San Francisco misrepresented radiologic sampling data that was taken from soil at the shipyard. To date, these misrepresentations are tied to potentially contaminated soil and material being left on the site instead of being removed. The studies that have so far been published (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency) reveal that data were falsified to allow potentially contaminated soil to remain in place at Hunter’s Point shipyard. Dr. Underwood said that at this point there is no evidence that radiological material was sent to Keller Canyon Landfill. She noted the investigation is ongoing. Dr. Underwood made the following recommendations: 1) Formally request the Department of the Navy to make itself available for meetings with the community and all stakeholders as soon as possible to provide information on the soil date falsification incident and what further investigation(s) are ongoing; 2) Formally request the Navy to investigate whether the soil data falsification incident affected Keller Canyon Landfill, including whether any contaminated soil was transported from Hunter’s Point shipyard to Keller Canyon Landfill; 3) Formally request the Navy to conduct a surface survey of Keller Canyon Landfill to determine if is there is any radiological hazard at the landfill. Rick King, General Manager of Keller Canyon Landfill, provided the Board with a detailed explanation of how material was received from the site, the reporting responsibility of the source of the material, and procedures inMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 3 material was received from the site, the reporting responsibility of the source of the material, and procedures in place to inspect incoming material. He noted that immediately upon hearing of the false data issue, he suspended receipt of any material from Hunter’s Point shipyard. He provided a PowerPoint presentation for reference (attached). Having discussed the matter at length, and receiving public comment, the Board gave the following direction: 1. Implement all the recommendations put forth by Dr. Underwood; 2. Dr. Underwood will return to the Board in 30 days with a written report and any updated information; 3. Staff will seek answers on the notification process from the state and federal agencies to find out why the County, the City of Pittsburg, and Keller Canyon Landfill were not notified of the investigation into the soil data falsification; 4. Staff will examine its notification protocols and work with Keller Canyon landfill to ensure timely communication with the District Supervisor and the Board; 5. Staff will compose letters for the Chair of the Board to sign that will the assistance of state and federal legislative representatives in obtaining swift and appropriate help from the Navy and other applicable agencies with expertise in radiological matters; 6. Staff will seek information from consultant TetraTech regarding the incident; 7. Staff will research what, if any, mechanism is in place to hold the contractor hired by the Navy financially responsible for any third-party investigative and/or testing to be conducted at Keller Canyon Landfill; 8. Staff will provide further information for the Board on the history of alerts from the radiologic sensors located at Keller Canyon Landfill, and how those incidents are documented; 9. Staff will immediately look into the hiring of an expert consultant to assist the County on next steps and appropriate actions to be taken going forward with respect to this incident; 10. Staff will prepare a report addressing the effects of designating the City of Pittsburg as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for the Keller Canyon Landfill site. Dr. Underwood and John Kopchik will be in attendance at an emergency meeting of the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Committee at 7 p.m. this evening. Supervisor Glover said more community meetings will be arranged and the public notified as soon as is possible.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 8 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting in memory of Kenneth Harry Hofmann   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project and take related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project. San Ramon Valley area. (40% Tri-Valley Transportation Council Funds, 30% Measure J Funds, and 30% South County Area of Benefit Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Dynamic    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 4 C. 2 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Dynamic Dzyne Associates, Inc., dba Substrate, Inc., in the amount of $600,000 for construction management services for the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project, for the period May 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, Clayton area. (11% Local Road Funds and 89% Federal Highway Bridge Program)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, a right of way contract and easement agreement with Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to acquire easements in district property located at 425 Castle Rock Road, Walnut Creek (North Gate High School), in connection with the Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (28% Transportation Development Act Grant; 72% Local Road Funds.)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 4 ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/153 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Willow Pass Road between Marin Avenue and Manor Drive, on May 28, 2018, from 10:00 AM through 11:00 AM, for the purpose of Bay Point Spring Derby Parade, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 5 DENY claims filed by Ernest F. Broussal Jr., Tommie Clayton, Deandre Antoine Lewis, Doug MacMaster, and Precision Risk Management Inc., DENY late claims filed by Wali Jahangiri (2), Nadieh Kakar, and Mario Torres.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 6 ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/147 recognizing the month of May 2018 as "Community Action Month" in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/164 recognizing May 2018 as Older Americans Month in support of Intergenerational Network of All-Age Friendly Cities and Communities efforts, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/169 honoring Meals on Wheels Diablo Region on its 50th anniversary, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 5 Ordinances   C. 9 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-13 to require the humane treatment of roosters, as recommended by the Animal Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 10 APPOINT Walter Fields to the District V Representative Alternate seat on the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Glover.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, department changes, additional privileges, advancements, voluntary resignations, and changes to the anesthesiology privileges, as recommended by the Medical Staff Executive Committee and the Health Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 12 ACCEPT resignation of Lanita Mims, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 3-A seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Burgis.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/170 to reappoint Supervisor Candace Andersen and Supervisor Federal D. Glover as the Board of Supervisors' representatives to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission and to update the Master List of Board Member appointments for 2018, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations   C. 14 ADOPT a position of "Support" on the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018, a citizens initiative water bond that may appear on the November 2018 statewide California ballot, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 15 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22265 to abolish the Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt (unrepresented) classification and cancel one vacant position in the Animal Services Department. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22275 to add one Senior Health Education Specialist position    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 6 C. 16 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22275 to add one Senior Health Education Specialist position (represented) and cancel one vacant Health Education Specialist position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (50% Family, Maternal and Child Health Program, 50% Proposition 56 - Children's Oral Health)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 17 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22276 to add one full-time Deputy County Counsel Advanced- Exempt (unrepresented) position and cancel one full-time Deputy County Counsel Advanced (unrepresented) vacant position in the Office of the County Counsel. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Leases   C. 18 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease with Cove Investments, LLC, for a term of five years for 1,340 square feet of office space for the Health Services Department - CORE Program at 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 111, Richmond, at an initial annual rent of $37,788 for the first year with annual increases thereafter, with two two-year renewal terms, under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease. (100% Mental Health Services Act Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 19 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Department of Food and Agriculture in an amount not to exceed $23,443 to place and service traps for the detection of the European Grapevine Moth from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $3,540,487 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families for Early Head Start supplemental funding for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. (20% In-kind County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $12,000 from the City of Brentwood to provide economic development advising, training, and outreach services to Brentwood businesses for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% match, Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract and accept reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $15,000 from Mount Diablo Unified School District for the provision of food services at the Crossroads High School childcare program for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (No County match)        May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 7   AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Maintenance and Support Agreement with Gemalto Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed, $454,772 for the purchase of Livescan specific hardware, implementation services, and support of the software for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022. (100% CAL-ID funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute Agreement #18-73-06-0251-RA with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $40,649 to provide wildlife damage management for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (State 60%, County 40%)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a software and licensing agreement, including modified indemnification language, with Shotcaller Global, Inc., in an annual amount of $25,500 for the "GunOps" crime tracking system software tracking system for the period April 17, 2018 and renewed annually unless canceled by either party. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Language Line Services, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Hearing Aid Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to provide audiology and hearing aid services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2020. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide claims processing and negotiation services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2020. (100% Contingency fee from savings)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with California Center for Behavioral Health in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide outpatient psychiatry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2020. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 8   AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Estelita Marquez-Floyd, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $266,240 to provide outpatient psychiatric services to children and adolescents at the East County Mental Health Clinic for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Risk Management to execute a contract amendment with BSI EHS Services and Solutions to increase the payment limit by $508,600 to a new total payment limit of $1,727,400 for additional Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) compliance support during the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Men and Women of Purpose in an amount not to exceed $191,650 for the provision of mentoring and placement services to assist adult inmates transitioning back into the community for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% AB109 Public Safety Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Chaplains, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $156,100 for chaplaincy services in adult detention facilities for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% Inmate Welfare Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Archer Business Solutions, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $145,000 to provide technical support and consulting for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Crisis Center in an amount not to exceed $310,685 to provide prevention and early intervention services pursuant to the Mental Health Services Act for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2019, in an amount not to exceed $155,342. (100% Mental Health Services Act)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Yana Wirengard, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $467,000 to provide general surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 9 C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $1,006,976 to a new payment limit of $8,389,976, to provide additional subacute skilled nursing care services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (92% Mental Health Realignment, 8% Mental Health Services Act)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 RESCIND Board Action of February 13, 2018 (C.52) and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Services Agreement with Gemalto Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed, $120,000 for the services and maintenance enhancement of a dedicated on-site support engineer for a term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 with no change in payment limit. (100% CAL-ID)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with CocoKids, Inc., effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $40,000 to a new payment limit of $120,000 and to extend the term date from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018, to provide additional ongoing Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Services. (30% County; 70% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet, effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $36,964 to a new payment limit of $155,311, and to extend the term end date from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018, to provide ongoing outreach, advocacy, and support to adoptive families. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to terminate the existing contract with D. R. Ruecker M.D., Inc., and enter into a new contract with David Robert Ruecker, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $300,800 to provide outpatient psychiatric care for seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in Central Contra Costa County for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Paul Gibson, LCSW, to increase the payment limit by $52,500 to a new payment limit of $145,300 to provide Clinical Supervision Services to Children and Family Services Bureau staff seeking licensure, effective July 1, 2018 with no change to the original contract term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $358,800 to provide augmented board and care services for County-referred mentally disordered clients for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (100% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 10 C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide Resource Family Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (75% Federal, 25% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Ena Rios, LCSW (dba Ena Rios Corporation), effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $130,000 to a new payment limit of $230,000 to provide additional specialty mental health services for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bay Area Doctors, Inc., effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $800,000 to provide additional specialty mental health services for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Family Support Services in an amount not to exceed $360,317 to provide comprehensive respite services to foster parents and relative caregivers for the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (79% State, 21% County)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Risk Management to execute a contract amendment with Ah Hing (dba Risk Management Outsourcing, LLC), increase the payment limit by $59,494 to a new payment limit of $178,482 and extend the term from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018 to continue providing risk management services on behalf of Contra Costa County. (100% Self Insurance Internal Service Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee to execute a contract between the County and Steckbauer Weinhart, LLP, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, for legal services in the area of tax-related bankruptcy matters for the period from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2021. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $16,465.69 for non-emergency transportation services for County clients and patients with HIV disease for services rendered to Contra Costa County residents during the period November 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE clarification of Board action of February 13, 2018 (Item C.51), which authorized the Purchasing Agent to execute a purchase order with Beckman Coulter, Inc., in the amount of $253,395 to reflect the correct payment limit of $264,009. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor DianeMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 11   AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $332,800 to provide outpatient psychiatric services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. (24% Mental Health Services Act, 38% State Mental Health Realignment, 38% Federal Medi-Cal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Antoine Samman, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide neurology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Department to initiate a General Plan Amendment process to consider changing the General Plan land use designation from "Multiple-Family Residential-Very High Density" to "Multiple-Family Residential-Very High Special Density" for a group of five parcels located at the intersection of Del Hombre Lane and Roble Road, in the Contra Costa Centre area. (100% Applicant Fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 ACCEPT the report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e) representing an accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2016/17, as recommended by the Sheriff-Coroner. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian to close the Kensington Library from June 4, 2018 through and including June 12, 2018 in order to repaint the interior, upgrade the employee work area and replace furniture in the public area. (70% Library Fund, 30% Friends of the Kensington Library)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1802, entitled "Los Medanos Community Healthcare District" (attached), and FORWARD to the County Administrator for response. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 12 All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Diane Burgis and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Diane Burgis and Candace Andersen) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Candace Andersen) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee June 13, 2018 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee TBD TBD See above Finance Committee TBD TBD See above May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 13 Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee June 4, 2018 1:00 p.m.See above Internal Operations Committee May 14, 2018 Canceled June 11, 2018 1:00 p.m.See above Legislation Committee May 14, 2018 10:30 a.m.See above Public Protection Committee May 7, 2018 Canceled Next Meeting TBD TBD See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee May 14, 2018 9:00 a.m. See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 14 CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 15 RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 16 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. AFFIRM the Planning Commission decision to deny a proposal to merge three lots, defer road improvements, and allow a 13,888-square-foot single family residence in the Alamo Summit subdivision (DP15-3039). 3. DENY the appeal of Discovery Builders, Inc. 4. DETERMINE that the Board’s decision is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a), projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. 5. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: (925) 674-7798 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Alamo Summit - Modification to Final Development Plan #DP90-3030 for a Single Family Residence May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 17 FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the initial application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover any and all additional staff time and material costs associated with the processing of this application. BACKGROUND: Project Description: Discovery Builders, the applicant is requesting modification to Final Development Plan #DP90-3030 to allow the merger of three lots for construction of a single family residence. The applicant also requests to amend Conditions of Approval (COA) #25 and #26 to modify the construction timing of Alamo Summit Drive and the required improvements to Ridgewood Road. These roadway improvements would be postponed until a future date when the developer elects to build out the remainder of the subdivision. The applicant proposes a gravel roadway along the alignment of Alamo Summit Drive for use as a construction route to the home site. Construction vehicles would access the gravel construction route via Ridgewood Road, which the applicant indicates will be monitored and repaired as necessary during construction of the proposed residence. Site Description: The project site is located within the boundaries of Alamo Summit, a 37-lot subdivision (SD 7553) that was previously approved by the County. The Alamo Summit subdivision is located on a hillside at the southern terminus of Castle Crest Road, approximately ½ mile west of Danville Boulevard at Livorna Road. The project site overlooks the Rossmoor community to the west, and the Alamo community to the south and east. Surrounding land uses are predominantly residential with the exception of open space to the north of the Alamo Summit subdivision. Vehicular access to the subdivision is available via Castle Crest Road from the north, and Ridgewood Road to the east. The project approval was conditioned to require Alamo Summit Drive, a paved road connecting these two existing access points, be constructed prior to the first phase of development. None of the 37 approved lots have been developed to date. General Plan: The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Lands (AL). Single-family residences are a compatible use within the AL designation. The proposed merger of three lots, resulting in a 12.8-acre home site is consistent with the allowed density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the AL land use designation. Zoning: The project site is within a Planned Unit District (P-1), a zoning district that was specifically adopted for the 177-acre Alamo Summit subdivision. Residential development within this P-1 development is subject to design guidelines, which were also adopted with the approved Final Development plan for the Alamo Summit Subdivision. Environmental Review: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines § 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency disapproves. Staff is presenting this application with a May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 18 recommendation for denial, thus, no environmental review has been performed. Staff Analysis of the Proposed Project: The project proposal involves combining lots 7, 8, and 9 of the approved subdivision (approximately 12.8 acres total) and constructing a 13,888 square-foot single-family residence at this location. This location is at one of the higher points within the subdivision boundaries. Alamo Summit Drive is to be located along the eastern boundary of the proposed home site. The primary issue regarding this application is the requirement for roadway improvements and a request to modify the timing of roadway improvements. The applicant requests to amend COA’s #25 and #26 to allow construction of one single-family residence prior to the construction of Alamo Summit Drive and improving/widening Ridgewood Road. As noted, the applicant has requested to construct these roads at a future date when the remaining lots of the subdivision are developed. The applicant’s request to modify the timing for constructing required roadway improvements is a substantial modification to the Final Development Plan that was approved with the subdivision in 1992. The adopted EIR for the Alamo Summit project concluded that the use of either of the existing access routes, Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road, by construction traffic would add significantly to existing safety hazards for normal traffic on the route. These hazards were mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring improvements to Ridgewood Road, prior to development. It was also required that Alamo Summit Road be constructed to provide a temporary means of access for those residences located on Upper Ridgewood Road, during lower Ridgewood Road improvements. Mitigation Measure 3(d) required the construction of improvements and widening of Ridgewood Road as part of the first construction phase. The applicant's request to construct a single-family residence is the first construction phase of the project. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3(d) stipulated that construction vehicles would only be allowed access to the site via the improved Ridgewood Road. Mitigation Measure 3(d) was incorporated into the Final Development Plan approval as COA’s #25 and #26. Pursuant to County Ordinance Code 84-66.1804(b), the County must find the proposed modification to the Final Development Plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district adopted for the site. The proposed modification does not comply with approved COA’s #25-27, or Mitigation Measure 3(d). As previously stated, these conditions were a major element of the project approval, without which safe development of any portion of the Alamo Summit subdivision is not possible. Therefore, the proposed modification is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district adopted for the Alamo Summit Subdivision and should be denied. County Planning Commission (CPC) Hearing and Decision on February 14, 2018 The proposed Development Plan modification was presented to the CPC on February 14, 2018 with a recommendation for denial from staff. Dozens of residents from the Alamo community appeared to voice their opposition to the project. The concerns raised were primarily over the narrow configuration of the existing roads that are located on steep terrain. There is great concern amongst local residents that these roads cannot safely accommodate existing residential traffic and the added construction traffic without the access improvements that the original subdivision was conditioned to perform prior to the first phase of development on Alamo Summit. Neither representative of the applicant appeared to present to the CPC in support of this application. The CPC voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the requested modification to the approved Final Development Plan. Appeal of County Planning Commission’s February 14, 2018 Decision May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 19 The County received an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision on February 22, 2018, from Louis Parsons, President of Discovery Builders Inc. Below is a summary of the appeal points along with staff’s response. Appeal Point: We are asking for the timing of the improvements to be modified. We are not requesting deletion of any of the conditions. Staff Response: As already stated previously, the adopted EIR for the Alamo Summit project concluded that the use of either of the existing access routes, Ridgewood Road and Castle Crest Road, by construction traffic would add significantly to existing safety hazards for normal traffic on the route. These hazards were mitigated to a less than significant level by requiring improvements to Ridgewood Road, and requiring all construction traffic to use the improved Ridgewood Road. In order to reduce the impact of closing Ridgewood Road to perform these improvements, it was required that Alamo Summit Road first be constructed to provide a temporary means of access for those residences located on Upper Ridgewood Road. The adopted EIR for the Alamo Summit project also found that utilizing Ridgewood Road in its existing condition “would add significantly to existing safety hazards for normal traffic on the route”. The applicant has proposed to assess the condition of Ridgewood Road during the construction phase and promptly repair any damage caused by construction activities. This proposal is inadequate in that it fails to address the primary intent of the Ridgewood Road improvements, which was to improve the road’s ability to safely accommodate construction traffic for the Alamo Summit subdivision. There have been no significant improvements to Ridgewood Road since the approval of the Alamo Summit subdivision that may have reduced these hazardous conditions, and that may warrant consideration of the requested modified timing of improvements. Thus, the preexisting hazardous situation for construction traffic and residents on upper Ridgewood Road remains. Appeal Point:We have offered a solution for construction traffic through the project site, and we are simply proposing the construction of a single home. We are proposing to merge 3 lots into 1, which will lessen the ultimate overall development impact. Staff Response: Monitoring Ridgewood Road and repairing damage caused by construction traffic does not alleviate or mitigate hazards that would be posed by the routing construction traffic on this roadway given its current hazardous conditions. Furthermore, the current proposal does not provide a paved alternative access route for residents on upper Ridgewood Road in the event that lower Ridgewood Road needs to be closed to repair construction damage. The proposed gravel road may provide construction vehicles access through the project site, but it fails to provide an alternative access point for those residences most likely to be impacted by construction activity on lower Ridgewood Road. Lastly, it is the existing hazardous conditions of Ridgewood Road combined with its proposed use as a construction access that necessitates the required improvements; not the scale of the proposed construction. Therefore, a decrease in the number of lots for the entire subdivision does not eliminate the need to improve Ridgewood Road prior to construction activities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board is inclined to approve the applicant's appeal, it should direct staff to perform necessary environmental review and take necessary steps to approve the request. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 20 This application is a request for approval of modifications to a Final Development Plan to allow for construction of a single-family residence. The proposed project will not impact children’s programs within the County. The applicant’s requirement to contribute to childcare facilities will still be required as a condition of approval for the subdivision. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CONTINUED the hearing to June 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.  ATTACHMENTS Appeal Letter DP90-3030 COA DP Modification Map Alamo Summit Subdivision Map Zoning Maps Power Point- Alamo Summit May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 21 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 22 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 23 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 24 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 25 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 26 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 27 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 28 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 29 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 30 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 31 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 32 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 33 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 34 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 35 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 36 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 37 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 38 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 39 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 40 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 41 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 42 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 43 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 44 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 45 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 46 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 47 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 48 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 49 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 50 Alamo Summit Single-Family Residence County File Number DP15-3039 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORSTUESDAY, MAY 1, 2018 1 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 51 Chronology 2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 52 Project Elements Lot Merger: Merging of Lots-7, -8, and -9 to create one 12.8-acre lot New Residence: Construction of a new 13,887 sq. ft. residence Roadway Improvement Timing: Modification to Conditions of Approval #25 and #26 of Final Development Plan #DP90-3030 to change the timing for construction of Alamo Summit Road and improvements to Ridgewood Road until after the residence is constructed and development of the remaining lots has begun. 3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 53 4 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 54 Summary of Appeal Points Requesting that the time for improvements be modified, and not for the deletion of any condition of approval A solution for construction traffic through the project site has been offered. Only one single-family residence is being proposed The proposal includes a request to merge three lots, which lessens the overall development impact. 5 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 55 Basis for Staff Recommendation Incorporation of mitigations and the addition of conditions of approval requiring roadway improvements addressed project concerns in a manner that allowed for approval of the Alamo Summit subdivision. The Ridgewood Road improvements are required to mitigate hazards created by the existing roadway conditions and the proposed construction traffic, to a less than significant level. Lessening the scale of the overall development (lot merger) and making as needed repairs during the construction phase does not mitigate or eliminate the roadway hazards identified in the project EIR. 6 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 56 Questions 7 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 57 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2018-06, Ordinance No. 2018-11, and Ordinance No. 2018-12 RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing; 2. DETERMINE that adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-06, Ordinance No. 2018-11, and Ordinance No. 2018-12 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (“General Rule” exemption); 3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-06, regulating the raising and keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts and the keeping of roosters in agricultural zoning districts; 4. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-11, establishing an Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to exclude the raising and keeping of farm animals in specified residential district; 5. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-12, applying the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to specified residential districts in Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen; and 6. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Muraoka, 925-674-7781 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Jami Napier, Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance, and UE Combining District Rezoning Ord. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 58 FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of preparing this ordinance has been funded by the Department of Conservation and Development. BACKGROUND: On September 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors directed the Department of Conservation and Development to study the raising and keeping of small farm animals for non-commercial purposes on small residential lots in unincorporated areas of the County. On May 9, 2017, the Board directed the Department to prepare a countywide amendment of the County Ordinance Code to allow the raising and keeping of certain farm animals including chickens, goats, and honeybees for non-commercial purposes within residential land use districts (the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance). Subsequently, on June 6, 2017, the Board directed the Department to include regulations on the keeping of roosters in agricultural districts in the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. On February 6, 2018, the Board directed the Department to include nucleus honeybee hives in the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, and exclude specific areas of District III, including Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen, from the application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. Current Status The keeping of small farm animals, including fowl, rabbits, and other grain-fed rodents, and up to two head of livestock is allowed on any lot in the R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100 Single-Family Residential Districts. The County Ordinance Code also regulates animal structures and livestock enclosures. Honeybees are not permitted on any residentially zoned lot. On agriculturally- zoned property, all farm animals are permitted with no restriction on the size of the lot or the number of animals. Proposed Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 2018-06 Urban Farm Animals Ordinance: The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would add Chapter 82-50 to the County Ordinance Code to establish regulations for the raising and keeping of farm animals, including fowl, rabbits, grain-fed rodents, honeybees, and livestock, on a lot in any single-family residential (R- ) district or two-family residential (D-1) district, or a single-family residential lot in a planned unit (P-1) district. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would also add Article 84-38.14 to the County Ordinance Code to regulate rooster keeping in agricultural zoning districts. The following summarizes the regulations contained in the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance related to urban farm animal raising and keeping: 1. The minimum area of a lot on which fowl (except for hens), rabbits, or grain-fed rodents may be raised or kept is 20,000 square feet. 2. The maximum number of domesticated female chickens (hens) allowed on a single lot is one hen per 1,000 square feet of lot area. 3. No more than an aggregate total of 20 fowl (including hens), rabbits, and grain-fed rodents may be kept on a single lot. 4. The minimum area of a lot on which an apiary (honeybees) may be kept is 6,000 square feet. 5. The maximum number of beehives allowed on a single lot is determined by lot area, as follows: May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 59 Lot Area Maximum Number of Beehives 6,000 square feet or more, but less than 20,000 square feet 4 20,000 square feet or more, but less than 40,000 square feet 6 40,000 square feet or more 8 6. For each beehive kept on a lot one nucleus hive may also be kept on the lot. A nucleus hive is defined as a small beehive of a few thousand bees with a queen, created from a larger hive, and typically kept in a small box or container. 7. The minimum area of a lot on which livestock may be raised or kept is 40,000 square feet. The lot must be contiguous. 8. The maximum number of livestock on a single lot is two head of livestock per 40,000 square feet of lot area. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance includes specific location and design requirements for animal structures, such as minimum distances from the front, side, and rear property lines, height limits, and honeybee flyway barriers. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would also revise the County Ordinance Code to allow the keeping of up to two roosters on lots of five or more acres in any agricultural district, unless expressly exempted from the limitation (e.g., commercial poultry ranches registered with the California Department of Food and Agriculture and which primarily produce eggs or meat for commercial sale). The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would also authorize the Animal Services Director to enforce the rooster keeping regulations in Title 8 of the County Ordinance Code. B. Ordinance No. 2018-11 Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance: The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance was prepared at the direction of the Board to exclude specific areas of District III from the application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance would add Chapter 84-79 to the County Ordinance Code to establish the UE Combining District. The UE Combining District would apply to single-family residential (R-) districts, single-family residential areas in planned unit (P-1) districts, and two-family residential (D-1) districts, in the communities of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. Keeping or maintaining apiaries would be prohibited in a UE Combining District. Urban farm animal raising and keeping would be prohibited in a UE Combining District, where the underlying zoning district is a R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, or R-15 single-family residential district, or a single-family residential area in a P-1 planned unit district, or a D-1 two-family residential district. The establishment and application of the UE Combining District will leave the communities of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen subject to the existing zoning regulations despite adoption of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. C. Ordinance No. 2018-12 UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance : The UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would apply the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to single-family residential (R-) districts, single-family residential areas in planned unit (P-1) districts, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 60 and two-family residential (D-1) districts in the communities of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. Rezoning maps showing the UE Combining District are included in rezoning Ordinance No. 2018-12 (attached). The UE Combining District is an overlay that applies zoning regulations in addition to those imposed by the underlying zoning designation. In the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District, uses otherwise permitted under the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance are prohibited. County Planning Commission Hearing The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised draft Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, the draft Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District, and Rezoning RZ18-3241 on March 14, 2018. The Commission received oral testimony from one person, who commented on the proliferation of hobbyist beekeeping in the Bay Area and the problems created by bee excrement in areas with large numbers of honeybees. As explained in the staff report considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed Urban Farm Animals Ordinance addresses the impact of bees in urban neighborhoods in Contra Costa County and potential problems that may be created by bee excrement, by requiring a minimum lot area to keep honeybees, apiary registration and identification pursuant to the California Food and Agricultural Code, and a fresh water source at all times, along with setting a maximum height for beehive structures, minimum distances from property lines, and requiring flyway barriers for distances of less than 25 feet from any property line. At the conclusion of testimony on March 14, 2018, the County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board approve the proposed ordinances and rezoning. Consistency with General Plan A. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance implements General Plan goals and policies such as the following: • Land Use Goal 3-A: To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County's quality of life. In such an environment, all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage. • Land Use Goal 3-C: To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would not adversely affect the physical character and quality of life in single-family and two-family residential districts. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would assist in the implementation of land use goals and policies for single-family and two-family residential areas by providing for the raising and keeping of urban farm animals on single-family and two-family residential lots, but would not otherwise affect the single-family and two-family residential areas. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would facilitate the maintenance of the physical character and quality of life in agricultural districts. The limitation on the number of roosters on lots in agricultural districts and regulations for rooster keeping on such lots would allow Animal Services staff to control rooster fighting in the County, but would not affect agricultural activities. B. County Code Section 26-2.1806(1): The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance and the UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would exclude specific areas of District III from the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 61 application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. Under the rezoning, keeping or maintaining an apiary would not be allowed in any residential area of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen, and farm animal raising and keeping would not be allowed in the R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, and R-15 single-family residential districts, or in a P-1 planned unit district for which single-family residential uses are approved, or in a D-1 two-family residential district in these residential areas. However, the areas to be rezoned would remain subject to and consistent with existing General Plan goals and policies, and thereby, would substantially comply with the General Plan. C. Growth Management Performance Standards. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance, and UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would also be consistent with the Growth Management Performance Standards. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would allow for the raising and keeping of farm animals on residential parcels and restrict the number of roosters on agricultural parcels, but it would not alter the underlying use of the parcels, or substantially increase the intensity of use of the parcels, or increase the number of persons on the parcels. Thus, the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would not create any significant impact on traffic, water, sewage, fire protection, public protection, parks and recreation or flood control and drainage. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance and the UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would exclude specified properties from the application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, and therefore, no change would occur on the subject properties and there would be no effect on traffic, water, sewage, fire protection, public protection, parks and recreation, or flood control and drainage. Consistency with Zoning A. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would expand allowable uses on lots in single-family residential districts (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100 Districts), on single-family residential lots in a planned unit (P-1) district, and on lots in a two-family residential (D-1) district. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would also establish standards for animal structures and livestock enclosures. The proposed Ordinance would not conflict in any manner with applicable zoning regulations. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would reduce the number of code enforcement actions for unpermitted uses by making the raising and keeping of urban farm animals a permitted use. The zoning aspects of these uses (e.g., number of animals, animal structure setbacks) would be regulated by the provisions of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance and Title 8 of the County Code. Animal noise and animal odors would continue to be addressed by existing regulations in Title 4 of the County Code. With respect to rooster keeping, the limitation on the number of roosters that can be kept on a lot in an agricultural district would allow for the control of rooster fighting, but would not otherwise affect agricultural activities. B. County Code Section 26-2.1806(2): The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district is compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance and UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would exclude specific areas of District III from the application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance. The rezoned areas would remain subject to the existing regulations of the underlying zoning district, and therefore, would remain consistent with existing zoning regulations. Further, the residential areas of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen are adjacent to large areas in agricultural zoning districts. Application of the UE Combining District to these residential areas would maintain the current relationship of the residential areas to the adjacent agricultural areas. Thus, the authorized uses in areas to be rezoned and the regulation of these uses May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 62 agricultural areas. Thus, the authorized uses in areas to be rezoned and the regulation of these uses would remain compatible with the uses and regulations of the underlying zoning district and the uses and regulations of adjacent zoning districts. C. County Code Section 26-2.1806(3): Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. A distinguishing characteristic of District III is that the unincorporated residential communities in the District, including Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen, are relatively small communities adjacent to large areas of agricultural land, where farm animal raising and keeping is a prevalent land use activity. Accordingly, the residential communities are distinctly urban locations in a predominantly agricultural setting. Application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance in the residential areas of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen would weaken existing distinctions between urban and rural areas by allowing farm animal raising and keeping in the urban areas in a manner similar to the adjacent rural areas. Thus, there is a community need for the rezoning, because the proposed rezoning of these residential areas to the UE Combining District would maintain the existing separation of urban and rural activities and the distinct urban character of the communities. California Environmental Quality Act Adoption of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance, and UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would authorize only minor alterations to land and new construction or conversion of small structures. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance and UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would not result in any change to existing land use regulations and would result in no physical change. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project could have a significant effect on the environment. Conclusion and Recommendation The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance allows for the raising and keeping of urban farm animals on single-family and two-family residential lots and regulates the keeping of roosters on agricultural lots, in a manner consistent with the overall physical character and quality of life in the County. The Urban Farm Animals Ordinance would provide clear parameters for the raising and keeping of urban farm animals and for rooster keeping, to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District Ordinance and the UE Combining District Rezoning Ordinance would exclude certain areas of District III, including residential areas of Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen, from the application of the Urban Farm Animals Ordinance, and would maintain the existing separation of urban and rural activities and the distinct urban character of these communities. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt Ordinance No. 2018-06, Ordinance No. 2018-11, and Ordinance No. 2018-12. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will continue to allow the keeping of urban farm animals, but not including honeybees, on lots in the R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100 Single-Family Residential Districts. Property owners in the R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, D-1, and P-1 districts will not be allowed to keep urban farm animals. The keeping of honeybees would not be permitted on any residentially-zoned lot. The number of roosters allowed on an agriculturally-zoned property would not be restricted. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Mike Vigo, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association; Paula McCauley, 4-H; Norman Lott, Mt. Diablo May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 63 Mike Vigo, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association; Paula McCauley, 4-H; Norman Lott, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association; Jan pinkerton Spieth, Mt. Diablo Beekeepers Association. CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED that adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-06, Ordinance No. 2018-11, and Ordinance No. 2018-12 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-06, regulating the raising and keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts and the keeping of roosters in agricultural zoning districts; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-11, establishing an Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to exclude the raising and keeping of farm animals in specified residential district; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2018-12, applying the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District to specified residential districts in Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2018-06 Ordinance No. 2018-11 Ordinance No. 2018-12 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2018-06 Signed Ordinance No. 2018-11 Signed Ordinance 2018-12 Correspondence Received May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 64 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 URBAN FARM ANIMALS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 82-50 to the County Ordinance Code to regulate the raising and keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts. This ordinance also amends the County Ordinance Code to regulate the keeping of roosters in agricultural zoning districts. SECTION II. Chapter 82-50 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Chapter 82-50 URBAN FARM ANIMALS Article 82-50.2 General 82-50.202 Purpose. The primary purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for the raising and keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts. The provisions of this chapter do not apply in any agricultural zoning district. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). 82-50.204 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a) “Apiary” has the meaning set forth in Food and Agricultural Code section 29002. (b) “Bird enclosure” means one or more coops, cotes, pens, cages, or other similar enclosures, used to house one or more birds, including pigeons, but not including poultry, fowl, roosters, peacocks, or guinea fowl. (c) “Farm animals” means one or more fowl, rabbits, grain-fed rodents, bees, or livestock. (d) “Fowl” means one or more domesticated chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, or similar birds customarily kept for eggs or meat. “Fowl” does not include roosters, peacocks, or guinea fowl. (e) “Nucleus hive” means a small beehive of a few thousand bees with a queen, created from a larger hive, and typically kept in a small box or container. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 1 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 65 (f) “Urban farm animal raising and keeping” means the raising or keeping of farm animals in residential zoning districts for non-commercial purposes. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). Article 82-50.4 Urban Farm Animal Raising and Keeping 82-50.402 Location requirements. Urban farm animal raising and keeping is allowed on any lot in a single-family residential district (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100), a planned unit (P-1) district for which single-family residential uses are approved, or a two- family residential (D-1) district. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). 82-50.404 Standards - Small animals. (a) The minimum area of a lot on which fowl (except for hens), rabbits, or grain-fed rodents may be raised or kept is 20,000 square feet. (b) The maximum number of domesticated female chickens (hens) allowed on a single lot is one hen per 1,000 square feet of lot area. (c) No more than an aggregate total of 20 fowl (including hens), rabbits, and grain-fed rodents may be kept on a single lot. (d) The maximum height of a chicken coop, rabbit hutch, or similar accessory structure for the housing of small animals is 12 feet. (e) Chicken coops, rabbit hutches, and similar accessory structures for the housing of small animals must be set back from property lines by the following distances: Average Lot Width Minimum Distance From Front Property Line Side Property Line Rear Property Line Less than 80 feet 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 80 feet or more, but less than 120 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet 120 feet or more 60 feet 40 feet 40 feet (f) Bird enclosures are governed by Article 82-50.6. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). 82-50.406 Standards - Apiaries. (a) The minimum area of a lot on which an apiary may be kept is 6,000 square feet. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 66 (b) The maximum number of beehives allowed on a single lot, excluding nucleus hives, is determined by lot area, as follows: Lot Area Maximum Number of Beehives 6,000 square feet or more, but less than 20,000 square feet 4 20,000 square feet or more, but less than 40,000 square feet 6 40,000 square feet or more 8 (c) For each beehive kept on a lot in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, one nucleus hive may also be kept on the lot. (d) An apiary must be registered and identified in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of Division 13 of the Food and Agricultural Code. (e) A fresh water source for bees must be provided at all times on a lot on which an apiary is located. (f) The maximum height of an accessory structure for the housing of beehives is 12 feet. (g) Accessory structures for the housing of beehives must be set back from property lines by the following distances: Average Lot Width Minimum Distance From Front Property Line Side Property Line Rear Property Line Less than 80 feet 50 feet 15 feet 15 feet 80 feet or more, but less than 120 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet 120 feet or more 60 feet 40 feet 40 feet (h) If an accessory structure for the housing of beehives is located less than 25 feet from any property line, the structure must be enclosed by a six-foot tall solid barrier located 10 feet or less from the structure in all directions. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). 82-50.408 Standards - Livestock. (a) The minimum area of a lot on which livestock may be raised or kept is 40,000 square feet. The lot must be contiguous. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 67 (b) The maximum number of livestock on a single lot is two head of livestock per 40,000 square feet of lot area. (c) Barns, stables, and other buildings or structures used to shelter livestock must be set back at least 100 feet from the front property line and all streets, and must be set back at least 50 feet from all side and rear property lines. Fenced pasture, paddocks, or other enclosed livestock areas must be located at least 10 feet from all property lines. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). Article 82-50.6 Bird Enclosures 82-50.602 Location requirements. A bird enclosure is allowed on any lot in a single-family residential district (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100), a planned unit (P- 1) district for which single-family residential uses are approved, or a two-family residential (D-1) district. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). 82-50.604 Standards. (a) The maximum size of a bird enclosure is one square foot per 50 square feet of lot area. A bird enclosure may not exceed 1,600 square feet. (b) The maximum height of a bird enclosure is 12 feet. (c) A bird enclosure must be set back at least 25 feet from the front property line and all streets, and must be set back at least 10 feet from all side and rear property lines. (d) A bird enclosure must be maintained in a sanitary manner as determined by the county health department. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). Article 82-50.8 Variance Permits 82-50.802 Variance permit - Granting. Variance permits to modify the height or setback provisions in Article 82-50.4 and Article 82-50.6 may be granted in accordance with Chapter 26- 2. (Ord. 2018-06 § 2). SECTION III. Section 82-4.238 of the County Ordinance Code is deleted in its entirety. SECTION IV. Section 84-4.402 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-4.402 Uses–Permitted. The following uses are allowed in an R-6 district: ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 4 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 68 (1) A detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it; (2) Crop and tree farming; (3) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; (4) A residential care facility for the elderly, operated by a person with all required state and local agency approvals or licenses, where no more than six persons reside or receive care, not including the licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff; (5) A family day care home where care, protection and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the provider's own home are provided for periods of less than twenty- four hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away; (6) Bird enclosures in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 82-50. (7) Accessory dwelling units complying with the provisions of Chapter 82-24. (8) Urban farm animal raising and keeping in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 82-50. (Ords. 2018-06 § 4, 2003-17 § 4, 86-43 § 2, 78-83 § 1, 77-51 § 2, 68-25 § 2: prior code § 8142(a): Ords. 1269 § 1, 1179 § 3, 1039, 1028, 382 § 4A). SECTION V. Section 84-14.402 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-14.402 Uses–Allowed. The following uses are allowed in the R-20 district: (1) A detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it; (2) Crop and tree farming, and horticulture; (3) A temporary stand for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises, with two and one-half acres per stand, set back at least thirty-five feet from the front property line, and operated not more than three months in any calendar year; (4) Urban farm animal raising and keeping in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 82-50; (5) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; (6) A residential care facility for the elderly, operated by a person with all required state and local agency approvals or licenses, where not more than six persons ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 5 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 69 reside or receive care, not including the licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff; (7) A family day care home where care, protection, and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the provider's own home are provided for periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away; (8) Bird enclosures in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 82-50; (9) Accessory dwelling units complying with the provisions of Chapter 82-24. (Ords. 2018-06 § 5, 2017-11 § 4, 86-43 § 4, 78-83 § 2, 77-51 § 8, 68-25 § 2, 2033, 2032, 1768 § 2: prior code § 8146(a): Ords. 1269, 1179 § 8, 382 § 4V). SECTION VI. Section 84-14.404 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-14.404 Uses–Requiring land use permit. In the R-20 district the following uses are permitted on the issuance of a land use permit: (1) Same as in the R-6 district (Section 84-4.404) except for the deletion of “Greenhouses, over three hundred square feet”; (2) Horse riding academies and horse riding instruction, provided that the standards in Section 82-50.408 are complied with. (Ords. 2018-06 § 6, 86-43 § 5, 1768, 1569: prior code § 8146(b): Ord. 1269: Ord. 1179). SECTION VII. Article 84-14.14 of the County Ordinance Code is deleted in its entirety. SECTION VIII. Section 84-14.1602 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-14.1602 Land use and variance permit - Granting. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section 84-14.404, and variance permits to modify the provisions in Sections 84- 14.402(7) and 84-14.602 through 84-14.1202, may be granted in accordance with Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 2018-06 § 8, 77-51 § 9, 1768 § 4: prior code § 8146(l): Ords. 1179 § 8 [382 § 4V]). SECTION IX. Article 84-16.14 of the County Ordinance Code is deleted in its entirety. SECTION X. Section 84-16.1602 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-16.1602 Land use and variance permit - Granting. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section 84-16.404, and variance permits to modify the provisions in Sections 84- 14.402(7) and 84-16.602 through 84-16.1202, may be granted in accordance with Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 2018-06 § 10, 77-51 § 10, 1768 § 4: prior code § 8148(l): Ords. 1179 § 9, 420 § 6 [382 § 46]). ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 6 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 70 SECTION XI. Section 84-18.404 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-18.404 Uses–Requiring land use permit. In the R-65 district the following uses are permitted after the issuance of a land use permit: (1) All the uses designated for the R-6 district in Section 84-4.404 except for the deletion of: (A) Greenhouses, over three hundred square feet; (B) Hospitals, eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions and convalescent homes; (2) Horse riding academies and horse riding instruction, provided that the standards in Section 82-50.408 are complied with. (Ords. 2018-06 § 11, 1768, 1569: prior code § 8148.5(b): Ord. 1405). SECTION XII. Article 84-18.14 of the County Ordinance Code is deleted in its entirety. SECTION XIII. Section 84-18.1602 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-18.1602 Land use and variance permit - Granting. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section 84-18.404, and variance permits to modify the provisions in Sections 84- 14.402(7) and 84-18.602 through 84-18.1202, may be granted in accordance with Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 2018-06 § 13, 77-51 § 11, 1768 § 4: prior code § 8148.5(l): Ord. 1405). SECTION XIV. Article 84-20.14 of the County Ordinance Code is deleted in its entirety. SECTION XV. Section 84-20.1602 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 84-20.1602 Land use and variance permit - Granting. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section 84-20.404, and variance permits to modify the provisions in Sections 84- 14.402(7) and 84-20.602 through 84-20.1202, may be granted in accordance with Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. (Ords. 2018-06 § 15, 77-51 § 12, 1768 § 4, 1549: prior code § 8148.7(l)). SECTION XVI. Section 82-4.320 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: 82-4.320 Poultry. “Poultry” means one or more domesticated birds or roosters customarily kept for the production of eggs or meat for commercial use. (Ord. 2018-06 § 16). SECTION XVII. Section 82-4.322 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: 82-4.322 Rooster. “Rooster” means any male chicken that: (1) is six months or older, (2) has ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 7 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 71 full adult plumage, or (3) is capable of crowing. (Ord. 2018-06 § 17). SECTION XVIII. Article 84-38.14 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Article 84-38.14 Rooster Keeping 84-38.1402 Standards. (a) The minimum lot size on which to keep a rooster is five acres. (b) No person may keep, maintain, or harbor more than two roosters on a lot except as part of, or in connection with, any of the following: (1) Commercial poultry ranches registered with the California Department of Food and Agriculture and which primarily produce eggs or meat for commercial sale. (2) Public or private schools registered with the California Department of Education. (3) Projects sponsored by Future Farmers of America or other similar programs focused on youth agricultural education. (4) Legitimate poultry hobbyists as approved in writing by the animal services director. (c) In addition to any other remedy allowed by this code or applicable law, the animal services director may issue an administrative penalty under Article 416-4.8 to any responsible person for a violation of this article. (Ord. 2018-06 § 18). SECTION XIX. Article 84-40.14 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Article 84-40.14 Rooster Keeping 84-40.1402 Standards. Rooster keeping standards for the A-3 district shall be the same as those for the A-2 district (Section 84-38.1402). (Ord. 2018-06 § 19). SECTION XX. Article 84-42.16 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Article 84-42.16 Rooster Keeping 84-42.1602 Standards. Rooster keeping standards for the A-4 district shall be the same as those for the A-2 district (Section 84-38.1402). (Ord. 2018-06 § 20). ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 8 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 72 SECTION XXI. Article 84-80.14 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Article 84-80.14 Rooster Keeping 84-80.1402 Standards. Rooster keeping standards for the A-20 district shall be the same as those for the A-2 district (Section 84-38.1402). (Ord. 2018-06 § 21). SECTION XXII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2018\DCD\Ordinance No. 2018-06 Urban Farm Animals.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2018-06 9 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 73 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-11 URBAN FARM ANIMAL EXCLUSION COMBINING DISTRICT The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 84-79 to the County Ordinance Code to establish the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion (-UE) Combining District. The ordinance prohibits urban farm animal raising and keeping in specified residential zoning districts in Bethel Island, Byron, Diablo, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. SECTION II. Chapter 84-79 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Chapter 84-79 URBAN FARM ANIMAL EXCLUSION (-UE) COMBINING DISTRICT Article 84-79.2 General 84-79.202 Urban farm animal exclusion (-UE) combining district. All land within a land use district combined with an urban farm animal exclusion (-UE) combining district is subject to the additional regulations set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). 84-79.204 Applicability. The -UE district applies to all property in any of the following zoning districts located in the following communities: (a) Zoning districts. (1) Single-family residential districts (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100). (2) Planned unit (P-1) districts for which single-family residential uses are approved. (3) Two-family residential (D-1) districts. (b) Communities. (1) Bethel Island. (2) Byron. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-11 1 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 74 (3) Diablo. (4) Discovery Bay. (5) Knightsen. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). 84-79.206 Priority. If there is any conflict between the regulations of this chapter and those of the underlying zoning district, the requirements of this chapter govern. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). 84-79.208 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a) “Apiary” has the meaning set forth in Section 82-50.204. (b) “Urban farm animal raising and keeping” has the meaning set forth in Section 82-50.204. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). Article 84-79.4 Uses 84-79.402 Permitted uses. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 84-79.404, all uses authorized in the underlying zoning district are permitted in a -UE district. (b) Urban farm animal raising and keeping is permitted in a -UE district where the underlying zoning district is a single-family residential district with an R-20, R-40, R-65, or R-100 designation. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). 84-79.404 Prohibited uses. (a) Keeping or maintaining an apiary is prohibited in a -UE district. (b) Urban farm animal raising and keeping is prohibited in a -UE district where the underlying zoning district is a listed single-family residential district (R-6, R-7, R-10, R- 12, R-15), a planned unit (P-1) district for which single-family residential uses are approved, or a two-family residential (D-1) district. (Ord. 2018-11 § 2). SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-11 2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 75 PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2018\DCD\Ordinance No. 2018-11 Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2018-11 3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 76 ORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it inthe __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Burgis ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )5. F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: David Twa, County Administratorand Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chairman of the BoardBy__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district 2018 - 12 East County E-26, F-27, F-28, G-28, H-28, J-26, M-28m, M-28, M-29, N-28, N-29, P-27,P-28, P-29, Q-27, Q-28m, R-17, S-17 RZ18-3241 2018 - 12 Page 1 of 13 New ZoningThe Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Pages ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amendedby re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District TO: Land Use District and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. D-1R-6, R-10, R-20, R-40R-6 -FH, R-40 -FHP-1P-1 -FH (Two Family Residential) (Single Family Residential -Flood Hazard Combining District)(Single Family Residential) (Planned Unit)(Planned Unit -Flood Hazard Combining District) (Single Family Residential -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District)R-6 -UE, R-10 -UE, R-20 -UE, R-40 -UE (Single Family Residential -Flood Hazard Combining District -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District)}R-6 -FH -UE,R-40 -FH -UE (Planned Unit -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District)P-1 -UE P-1 -FH -UE (Planned Unit -Flood Hazard Combining District -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) (Two Family Residential -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District)D-1 -UE } May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 77 F-R R-20 A-2 R-40 P-1 R-15 R-20 R-20 R-20 P-1 A-2 Town of Danville Town of Danville Diablo Rd Alameda Di a b l o Calle Arroyo Mount Diablo Scenic Blvd Valle Vista Dr C am eo Dr Club House Rd C a sa Nu e s tra Pla za Cir La Cadena Fallbro o k D r Fairway Dr C a lle L o s Collados Via Cim a C t El Cen tro Di a b lo Ranch Ct El Nido Ct Creekledge Canada Via Bella Vista Ct Bla c k h a w k R d Caballo Ranchero Ct Calle del Casarillo Diablo Ranch Pl El N ido P l Palma Vis Ranchitosdel Sol Reisewitz RdVerda del Ciervo Avenida Nueva Diablo R d Sout h G a t e R d El Nid o Caballo R a n c h e r o D r Alameda Diablo CtORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district 2018 - 12 Page 2 of 13Pages R-17 and S-17 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 78 A-2 A-3 A-40 R-40 R-6 T-1 R-10 C A-4 C - X R-B A- 2 - X D-1 A-40 A-2 A-40 R-40 R-10 R-6 R-6 R-6 R-6 C R-B R-B R-B A- 2 - X A-2 A-2 A-2 B y r o n H w y Camino Diablo Byer Rd Camino Diablo Holway Dr M a i n S t Coletas Way Hosie Ave Solara Ct Hannum Dr Bixler Rd 1st St Rancho Diablo Rd Santana Dr MC Cabe RdTownAve Byron Hwy W a s h i n g t o n S t ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district 2018 - 12 Page 3 of 13Pages Q-27 and Q-28m of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 79 P-1 A-40 A-2 A-3 A-3 -BS F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 ÄÅ4 State Highway 4 Newport Dr Bixler Rd Clipper Dr Cove Ln Fertado Ln W indwa rd P t Sailboat Dr Regatta Dr Marsh Creek Rd C y p r e s s P t Beacon Pl Dolphin Pl Sand Point Rd Reef Ct Ellisa Ln Lig h t h o u se Pl Seal W a y Pier Pt Newp ort L n Yac h t Dr Foghorn Way Dune Point Way Surfside Ct Newport Ct Surfside Pl Catalina Way Bolinas Pl Valley Oak Dr Riverlake Rd Driftwood Ct Monterey Ct Driftwo o d Pl Sand Po in t C t N Anchor Ct Porthole Dr Capstan Pl Galley Ct Catamaran Ct Ba lboa WayS Coral Ct W i n d w a r d C t Goleta Pl Santa Cruz Ct Ven ice C t ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 4 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages N-28, P-27 and P-28 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 80 P-1 A-3 F-1 A-3 -BS P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 F-1 ÄÅ4 Cherry Hills Dr Clipper Dr Cove Ln Discovery Bay Blvd Clubh o u s e D r Edgeview Dr M a rin a R d Riverlake Rd Sand Point Rd Seal Way C y p r e s s P t W illo w Lake Rd Dolphin Pl Marlin Dr Prestwick Dr Saint A n d re w s D r Wayfarer Dr Firwood Ct Reef Ct Channel Dr Wayfarer Ct Spinnaker Way Cove Ct Ha rb o r D r Dune Point Way Surfside Ct Cove Pl Pi n e hur st Ct Edgeview Ct Anchorage Way Surfside Pl S ai nt Andrews Ct Colonial Ct Windward Pt Oakmont Ct Driftwood Ct Monterey Ct Driftwo o d Pl Y a w l S t Sand P o in t C t Sail Ct Em eral d Ct Montauk Ct Augusta Ct F airway Ct Berwick Ct L a n a i C t S u n s e t Pt Trawle r S t Gree n field Way Biscay Ct Ba lboa Way Hampton Ct Marlin Ct Schoon er Loop Bodega Ct Troon Ct San Simeon Ct Santa Cruz Ct Ven ice C t State Highway 4 ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 5 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages N-28, N-29, P-28 and P-29 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 81 P-1 F-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 M-12 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 M-12 F-1 F-1 F-1 F-1 Wi l low Lake Rd B e a v e r LnDiscovery Bay BlvdMarlin D rDrakes DrCabrillo P t Riverlake Rd Starboard DrDiscovery Pt Shell CtNorth P t Point of Timber Rd Beaver C tSou th PtStarfis h Pl Beach CtSta r f i s h C t Drakes Ct R i v e r Pt Laguna CtLido Cir Surfside PlSail CtDouble Point WayMarl in P l S u n f i s h C tSalmon C tMarina C ir Marlin Ct Starboard Ct ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 6 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages M-28, M-29, N-28 and N-29 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 82 P-1 A-40 A-2 F-1 A-3 M-12 A-4 M-12 F-1 F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 A-3 A-3 P-1 F-1 Bixler Rd Point of Timber Rd Newport Dr Cabrillo P t Slifer Dr W ilde Dr Lakeshore Cir Discove ry P t R iv e rla k e Rd Frost Way North P t Aberdeen Ln Newberry Ln So u th Pt Poe Dr Discovery Bay Blvd Berkshire Ln Cambridge Dr Winchester Loop Cullen Dr Newport L n Crescent W a y Cumberland Way Emerson Ct Hampshire D r Surfside Pl Double Point Way Amesbury Ct Lido C ir Bronte Dr Heron Dr K e y s t o ne Loop Otter B r o o k Loop Superior Way Coleridge Way Yosemite Way C a s t l e R o ck Loop Bridgepo rt Loop W ilde Ct Marina Cir Loo k o u t Poi n t Loop Preston Dr Stirling Ct Worthing Way Whitman Ct Sheffield Ct Tennyson Ct Seuss Ct ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 7 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages M-28 and N-28 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 83 P-1 A-40 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-2 A-3 Bixler RdS Lakef ront Loop Balfour Rd N Lakefront Loop Fallman Blvd Harbor Haven Way Arcadia C i r Wes tport Cir Seneca Cir Gol d C r e e k Cir Key West Way Pinehollow Cir Ou t r i g g e r W a y B a y Har bor Way Fern R i d ge Cir Brookhaven C ir Yellowston e C ir Alm a n o r D r New Melo nes Cir Heron Dr Merritt Ct Livingston Ct Green C a stle Cir Shearwater Cir Freeport Ct Monticello Way Boca Raton Way Crystal Spr i ngs Cir Tahoe Ct Pyramid Way O ro ville Ct Pescadero Cir Rainbow Ct D a ve np ort Cir Mystic Ct Natoma Ct Pardee CtORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 8 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages M-28m and M-28 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 84 A-2 C -X R-10 R-B R-6 A-2 -X C A-2 A-2 - X Delta Rd K n i g h t s e n A v e 2nd St A St Ghigliazza Way Curlew Connex First St Vine Rd ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 9 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Page J-26 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 85 A-2 A-3 F-1 P-1 R-6 A-2 A-2 A-3 A-3 City of Oakley Sandmound BlvdE Cypres s R d Talaria Dr S u m m er L a k e Dr Summe r L a k es DrManres a S h ore Ln C l e a r L a k e D r E a stp ort DrPark Place DrL a k e P a r k D r Kin e o Ct Sonnett Ct P o p l a r C t Pa t h f i n d e r C t L a k e P a r k C t Harb o r a g e W ayLeeward RdP e y t o n D r Lake w o o d D rHarborage Ct Painted S h o r e C t Danvers Ct R o c k Isl a n d Cir Cl e a r L a k e C tBlue Lake Ct ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 10 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Page H-28 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 86 P-1 -FH A-2 -FH F-1 F-1 -FH A-3 -FH R-B T-1-FH A-2 P-1 R-B-FH R-40-FH A-3 M-12 F-R -FH M-12-FH F-1 -FH T-1-FH F-1-FH R-40-FH R-B-FHF-1 R-B-FH R-B-FH R-B-FH A-2-FH A-2-FH P-1 -FH A-2 -FH A-2 -FH A-2 -FH Gateway Rd Stone Rd Delta Coves Dr Bethel Island Rd Piper Rd Wells Rd Dutch Slough Rd Point Pl Golf Course Rd Sea Drift Dr Fairway Dr Sugar Barge Rd S e a gate Pl Bomba rd ie r Ln Isle Pl Channel Pl Ranch Ln Halcyo n Pl Wat e rside Pl Shoreline P l Sl ou g h Pl N a v ig a to r s P l Sandy Ln Wes t Wind Pl S e a M eadow Ct Edgewater Ct Park Ln Delta Coves Dr Mo r r i son Ra nc h D r Riverview Pl Windsweep Rd Windsweep R d F-1 -FH ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 11 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Pages F-27, F-28 and G-28 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 87 A-3 F-1 A-2 -FH F-1 -FH R-B -FH R-6-FH Taylor Rd Taylor Pl T a y l o r R d ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 12 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Page E-26 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 88 T-20T-19T-18 J-18J-17 J-25 J-27 J-28 L-23L-18L-17 F-21F-18F-17 L-24 L-26 L-27 F-24 P-23P-22P-21P-20 S-18 E-18E-17 P-24 P-25 P-26 E-28E-27 N-23N-20 H-21H-20 K-18 H-19H-18H-17 D-17 D-18 N-24 N-25 N-26 N-27 K-25 K-26 K-27 H-26 H-27 Q-20Q-17 G-17 G-18 G-19 G-21 G-22 Q-24 Q-25 Q-26 G-25 G-26 G-27 M-23M-19M-18M-17 M-24 M-25 M-26 M-27 F-16 L-16 E-16 S-16 D-16 N-16 R-16 Q-16 U-18 U-19 U-20 M-16 C-16 T22m T25m T28m M19m T19m F28m J28m F25m Q16m F19m J19m Q19m M22m Q22m W22m W25m W28m C28mC25mC19m T16m Q22m Q19m Q19m W19m J-26 F-28F-27 S-17 P-27 P-28 P-29 E-26 R-17 N-28 N-29 H-28 Q-27 G-28 M-28 M-29 Q-28m M-28m Danville Antioch Pittsburg Oakley Clayton Concord Brentwood BethelIsland DiscoveryBay Byron Knightsen Diablo ORDINANCE NO._____________ 2018 - 12 Page 13 of 13RZ18-3241 - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion combining district Index of the County's 2005 Zoning Map Communites excluded from Farm Animal OrdinanceMap Pages Amended May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 89 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 90 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 91 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 92 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 93 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 94 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 95 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 96 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 97 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 98 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 99 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 100 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 101 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 102 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 103 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 104 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 105 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 106 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 107 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 108 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 109 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 110 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 111 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 112 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 113 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 114 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 115 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 116 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 117 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 118 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 119 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 120 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 121 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 122 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER options for Board of Supervisors representation (Seat 1) on the Countywide Redevelopment Successor Oversight Board. FISCAL IMPACT: The Countywide Oversight Board has no direct impact on the General Fund. Members of the Oversight Board do not receive compensation. BACKGROUND: The California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill x1 26 to dissolve redevelopment agencies formed under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.); and on February 1, 2012, the redevelopment agencies in 17 jurisdictions in Contra Costa County were dissolved. Each of these jurisdictions declared that they would act as successor agency for their dissolved Redevelopment Agencies. Oversight Boards for each of these 17 Successor Agencies were established in accordance with the Dissolution Act. Beginning July 1, 2018, there will be only one oversight board in Contra Costa County. The purpose of this County Oversight Board is to oversee all redevelopment successor agencies in the County. This new APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Maureen Toms (925) 674-7878 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: CAO, DCD D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:OPTIONS FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNTYWIDE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCCESSOR AGENCY OVERSIGHT BOARD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 123 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) oversight board will be staffed by the County Auditor-Controller with assistance from the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation (DCD). The Countywide oversight board is appointed as follows: (1) One member may be appointed by the county board of supervisors. (2) One member may be appointed by the city selection committee established pursuant to Section 50270 of the Government Code. In a city and county, the mayor may appoint one member. (3) One member may be appointed by the independent special district selection committee established pursuant to Section 56332 of the Government Code, for the types of special districts that are eligible to receive property tax revenues pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34188. (4) One member may be appointed by the county superintendent of education to represent schools if the superintendent is elected. If the county superintendent of education is appointed, then the appointment made pursuant to this paragraph shall be made by the county board of education. (5) One member may be appointed by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to represent community college districts in the county. (6) One member of the public may be appointed by the county board of supervisors. (7) One member may be appointed by the recognized employee organization representing the largest number of successor agency employees in the county. If any Oversight Board member positions have not been filled by July 15, 2018, the Governor may appoint people to those positions. Below is the current status of the Oversight Board composition: Seat To Represent:Primary Alternate (if any) 1 Board of Supervisors TBD 2 Mayor's Conference Peter Murray Laura Hoffmeister 3 Special Districts TBD 4 Superintendent of Schools TBD 5 Community College Districts Vicki Gordon 6 County Public Member (BOS)Jack Weir William Swenson 7 Employee Representative TBD Before July 15, the Board of Supervisors should make the appointment for Seat 1 on the oversight board. The statute does not define the seat term. The Board's general policy has been to establish seat terms at four years when no other term has been specified. However, Board of Supervisors member appointments are, in some cases, considered for reassignment annually. Therefore, a seat term of up to four years, at the Board's discretion, would be appropriate. To fill Seat 1, the Board may consider appointing: A member of the Board of Supervisors Another county elected official who resides or works in Contra Costa County and is willing to serve A County staffperson A member of the public who resides in Contra Costa Costa The duties of the Countywide Redevelopment Successor Oversight Board are summarized briefly below: May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 124 Approve new repayment terms for outstanding loans where the terms have not been specified Approve refunding of outstanding bonds or other debt of the former redevelopment agency by successor agencies in order to provide for savings or to finance debt service spikes Approve creation of reserves as required by indentures, trust indentures, or similar documents governing the issuance of outstanding redevelopment agency bonds Approve merger of project areas Continuing the acceptance of federal or state grants, or other forms of financial assistance from either public or private sources, where assistance is conditioned upon the provision of matching funds, by the successor entity as successor to the former redevelopment agency, in an amount greater than 5 percent Approve compensation agreements between entities that wish to retain assets for future use, and the other taxing entities, to provide payments to them in proportion to their shares of the base property tax Approve establishment of the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule or "ROPS" Oversee successor agencies' actions to wind down their affairs CLERK'S ADDENDUM The Board appointed Supervisor Glover to Seat 1 on the Countywide Redevelopment Oversight Board. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 125 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, AUTHORIZE staff to pursue funding opportunities for implementation. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. A Contra Costa Transportation Authority – Transportation for Livable Communities (Measure J) grant and Subregional Transportation Needs (Measure J) funds funded development of the Plan. Staff time for recommended activities is covered under existing budgets (50% Road Fund and 50% Measure J Fund). BACKGROUND: On 4/9/18, staff provided an update to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) with a recommendation that the Committee provide comment and direct staff as appropriate including 1) bringing the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to the full Board of Supervisors for approval, and 2) pursue funding opportunities for implementation, as directed by the Committee. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jamar Stamps (925) 674-7832 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Monish Sen, PWD, Jerry Fahy, PWD D.6 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 126 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On 12/7/15, staff provided an update to the TWIC indicating additional analysis was required to complete the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan. Estimated cost of additional work was $20,705, eventually funded by Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs funds. Project Area The approximately ½-mile study segment (Exhibit A) encompasses Treat Boulevard from the North Main Street intersection (City of Walnut Creek), through the I-680 over-crossing and Contra Costa Centre BART Station Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”), to the Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail Bridge (County). Background The Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (“Plan” or “Study”) was undertaken to address challenges and barriers to bicycling and walking within the ½- mile Study segment by developing concepts that emphasize a better safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) Measure J – Transportation for Livable Communities Grant program (2014) and Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs (2017) funded the Study. Study development was in collaboration with the City of Walnut Creek, with participation from interested agencies like Caltrans, CCTA, TRANSPAC and transit service providers. Alta + Planning & Design (“consultant”), with assistance from sub-consultant DKS Associates, developed technical work for the Plan. County staff and the consultant team also gained valuable public input through multiple meetings and community workshops held between 2014 and 2017. Overall, six Corridor Concepts (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4A) and five focused-analysis Off-Ramp Alternatives (A, B, C, D, E) were considered. The “Preferred Project” is Corridor Concept 4A combined with Off-Ramp Alternative C (i.e. “Concept 4A/Alternative C”). Summary: Preferred Project Analysis (Concept 4A/Alternative C) -Preferred Project design based on agency staff and public input and technical analysis. -Provides better multi-modal balance while maintaining optimum corridor performance, minimizes pedestrian discomfort, and avoids Caltrans design exceptions. -Includes geometric modifications to the Oak Road and I-680 Off-Ramp intersections to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Tables 1, 2 and 3 (Exhibit B) show traffic data from key locations along the Study Corridor in “existing” and “future” year scenarios. These locations would undertake the most dramatic improvements under the Preferred Project. Though comment was received during the process that removal of lanes could cause congestion impacts or shift a bottleneck, the analysis shows each key location performs optimally under the Preferred Project. Currently, Treat Boulevard from Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road is four lanes. After Jones Road, through-traffic lanes reduce from four to three. This creates congestion with vehicles needing to merge into the eastbound through lanes. The Preferred Project would create lane uniformity in the Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road segment, which will smooth traffic throughput and improve overall corridor performance in terms of delay and level of service. In the “No Build” scenario, the Study Corridor will inevitably experience higher future traffic volumes due to typical increases in background traffic. Implementing the Preferred Project has nominal impact to May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 127 due to typical increases in background traffic. Implementing the Preferred Project has nominal impact to overall corridor performance (Exhibit B, Table 4), and in fact improves performance at key points in the Study corridor while providing better multi-modal balance. Next Steps Estimated Project Cost – $2.5 million Staff will provide updates to the Board, through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee, at key milestones during implementation. Secure Funding: Staff will pursue grants and other eligible sources to fund activities identified below. Preliminary Design: Preliminary design will include detailed plans, including relatively accurate locations, dimensions, materials, and features, which will assist in developing a corresponding refined preliminary cost estimate. The preliminary plans would be the basis for environmental documents for the project. Following the preliminary design County staff may conduct additional community outreach. Environmental Studies and Documentation: Environmental studies and findings are required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). If using federal funds, additional documents would be required to address the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The environmental studies must review and address a broad range of potential environmental issues. Permits: The County will obtain the necessary permits and agreements for the project to proceed, such as an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Construction Documents: The preliminary plans will be refined into final design plans that contain construction drawings, specifications, and cost estimates. Right-of-Way Acquisition: If necessary, Real Estate Services will work with property owners to acquire easement or other type of temporary or permanent land rights to allow project implementation. Bidding and Contracting: Contract bid documents will be prepared and the project will be advertised for public bid. The County will analyze bids and contract with the most qualified contractor. Construction: The contactor will construct the project with County oversight. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The pedestrian and bicycle gap along the Treat Boulevard Corridor between North Main Street in the City of Walnut Creek, through the I-680 over-crossing, to the Iron Horse Trail will continue to exist. Goals and policies of the General Plan and other policies will not be implemented relative to this project. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Bruce Ohlson, Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Project Study Area Map Exhibit B – Traffic Data Tables Exhibit C - DRAFT FINAL_TreatBikePedPlan Exhibit D - Revised Concept 4 Analysis (3/6/17) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 128 Exhibit E - Alternatives Traffic Analysis Report (7/22/15) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 129 §¨¦680 N Main St Oak Rd Geary Rd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Buskirk Ave Las Juntas Way Wayne Ct Parnell Ct Sunnyvale Ave Cherry Ln Honey Trl Del Hombre Ln Roble Rd Brockhurst Ct Oa k R d Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Map created 11/3/2011by Contra Costa County Department Conservation and Development Community Development Division--GIS Group651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384WThis map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.I 0 325 650162.5 Feet Contra Costa CentreProposed Study Area Legend BART Stations BART Track Parcels Proposed Study Area Walnut Creek City Limits Walnut Creek Pleasant Hill Concord Lafayette Martinez Lafayette §¨¦680 Taylor BlvdN Main StTreat BlvdGeary Rd Oak Park Blvd Gregory Ln Treat Blvd Vicinity Map SITE May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 130 Table 1 Treat Boulevard/Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp1 (2014) Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp/Treat Boulevard Peak Hour Existing No Build Alternative 4C Ramp Queue Length (ft.) Delay (sec) LOS Ramp Queue Length (ft.) Delay (sec) LOS A.M. 0 30.3 C 687 44.4 D P.M. 0 17.5 B 510 41.6 D (2040) Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp/Treat Boulevard Peak Hour Future No Build Alternative 4C Ramp Queue Length (ft.) Delay (sec) LOS Ramp Queue Length (ft.) Delay (sec) LOS A.M. 0 31.4 C 1036 61.2 E P.M. 0 19.9 B 604 40.2 D Table 2 Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road Segment (Eastbound)2 (2014) Oak Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through Peak Hour Existing No Build Existing + Proposed Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS A.M. 46.8 D 51.9 D P.M. 11.6 B 54.8 D (2040) Oak Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through Peak Hour Future No Build Future + Proposed Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS* A.M. 70.4 E 74.6 E P.M. 51.6 D 29.6 C 1 DKS Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4 (10/9/2017) 2 DKS Feasibility Study and Evaluation Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4 (3/6/2017) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 131 Table 3 Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road Segment (Eastbound) (2014) Jones Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through Peak Hour Existing No Build Existing + Proposed Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS A.M. 35.8 D 17.0 B P.M. 44.0 D 34.1 C (2040) Jones Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through Peak Hour Future No Build Future + Proposed Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS Lane Configuration Delay (sec) LOS A.M. 86.8 F 34.4 C P.M. 162.0 F 144.3 F Table 4 3 DKS Alternatives Traffic Analysis Report (7/22/2015) Existing vs. Preferred Project3 Approach Peak Hour Total Delay/Vehicle (sec/veh) Average Speed (mph) Arterial Level of Service (“LOS”) Existing Preferred Project Existing Preferred Project Existing Preferred Project Westbound A.M. 22 20 15 15 D D P.M. 23 19 13 15 E E Eastbound A.M. 36 36 9 9 F F P.M. 32 27 10 11 E E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 132 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Alta Planning + Design | i Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan OCTOBER 2017 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 133 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | ii This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 134 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Alta Planning + Design | iii Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1  1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3  2. Plan Development Process ...................................................................................................................... 4  3. Planning Context ......................................................................................................................................... 5  3.1. City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011) ............................................................. 5  3.2. Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) .......................................................... 5  3.3. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998) .................................................... 5  4. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 7  4.1. Design Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 7  4.2. General Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7  4.3. Land Use and Urban Design ..................................................................................................... 8   4.4. User Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9  4.5. Collisions ........................................................................................................................................ 10  5. Alternative Concepts ................................................................................................................................. 11  5.1. Concept Overview ....................................................................................................................... 11  5.2. Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................................................ 12  5.3. Concept 1A: Standard Bicycle Lanes ................................................................................... 13  5.4. Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes .......................................................................................... 13  5.5. Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes ................................................. 13  5.6. Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk.............................................. 15  5.7. Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk ....................................................................... 16  5.8. Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path ........................................... 17  6. Concept Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 19  6.1. Traffic Analysis for All Concepts ........................................................................................... 19  6.2. Multi-Criteria Analysis ................................................................................................................ 21  Appendix A: Study Participants ......................................................................................................................... 25  Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location .............................................................................................. 27  Appendix C: Concept 4A and 4B Traffic Study and Alternative Concepts 4C, 4D, and 4E Memorandum ................................................... 33  Appendix D: Additional Traffic Data ................................................................................................................ 45  Appendix E: Concept Plans and Features ..................................................................................................... 49  Appendix F: Concept 4A Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 67  Separately available: full Traffic Analysis Report with modeling output and traffic count data tables (DKS Associates) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 135 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | iv This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 136 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 1 Summary The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) in unincorporated Walnut Creek, clustered around the Pleasant Hill BART station. It is characterized by mixed commercial, office and residential land uses. Pedestrians and cyclists access the area principally via the Iron Horse Trail or a narrow (5’) sidewalk along the north side of the I-680 overcrossing bridge. Treat Boulevard creates challenges for the users of transit as the wide roadways (up to nine lanes) and intersections become barriers for pedestrians to cross. Without bicycle infrastructure, the first/last mile for transit users becomes even more constrained. The Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (“Plan” or “Study”) was undertaken to address challenges and barriers to bicycling and walking within the ½- mile Study segment by developing concepts that emphasize a higher level of comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) Measure J – Transportation for Livable Communities Grant program (2014) and Subregional Transportation Needs (2017) funded the Study. Study development was in collaboration with the City of Walnut Creek, with participation from interested agencies like Caltrans, CCTA, TRANSPAC and transit service providers. Alta + Planning & Design, with assistance from sub-consultant DKS Associates, developed technical work for the plan. County staff and the consultant team also gained valuable public input through multiple meetings and community workshops held between 2014 and 2017. Overall, six Corridor Concepts (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4A) and five focused-analysis Off-Ramp Alternatives (A, B, C, D, E) were considered. The “Preferred Project” is Corridor Concept 4A combined with Off-Ramp Alternative C (i.e. “Concept 4A/Alternative C”). Preferred Project Highlights – Concept 4A/Alternative C  Preferred Project design based on agency staff and public input and technical analysis.  Includes geometric modifications to the Oak Road and I-680 Off-Ramp intersections to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings.  Provides better multi-modal balance while maintaining optimum corridor performance, minimizes pedestrian discomfort, and avoids Caltrans design exceptions. In the “No Build” scenario, the Study Corridor will inevitably experience higher future traffic volumes due to typical increases in background traffic. Implementing the Preferred Project has nominal impact to overall corridor performance, and in fact improves performance at key points in the Study corridor while providing better multi-modal balance. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 137 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 2 This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 138 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 | Alta Planning + Design 1. Introduction The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in unincorporated Walnut Creek, characterized by mixed commercial and office land uses. Bicycle parking at the BART station is plentiful and heavily utilized. Despite these trip generators, the I-680 overcrossing has a narrow (5’) sidewalk on the north side only, and no bicycle facilities. Other than the regional Iron Horse Trail, there are no bicycle facilities along or across the corridor. This study intends to assess active transportation improvement options, recommend a phased approach to implementation, and provide concept plans and cost estimates for funding programming. Figure 1-1 shows a vicinity map of the study corridor. Figure 1-1: Project Locality This project includes the following intersections: 1. Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and N. Main Street 2. Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps 3. Treat Boulevard and Oak Road 4. Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 139 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 4 2. Plan Development Process Plan Initiation The Plan was funded with a $75,000 grant from Contra Costa Measure J (2004) Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program, administered through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). In April 2014, the consultant team met with Contra Costa County at a “kick-off’ meeting to review the overall scope, data needs, schedule, vision and goals of the Plan. The Team collected necessary geographic, design and vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian data for analysis. Outreach A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) including staff from Contra Costa County, Walnut Creek, and Caltrans was convened three times (see Appendix A for a list of TAC members). In addition to the TAC, meetings were held with the following stakeholders: Figure 2-1: Plan Process  7/27/14 Lamorinda Development  12/12/14 Contra Costa Centre property management  2/20/15 Bike East Bay Design Alternatives The summer and fall of 2014 were dedicated to the analysis of existing plans, GIS data, field research, traffic analysis and the development of three design concepts. The design concepts, described in further detail below, were evaluated and reviewed by the TAC and the Walnut Creek Transportation Commission. Recommended Concept In May 2015, the TAC met to review the recommended concept. Principal topics included highway network planning, freeway access constraints, design details, and traffic modeling. Based on TAC input and a multi-criteria analysis Concept 4 was selected as the recommended alternative, offering balance between bicycle and pedestrian improvements with motorist level of service and cost effectiveness. A Draft Plan was released in September 2015. Based on public comments on the draft document, a revised version of the Concept 4 design was developed in 2016, and additional traffic analysis was conducted. This current plan identifies Revised Concept 4 as the recommended alternative. Existing Conditions •Site Tour and Data Collection •Base Model •TAC Meeting 1 (Apr 2014) •Stakeholder Meetings Concepts •Develop three concepts •TAC Meeting 2 (May 2014) •Walnut Creek Transportation Commission (Oct 2014) •Community Workshop (Dec 2014) Feasibility Study •Refine and Model Options •Evaluate Options •TAC Meeting 3 (May 2015) Plan Development •Preliminary Engineering for Recommended Option •Cost Estimates to Support Funding Applications •Draft Plan (September 2015) •Revised Plan (May 2017) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 140 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 | Alta Planning + Design 3. Planning Context Previous plans in the area identify proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, policies, and priorities for Treat Boulevard and the nearby area. A brief description of each related plan is listed below. 3.1. City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011) According to this plan, the City of Walnut Creek allows bicyclists to use sidewalks along heavily travelled arterials, including Treat Boulevard. Various segments of Treat Boulevard within the city limits are designated as Class III bicycle routes, although sharing a lane with high volumes of traffic on a 35 mph roadway is not a condition that will suit most people. Figure 3-1: Extract of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan showing Treat Boulevard as a proposed Class III 3.2. Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan names “Routes to transit” as one of three types of pedestrian priority locations. The Pleasant Hill BART station is mentioned as a priority location along with the other BART stations in Contra Costa County. No specific improvements are prescribed for the Treat Boulevard study corridor. The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies Treat Boulevard as a part of the Countywide Bicycle Network (CBN) but does not propose a specific treatment. 3.3. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998) The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan states that a circulation system for bicycles and pedestrians will be provided to support travel between parking areas, transit stops, buildings, the Iron Horse Trail, and the Bart Station. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan cites the following bicycle and pedestrian objectives for transportation and circulation: May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 141 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 6  Transportation and Circulation Objective #5 Provide for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle movement between the BART Station, Station Area parking, local transit boarding areas, and major facilities in the Station Area and between the Station Area and nearby residential and commercial areas.”  Urban Design Objective #8 Develop areas intensively used by pedestrians at a human scale with adjoining uses which will visually and functionally enliven the area. The Specific Plan design concepts identify Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the Station Area and encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment:  Emphasize Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the Station Area and visually identify this role by the placement of the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road and the pedestrian/bicycle overpass at Jones Road, and the provision of elevated public plazas or pedestrian corridors in the vicinity of the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection (Subareas 12 and 15). Provide sufficient public outdoor space to accommodate the pedestrian activities focused at this location as a result of adjoining office development, BART parking and local transit stop.  Create a pedestrian-friendly street-level environment by discouraging blank building walls and encouraging windows, doors, and other building facade features. The Specific Plan identifies policies for bicycle and pedestrian circulation that relate to Treat Boulevard. The policies are shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Policies Policy Description Status Policy 1 A pedestrian overpass shall be provided at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. No longer supported and has been removed from Plan Policy 2 A pedestrian and bicycle overpass should be provided at Jones Road for the Iron Horse Trail. Complete Policy 3 If feasible, development on Area 12 should provide for a continuous pedestrian-way from the north end of the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road to the BART Station. Complete Policy 7 Undertake a community design program for both pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings as soon as feasible given availability of funding and reasonably defined site geometrics. Complete May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 142 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 | Alta Planning + Design 4. Existing Conditions A site tour was held with the TAC on May 19, 2014. The consultant team also performed several additional field reviews through the month of May. 4.1. Design Assumptions During the site tour meeting, the design assumptions were confirmed as follows:  Lane widths shall be no less than 11’ or 10.5’ for turn lanes  Medians can be narrowed  All proposals are to remain within the public right of way 4.2. General Traffic Conditions The corridor has a 35 mph speed limit. The roadway has excess capacity during off-peak hours as it is sized based on level of service and demand during peak hours. There are nine lanes in some locations (Figure 4-1), presenting a long distance for pedestrians to cross the street. Reducing this distance, providing longer walk times, or reducing wait times for pedestrians can improve the pedestrian experience. Lane widths within the study area are typically 12’ but vary from 11’ to 17’. Long cycle lengths provide higher motor vehicle capacity for the main movements, but delays for other movements and for pedestrians can cause frustration. Long cycle lengths also lead to risk taking such as red-light running. Figure 4-1: Existing Conditions Lane Configurations and Signal Phasing Yield controlled channelized right turns are present at all westbound intersections and eastbound at Jones Road. Northbound Buskirk Avenue and southbound Oak Road also have channelized right turns. Dedicated receiving lanes for continuous free flow are present at westbound right turn at Main Street, the southbound right turn at Oak Road, and the northbound right turn at Buskirk Avenue. Although channelized right turns are advantageous for automobile traffic, they present a less comfortable and safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists, who must cross faster moving right turning traffic that frequently does not expect to conflict with pedestrians. Appendix B presents a more detailed description of existing conditions by location along the corridor, along with traffic count and base model data. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 143 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 8 4.3. Land Use and Urban Design The land uses on Treat Boulevard include office, retail, hotel, and mixed-use residential. The Walgreens shopping center on the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and North Main Street is not slated for expansion, although the parking lot may be reconfigured to connect to BevMo, a beverage retail establishment directly north. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Plan identifies urban design objectives for building height, form and mass, public spaces, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, signage, building design, and defensible space. Buildings on Treat Boulevard have a minimum three-story height and setback of 20 feet from the street. The most recent mixed-use development on the north side of Treat Boulevard, between Jones Road and Oak Road, has continuous sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, benches, and trees. A Starbucks on the easternmost corner provides outdoor seating. A parking lane separates pedestrians from the traffic on Treat Boulevard. The light colored concrete on the parking strip and extended right-turn lane is a de-facto space for bicycling. Photo 1 The north side of Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road has continuous building frontage and a pedestrian-friendly public realm. The south side of the block between Jones Road and Oak Road is reminiscent of typical suburban design. The office buildings are set back approximately 50 feet away from the street. Unlike the north side, which has a continuous building frontage along the sidewalk, the south building’s V-shape sets the entrance to the building back even further. The sidewalk is separated from the traffic by a landscape strip and occasional trees. Photo 2 The south side of Treat Boulevard has a meandering 6’ wide sidewalk This style is consistent along the majority of the study corridor, with and without the landscape strip, with sidewalk widths varying between 4-8 feet. Along the Embassy Suites frontage on the north side of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue, there is an 8’ wide sidewalk separated from traffic by an 8’ wide landscape strip. Trees line both sides of the sidewalk, providing a shade canopy during the summer. Photo 3 The north side of Treat Boulevard has a tree-lined 8’ wide sidewalk May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 144 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 | Alta Planning + Design 4.4. User Analysis A field review of the study corridor was conducted in July 2014 during peak hours to observe pedestrian, driver, and bicyclist behavior. The fieldwork included interviews with pedestrians. The majority of pedestrians were observed walking on the north side of the study corridor. When asked about their experience walking on Treat Boulevard, pedestrians noted that the walk across the I-680 overbridge is “unpleasant” and “always seems to take longer than it should.” Another pedestrian noted that the signals along Treat Boulevard are “really slow,” and can take “double the time if you have to cross two ways.” The pedestrian phases were timed during field observations. Pedestrians waited up to 120 seconds before receiving a walk indication. At the Treat Boulevard and Oak Road intersection, pedestrians were observed crossing the street during the do-not-walk phase. These pedestrians would cross to the center median, and then wait for the walk signal, presumably to get a head start (Figure 4-2). This suggests that the signal phasing may be too long to accommodate pedestrian commuters, particularly those traveling to catch a BART train. The pedestrian plaza between the Embassy Suites Hotel and Vodafone Building north of Treat Boulevard (Figure 4-3) serves as a common path for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the BART Station. Figure 4-2: Some pedestrians cross to the median on a Do Not Walk signal to get a head start on the next ped phase Figure 4-3: Plaza route May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 145 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 10 Few people were observed bicycling on Treat Boulevard, choosing instead to ride on the sidewalk. On the I-680 overbridge, the majority of riders used the narrow (5’) north sidewalk. In some instances, the bicyclist or pedestrian would step into the street to pass a group. Drivers were observed failing to yield to pedestrians in channelized right turn lane crosswalks, particularly at the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. Some drivers blocked pedestrian movement by pausing in crosswalks while waiting in a traffic queue. 4.5. Collisions Recent collision data was requested through Contra Costa County and collected from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Violation type was recorded for 13 of the 16 total collisions (Table 4-1). Automobile Right of Way was the most common violation for a bicycle/vehicle collision, and Pedestrian Right of Way was the most common violation for a pedestrian/vehicle collision. The cluster of collisions at Jones Road shown in Figure 4-4 may precede the construction of the Iron Horse Trail overbridge. The next most frequent location is around Buskirk Avenue, where three bicycle collisions have been reported. Table 4-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Crash Type Violation Bicycle Pedestrian Automobile Right of Way 2 1 Improper Turning 2 0 Other Hazardous Violation 1 0 Other Improper Driving 0 1 Pedestrian Right of Way 0 3 Unsafe Lane Change 1 0 Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 0 Total 8 5 Figure 4-4: Reported Collisions Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 146 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 | Alta Planning + Design 5. Alternative Concepts 5.1. Concept Overview Three concepts were initially developed for the Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. For Concept 1, a lower cost, lower impact version of 1A was also considered. Concept 4 was developed after conducting traffic modeling and outreach. Following the release of the public draft plan, Concept 4A was developed, along with alternatives 4B-4E. Principal elements of each concept are given in Table 5-1; more details and plan view graphics are provided in Appendix D. An evaluation of the concepts is provided in section 0 of this document. Table 5-1 Concept Comparisons Concept Location Main Street to Buskirk Avenue Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road Oak Road to Jones Road Concept 1A (short term) North side / Westbound Bike lane Sharrows Sharrows South side / Eastbound Bike lane Sharrows Sharrows Concept 1B North side / Westbound Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane South side / Eastbound Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Concept 2 North side / Westbound Two way shared path Two way shared path Buffered bike lane South side / Eastbound Bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Concept 3 North side / Westbound Two way shared path Two way shared path Cycle track South side / Eastbound Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk Concept 4 North side / Westbound Two way shared path Two way shared path Sharrows South side / Eastbound Sidewalk No change No change Concept 4A North side/ Westbound Bike lane Two way shared path and bike lane Bike lane South side/ Eastbound Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 147 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 12 5.2. Pedestrian Improvements All concepts, with the exception of 1A, propose pedestrian enhancements at crosswalks along the study corridor. These improvements include:  Enhancing the existing crosswalks at channelized free right turns along the study corridor with high visibility continental or ladder striping, “sharks-teeth” yield markings and signs  Reconstructing the channelization island at Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. A sample graphic showing a channelized right turn lane with “shark’s teeth” yield markings, high visibility ladder style crosswalk, and tactile ground surface indicators on the ADA standard curb ramps is shown in Figure 5-1. For those concepts where bicycle lanes are provided, this graphic indicates how a bike lane would be configured where the turn lane is an “add-lane.” The bike lane is straight and motorists must merge across the path of bicyclists. Figure 5-1: Conceptual provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists at a channelized right turn lane May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 148 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 | Alta Planning + Design 5.3. Concept 1A: Standard Bicycle Lanes Concept 1A proposes bike lanes on Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue by narrowing travel lanes to the County specified minimum 11’ width. East of Buskirk Avenue, bike lanes could only be accommodated if travel lanes were reduced to 10’ width (below the County specified minimum). Accordingly, sharrows could be employed. While sharrows are permitted on roadways with 35 mph speed limits, they are not an ideal solution as few people will “take the lane” with motorists traveling at that speed. Green paint would be provided at the bike lane entrances and at conflict points to make the bike lanes more visible to motorists. Altogether, the Concept 1A enhancements would be easy to implement and less costly than the other alternatives; however, they would offer limited improvement to the bicycle and pedestrian experience on Treat Boulevard. Concept 1A does not remove any travel lanes and would have minimal impact on the driving experience or traffic movements. Concept 1A could be considered as an option for short-term improvements. 5.4. Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 1B proposes buffered bike lanes along the full extent of the study corridor. The buffer between the bike lane and adjacent motor vehicle lane offers bicyclists an increased sense of safety. Green paint at the bike lane entrances and the conflict zones make the bike lanes more visible to motorists. These enhancements can be done by converting the outside travel lanes into the buffered bike lanes. Figure 5-2: Concept 1B buffered bike lanes at I-680 Concept 1B would remove the outside eastbound and westbound travel lanes, remove the eastbound channelized right-turn lane at Treat Boulevard and Jones Road, and narrow the curb radius at the eastbound I-680 on-ramp between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue. Although removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road reduces capacity, it also eliminates the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. 5.5. Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2 proposes converting the existing north side sidewalk into a shared use path between Main Street and Oak Road, adding buffered westbound bike lanes between Oak Road and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 149 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 14 Jones Road, and adding eastbound buffered bike lanes for the full extent of the study area. The vertical curb provides an enhanced sense of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 5-3: Concept 2 shared use path (north side) and buffered bike lane (south side) at I-680 At Treat Boulevard and Oak Road, bicyclists would be partially separated from motor vehicles with curbs and islands to reduce the risk of collisions between bicyclists and right-turning vehicles. Channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road would be removed. Figure 5-4: Concept 2 at Oak Road May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 150 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 | Alta Planning + Design Concept 2 can be implemented by narrowing lanes, and converting the outside eastbound lane between Buskirk Avenue and Jones Road into a buffered bike lane. Although capacity is reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also eliminates the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two- way shared-use path, the construction of the protected intersection, and the removal of the channelized right turns would result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B. 5.6. Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk Concept 3 proposes converting the existing north sidewalk into a shared use path between Main Street and Oak Road, and adding a westbound cycle track between Oak Road and Jones Road. The shared use path is used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. It provides bicyclists with a grade separation from motor vehicles and therefore a greater sense of safety. The cycle track would be a bike lane separated from the travel lanes by a row of parked cars. This physical separation from the travel lanes provides bicyclists with a greater sense of safety. The eastbound outside lane would have sharrows, which are a marginal but low cost solution on roadways with speed limits up to 35 mph (as with Treat Boulevard). Concept 3 proposes removing channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road, designating the sidewalk between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue as a 10-foot wide two-way shared-use path, adding a sidewalk to the south side between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue, and expanding the existing south sidewalk with a landscape strip between Buskirk Avenue and Oak Road. The south sidewalk would offer pedestrians an alternative walking option to the new shared-use path, where pedestrians would share the same space with bicyclists. Figure 5-5: Concept 3 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680 Concept 3 can be done by narrowing lanes, removing channelized right turns, and converting the right-turn lane between Oak Road and Jones Road into the cycle track. Although capacity is reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also removes the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. This design results in some impact to the intersection level of service (LOS) and results in more overall network delay and higher travel times due to the removal of one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. Concept 3 has a small delay impact at Oak Road during the morning peak hour and Main Street during the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 151 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 16 afternoon peak hour. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two-way shared-use path, the removal of the channelized right turns, and the construction of the south side sidewalk would result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B. 5.7. Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk This study originally was to include development of up to three concepts. Through an iterative development process and with stakeholder input, selected elements of the original three concepts were combined into Concept 4. While this concept does not provide as substantial an improvement for bicyclists and pedestrians as might be achieved with some elements not carried forward from the other concepts, it is a compromise predicated on the assumption that all travel lanes must be retained and must be at least 11’ wide. Plans are provided for this concept in Appendix D. 5.7.1. Main Street to Buskirk Avenue The concepts that included traffic lane removals are not supported by the traffic modeling, but lane width reductions enable the installation of paths on both sides of the bridge:  On the north side, the existing sidewalk would be replaced with a 12’ wide shared use path. Minor improvements would be made to reduce potential conflicts at the Walgreens driveways.  On the south side, Treat Boulevard has enough space for either an on-street eastbound bike lane or a new southern sidewalk facility without removing travel lanes. Concept 4 includes a south side sidewalk to improve pedestrian connectivity, because eastbound bicyclists will be able to use the north side shared-use path or the curbside traffic lanes. Figure 5-6: Concept 4 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680 (as per Concept 3) 5.7.2. Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road All travel lanes remain in Concept 4 due to the heavy traffic volume at Buskirk Avenue turning right towards northbound I-680. As such, the cycle track element was not included. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 152 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 | Alta Planning + Design 5.7.3. Oak Road to Jones Road Neither bike lanes, sharrows nor cycle tracks were chosen for this section of Treat Boulevard for the following reasons:  Eastbound bike lanes cannot be accommodated without removal of a traffic lane or reduction of lane widths below the County’s minimum to 10’. Modeling indicates an unacceptable impact on motorist level of service. Furthermore, Treat Blvd is currently not a hospitable route for bicycling east of Jones Road and there is low demand relative to the rest of the corridor; therefore, this portion of the route is likely to attract only more confident “vehicular” bicyclists.  Eastbound sharrows were not chosen for this section because the volume and speed of traffic would not provide a comfortable environment for bicyclists. Instead, bicyclists should be encouraged to use the shared-use path on the north side of the road.  Westbound sharrows were chosen for this section to accommodate and direct bicyclists either westbound onto the shared-use path or northbound toward the BART station once they reach the Oak Street and Treat Boulevard intersection. The sharrows will be located on the dedicated westbound right-turn lane, which will have lower traffic volumes and provide a more comfortable environment for people on bikes.  The landing points for the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing are approximately 500 feet north and south of the intersection. Implementation of a separate bikeway along Treat Boulevard in this block may be possible in the long-term, depending on the motor traffic volume and wider network changes that may occur. 5.8. Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Concept 4A was developed based on public comments, and balances bicycle and pedestrian improvements with motorist level of service and cost effectiveness. Improvements along the corridor include:  From Main Street to Buskirk Avenue, buffered bicycle lanes with green markings at conflict points are provided by narrowing existing lanes  From Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road, buffered green bicycle lanes are provided in addition to a new shared use path on the north side  From Oak Road to Jones Road, a bicycle lane is provided on the north side while a buffered bicycle lane is provided on the south side; both directions have green markings at conflict points Because of right-turn conflicts and traffic delays caused by Concept 4A, four alternative concepts were evaluated for the I-680 offramp intersection at Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Road. Alternative 4B Alternative concept 4B closes the free right turn lane from the I-680 onramp onto Treat Boulevard by creating a curb extension. This eliminates a conflict point with motor vehicles merging across the bike lane. The I-680 approach is reconfigured to accommodate one left- turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane within the existing travelway. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 153 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 18 The elimination of the free right-turn lane created substantial traffic delay, and as a result Alternative 4B was excluded from some analyses as a nonviable option. Subsequent alternatives 4C, 4D, and 4E were developed in an attempt to reduce this traffic delay. Alternative 4C In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4B, Alternative 4C changes the right- hand through lane to a through/right-turn lane. The resulting approach includes one left-turn lane, one through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. This improves traffic conditions slightly, but reduces pedestrian comfort by adding a lane of cars that will be turning across the crosswalk. Alternative 4D In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4B, Alternative 4D adds a second right- turn lane by removing shoulders and narrowing all lanes to 11 feet. The resulting approach includes one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. This improves traffic conditions, but reduces pedestrian comfort with two lanes of traffic turning across the crosswalk. It would also create a longer crosswalk across the I-680 ramp, increasing pedestrian exposure, and require either a Caltrans design exception or a ramp widening. Alternative 4E In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4C, Alternative 4E adds a second right- turn lane by removing shoulders and narrowing all lanes to 11 feet. The resulting approach includes one left-turn lane, one through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes. This improves traffic conditions, but reduces pedestrian comfort with three lanes of traffic turning across the crosswalk. It would also create a longer crosswalk across the I-680 ramp, increasing pedestrian exposure, and require either a Caltrans design exception or a ramp widening. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 154 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 | Alta Planning + Design 6. Concept Evaluation 6.1. Traffic Analysis for All Concepts This section includes a summary of the separate detailed traffic report. When looking at the average intersection LOS, the design concepts result in little impact for the current year (2014) traffic volumes (Table 6-1) or for the future year (2040) traffic volumes (Table 6-2). Concept 1A was not analyzed because it does not involve any changes to the number of lanes or intersection layouts. Alternatives to Concept 4A are shown in Table 6-3 (current year) and Table 6-4 (future year). Table 6-1: All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 4A Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E 60.0 E 60.1 E 60.1 E 60.1 E 53.1 D P.M. 42.9 D 41.1 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 42.9 D I-680 NB and Buskirk Ave A.M. 30.3 C 32.9 C 30.3 C 30.3 C 30.3 C 34.7 C P.M. 17.5 B 17.7 B 17.4 B 17.4 B 17.4 B 19.5 B Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D 55.5 E 53.6 D 53.6 D 49.3 D 49.2 D P.M. 19.3 B 39.4 D 40.1 D 40.1 D 34.1 C 36.8 D Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D 28.8 C 29.8 C 29.8 C 29.9 C 32.8 C P.M. 49.8 D 37.7 D 38.2 D 38.2 D 37.9 D 48.3 D Table 6-2: All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year Intersection Peak Hour No Build Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 4A Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Main Street* A.M. 83.1 F 86.0 F 83.3 F 83.3 F 83.3 F 60.1 E P.M. 67.9 E 67.4 E 75.9 E 75.9 E 75.9 E 60.0 E I-680 NB and Buskirk Ave A.M. 31.4 C 36.4 D 30.5 C 30.5 C 30.5 C 36.5 D P.M. 19.9 B 24.9 C 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.8 B 26.1 C Oak Road A.M. 63.8 E 63.3 E 67.3 E 67.3 E 67.5 (67.6) [61.9]1 E 53.8 D P.M. 46.3 D 48.9 D 45.5 D 45.5 D 36.7 (29.3) [30.5] 1 D 42.7 D Jones Road* A.M. 61.9 E 61.9 E 49.6 D 49.6 D 49.6 D 59.7 E P.M. 211.9 F 212.4 F 212.1 F 212.1 F 212.1 F 143.9 F 1 Free right turn removal at Oak Road Mitigation 1, (Mitigation 2), and [Mitigation 3] May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 155 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 20 Table 6-3: Concept Alternatives 4A-4E – Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Concept 4A Concept 4B Concept 4C Concept 4D Concept 4E Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I-680 NB and Buskirk Ave A.M. 30.3 D 34.7 C 112.9 F1 44.4 D2 43.1 D - - P.M. 17.5 C 19.5 B 62.1 E1 41.6 D2 41.3 D - - 1This alternative failed, and was therefore not included in future year analyses 2HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Table 6-4: Concept Alternatives 4A-4E – Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year Intersection Peak Hour No Build Concept 4A Concept 4B Concept 4C Concept 4D Concept 4E Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS I-680 NB and Buskirk Ave A.M. 31.4 C 36.5 D - - 61.2 E1 88.3 F 46.9 D* P.M. 19.9 B 26.1 C - - 40.2 D1 52.6 D 31.7 C* 1HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 156 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 | Alta Planning + Design 6.2. Multi-Criteria Analysis All concepts were evaluated for future conditions based on a list of criteria described below. For each concept, the reallocation of the eastbound curbside lane to a bike lane has been omitted as the traffic impact was estimated to be unacceptable. The evaluation criteria are described below; the scores can be seen in Table 6-5 on the next page.  Bicycle Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor by bike.  Pedestrian Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor by foot.  Driving Experience: the comfort and convenience of traveling the corridor by automobile.  Ease of Implementation: the amount of planning, design and construction required to implement the concept.  Cost: the amount of funding required to implement the concept.  Traffic Impacts (level of service): defined in the separate Traffic Report and relates to the amount of delay in travel speeds along the corridor and at intersections. Concept 4 scores highest – a balance between bicycle and pedestrian improvements with motorist level of service and cost effectiveness. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 157 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 22 Table 6-5: Concept Evaluation Criterion No Build Concept 1A Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 4A No change Limited Bike Lanes Buffered Bike Lanes Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and South side Sidewalk Shared Use Path and South side Sidewalk Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Bicycle Experience 0 1 2 3 2 2 2 Pedestrian Experience 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 Driving Experience 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Ease of Implementation 3 3 2 0 -1 0 1 Cost -1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2 Traffic Impacts (level of service) -1 0 -2 -2 -1 0 0 Total Score 1 2 3 2 2 4 4 Table 6-6 Scoring Levels Very Significant Negative Significant Negative Minor Negative Neutral Minor Positive Significant Positive Very Significant Positive -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 158 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 | Alta Planning + Design Table 6-7: Concept Alternatives Evaluation Criterion No Build Concept 4A Concept 4B Concept 4C Concept 4D Concept 4E No change Enhanced bike lanes and shared use path Eliminates free right- turn lane Adds right- turn option to #3 lane Adds second right-turn lane Adds second right-turn lane and right-turn option to #3 lane I-680 Approach Configuration Bicycle Experience 0 2 3 3 3 3 Pedestrian Experience 0 1 3 2 2 1 Driving Experience 0 2 2 2 2 2 Ease of Implementation 3 1 -1 -1 -2 -2 Cost -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 Traffic Impacts (level of service) -1 0 -3 -2 -2 -1 Total Score 1 4 1 1 0 0 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 159 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 24 This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 160 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 | Alta Planning + Design Appendix A: Study Participants Client Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Technical Advisory Committee Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp, AICP Principal-In-Charge John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager Alexandra Sweet Senior Planner DKS Thomas Krakow, P.E. Principal-In-Charge David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager Maria Tribelhorn, E.I.T Assistant Transportation Engineer Others IDAX Data Collection Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 161 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 26 This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 162 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 | Alta Planning + Design Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location North Main Street Both the westbound left turn/U-turn and westbound right turn movements are heavy at this intersection. Due to the high turning volumes and high left lane utilization, the queue from westbound traffic turning into N. Main Street backs to the I-680 ramps during the A.M. peak hour. The westbound left turn bays are not adequate for the forming left turn queues and vehicles sometimes queue in the through lanes, creating potential for rear-end collisions and congestion. The southbound left turn volumes are high at N. Main Street during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. Queues spill back beyond the turn bays during both time periods. Currently N. Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north- south), rather than in coordination with the Treat Boulevard corridor, which may contribute to the formation of westbound queues. East-west coordination could be considered as a potential alternative for this location. Ygnacio Valley Road is about 3 miles south of the Treat Boulevard/N. Main Street intersection. There are four traffic signals on N. Main Street between Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. Additionally, Ygnacio Valley Road, N. Main Street and Treat Boulevard have interchanges with the I-680 freeway. Photo 4 View of westbound Treat Boulevard approaching N. Main Street. Existing bicyclist use of sidewalk in conflict with Walgreens driveway turning movements. Photo 5 View of Treat Boulevard and N. Main Street. Right-turn slip lane creates two points of potential conflict between motorists and pedestrians. The City of Walnut Creek will be paving North Main Street from Treat Boulevard northward in 2015 and from Treat Boulevard southward in 2016. Minor configuration and/or striping changes may be accommodated at that time. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 163 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 28 I-680 Overcrossing The bridge that crosses over I-680 between N. Main Street and I-680 Northbound off-ramp has no sidewalk on the south side and a narrow (5’ to 8’) sidewalk on the north side. Despite the fact the sidewalk is not wide enough to comfortably accommodate two pedestrians walking side-by-side, it is also shared by cyclists due to the roadway traffic conditions and lack of separate bicycle facilities. The I-680 overcrossing has three westbound through lanes and two eastbound through lanes and two eastbound left-turn lanes. The bridge carries over 20,000 vehicles per day in each direction, for a total average daily traffic of about 40,000 motor vehicles. The bridge has wide shoulders in both directions, but particularly in the westbound direction, which presents an opportunity to increase the pedestrian and bicycle space. This could be accomplished through one or a combination of the following: lane adjustment, addition of a sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, widening of the existing sidewalk, and/or addition of bicycle lanes or a cycle track. The construction of a shared path on one side would provide service to both pedestrians and bi-directional travel for cyclists on one side of the road. The path provides excellent service to non-automobile modes, but requires 15’ of space including path, shoulder, and traffic buffer. Photo 6 View east along the existing 5’ wide sidewalk on the I-680 overcrossing. Pedestrians are observed walking in the traffic lane to overtake one another. Photo 7 View west along the sidewalk on the overcrossing. A pedestrian commented that the walk on the overcrossing “is unpleasant and always seems to take longer than it should.” May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 164 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 | Alta Planning + Design I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue The I-680 northbound ramps at Buskirk Avenue present a challenge to pedestrians wishing to cross the intersection. The northbound right turn traffic onto Treat Boulevard is heavy and due to channelization does not always yield to pedestrians and bicycles. During the morning peak period, the northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left turn lane storage capacity. During the evening peak period, the eastbound Treat Boulevard traffic turning left onto the I-680 ramp was observed to exceed the left turn storage. Photo 8 View west of the I-680 overcrossing sidewalk from Buskirk Avenue. Current 5’ wide sidewalk is insufficient for two-way pedestrian use. Bicyclists were observed using this facility to travel east and west instead of using the roadway. Photo 9 View west of the I-680 overcrossing, south side from Buskirk Avenue. No sidewalk or bike lane exists along this side of the overcrossing. Photo 10 North crosswalk of Buskirk Avenue typifies some of the existing curb ramps with uneven surfaces difficult to traverse for those with mobility impairments. Photo 11 The northbound I-680 offramp has heavy right turn volumes at peak times May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 165 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 30 Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Westbound The southbound right turn lane at Oak Road has its own receiving lane westbound, which immediately becomes a right turn only onto Buskirk Avenue and the I-680 NB on ramp. This layout causes weaving conflicts on westbound Treat Boulevard due to the high demand for northbound I-680. Further exacerbating this issue, the BART support columns separate the lanes of travel and limit visibility for traffic merging from the right lane. These conditions contribute to the formation of a westbound queue during the afternoon peak hour. Weaving conflicts demand driver attention, often taking away driver awareness of pedestrians and bike riders. Due to this lack of attention, bike riders are currently safest riding in the middle of the lane rather than at the edge of the lane, which is ideally where a bicycle lane would be located. As indicated by low bicycle volumes on this segment (three westbound during the P.M. peak hour), few cyclists brave this environment. Weaving traffic and high right lane utilization through this segment cause traffic to spill back to Oak Road, reducing the number of vehicles that can travel westbound through the Oak Road and Jones Road intersections during a green light, effectively “wasting” green time at these intersections. Photo 12 View of westbound Treat Boulevard from Oak Road. Traffic from Oak Road merges into the right lane for I-680 northbound. Photo 13 View looking east on the north side of Treat Boulevard. The 8’ wide treelined sidewalk is also used by bicyclists traveling both directions. Eastbound The eastbound segment on Treat Boulevard between the I-680 ramps and Oak Road is also characterized by high weaving volumes during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Heavy traffic from the I-680 northbound ramp merge into the eastbound lanes where weaving conflicts arise between motorists turning at Oak Road or Jones Road. The BART support columns separate the lanes and limit visibility, exacerbating this issue. Photo 14 View east towards Oak Road on the south side of Treat Boulevard. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 166 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 | Alta Planning + Design Oak Road Oak Road is commonly used for pedestrian access to the BART station. About 90 pedestrians cross Treat Boulevard at Oak Road during the morning peak hour. Because the cycle length is long (160 seconds in the morning), some pedestrians cross illegally against the light by finding gaps in queued traffic or between platoons of cars. During the morning peak period, the westbound left turn and northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left turn lane storage capacity. Photo 15 View north along Oak Road. Cyclists accessing BART use the shared path on the west side of Oak Road, cross at Coggins Drive to the east side of Oak Road to continue north to BART or cross Oak Road and continue up the path on the east side of Oak Road. Photo 16 View west on the east side of Oak Road, showing northbound free right turn lane and splitter island: cars speed around the corner, or block the crosswalk while waiting to merge. Photo 17 At the intersection of Oak Road and Treat Boulevard, pedestrians have up to a two- minute wait time to cross the street. One pedestrian commented on the length of the crosswalk and time required to cross. Several pedestrians were observed walking down the Treat Boulevard median. Photo 18 Pedestrians can wait in the middle of the roadway if they started crossing late in the phase and did not make it across before the end of the phase. While the pushbutton is in reach of wheelchair users, the relatively narrow median and lack of protection from turning vehicles makes it an intimidating place to wait. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 167 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 32 Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road Westbound During the P.M. peak period, about 70 vehicles complete the westbound right turn movement from Treat Boulevard to Oak Road. There is an existing free right turn for this movement. This volume could be accommodated without the existing free right turn. The pace speed during periods ranges between 21 – 35 mph in both directions. Photo 19 Bicyclists are likely to be currently utilizing the lighter colored concrete strip to the right of the dashed lane line Eastbound East of Jones Road the number of eastbound through lanes drops from four to three, and based on field observations it appears most through vehicles avoid the rightmost lane for this reason. With fewer destinations and the limited bicycling facilities east of Jones Road, this segment is a lower priority for bikeway improvements. Photo 20 Treat Boulevard looking east toward Jones Road. A non-compliant MUTCD sign tells drivers to “observe pedestrian right of way.” Jones Road Few pedestrians and bicyclists are observed using the Treat Boulevard crosswalk at Jones Road, perhaps electing to use the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing. Westbound Treat Boulevard traffic making a left turn into Jones Road occasionally exceeds the left turn storage capacity during the morning and evening peak period. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 168 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 | Alta Planning + Design Appendix C: Concept 4A and 4B Traffic Study and Alternative Concepts 4C, 4D, and 4E Memorandum The following traffic study and analysis memo was prepared for this plan by DKS, and is reproduced here in its entirety. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 169 1970 Broadway, Suite 740 Oakland, CA 94612 510.763.2061 www.dksassociates.com DATE: October 9, 2017 1 TO: Brett Hondorp, AICP, Alta FROM: David Mahama, PE, DKS CC: Erin Vaca, DKS SUBJECT: Contra Costa County I-680 / Treat Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – Feasibility Study and Evaluation Traffic Analysis of Concepts 4a and 4b #14070-001 Introduction With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has decided to complete the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide safe and convenient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing especially on the I-680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This project includes the following intersections: •Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street •Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I-680 northbound ramps •Treat Boulevard and Oak Road •Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse TrailThe field observations on this corridor indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve pedestrians and cyclists. The performance of the four study intersections was evaluated for AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) traffic conditions and future year (2040) traffic conditions. Four initial study concepts (Concept 1B, Concept 2, Concept 3, and Concept 4), geometric improvements as well as traffic signal timing improvements were evaluated to determine the performance of the network. Once the initial alternatives were evaluated by the stakeholders, a final concept (Concept 4a) was developed. 1 This document has been revised from the version dated March 6, 2017 to reflect standardized naming conventions for the design alternatives. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 170 Experts Connecting Communities This report presents a traffic impact evaluation for the Concept 4a pedestrian and bicycle related improvements to the transportation environment along Treat Boulevard. This final design is a modified version of Concept 4 and can be found in Appendix A. This revision includes the elimination of the free southbound right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, which is expected to eliminate traffic weaving along the segment of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue in the westbound direction. Current Year Analysis (2014) For the current year (2014 volumes), overall network performance is not largely impacted as compared to the existing condition for the revised concept. Individual intersection level of service (LOS) was analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept. A queuing analysis was also included for traffic movements of concern and Table 1 presents the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 1, intersection delay is high in general under existing conditions. LOS generally remains the same, except at Oak Road, which deteriorates. The biggest impact occurs at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound movement – the free right is removed as well as one of the through lanes. The queuing analysis shows little to no impact at the Treat Boulevard/Main Street intersection. At the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, southbound through queues are expected to increase in the A.M. and in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound approach. It should be noted that the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to experience shorter queue lengths. This is due to the additional right turn lane. Furthermore, queuing is expected to increase for the westbound right turn at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. For the proposed alternatives the signal timing parameters were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. Optimization of the corridor is expected to result in improved performance of the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection but decreased efficiency of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection. Lastly, a variation of the Concept 4a was assessed. The variation includes the removal of one eastbound lane between the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersections and modifying the two intersections described as follows: 1)Eliminate the northbound free right-turn at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/BuskirkAvenue intersection. 2) Remove the eastbound right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/OakRoad intersection, which will result in converting the curbside through lane to a sharedthrough-right lane. The traffic analysis results of this Alternative 4b are shown in Table 1.Because the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection is expected tooperate unacceptably in the A.M., the alternative was excluded from future considerations.Furthermore, the expected queues for the northbound right turning vehicles was shown toextend back on the ramp all the way to NB I-680 in the A.M. and extend almost all the way tothe freeway in the P.M. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 171 Experts Connecting Communities Future Year Analysis (2040) Individual intersection delay and LOS were analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept for the future year (2040). A queuing analysis was also completed for movements of concern. Table 2 presents the findings for this analysis. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year. In general, the removal of the free right turn (Concept 4a) has a negative impact on delay and queuing at Oak Road during the morning and evening peak periods. Since the improvement involves the removal of the SB free right turn as well as a removal of one of the through lanes, SB through movements are subject to much queueing, especially in the A.M. For the future year alternatives, the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. This optimization results in higher delays for side street and left turn movements, as indicated by the high delay at Treat Boulevard/Jones Road during the p.m. peak hour. Although performance degrades slightly with the free right turn removal at Oak Road, the high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps are mitigated. Removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment reduces the potential negative impact of the improvements at the corridor level. Conclusion Implementation of Concept 4a is expected to result in some increased delay and queuing for motorists at specific intersections on Treat Boulevard. The alternative Concept 4b has been shown to be ineffective as it leads to unacceptable LOS levels even with 2014 volume levels. Therefore, this alternative was not considered in future analysis. The reconfiguration of the southbound approach at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection is expected to result in increased delay and queuing. This is to be expected as one of the southbound through lanes is removed, the free southbound right turn is removed and replaced with two southbound right turn lanes. As a result, the southbound through queue is expected to increase and vehicles in this movement experience higher delays. It should be noted that the removal of free right-turn is expected to achieve the goal of eliminating the potentially dangerous weaving along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk. Furthermore, the queues for the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to decrease. When compared to the benefits for other transportation modes, the increased delay for motorists is relatively small. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 172 Table 1: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Concept 4a Concept 4b Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E WBLT 356 53.1 D WBLT 378 Not Applicable WBRT 0 WBRT 0 P.M. 42.9 D WBLT 174 42.9 D WBLT 160 WBRT 890 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.3 C WBRT 126 34.7 C WBRT 130 112.9 F WBRT 640 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1446 P.M. 17.5 B WBRT 169 19.5 B WBRT 638 62.1 E WBRT 638 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1308 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D SBRT 140 49.2 D SBRT 68 49.7 D SBRT 69 SBTH 295 SBTH 681 SBTH 731 P.M. 19.3 B SBRT 382 36.8 D SBRT 161 41.6 D SBRT 163 SBTH 127 SBTH 323 SBTH 323 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D No movement of interest 32.8 C No movement of interest Not Applicable P.M. 49.8 D 48.3 D Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 173 Experts Connecting Communities Table 2: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year (2040) Intersection Peak Hour Concept 4a Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M.60.1 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0 P.M.60.0 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M.36.5 D WBRT 131 NBRT 0 P.M.26.1 C WBRT 193 NBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M.53.8 D SBRT 82 SBTH 706 P.M.42.7 D SBRT 189 SBTH 557 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M.59.7 E No movement of interest P.M.143.9 F Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 174 Experts Connecting Communities STUDY PARTICIPANTS Client Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Technical Advisory Committee Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp Principal-In-Charge John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager, Alta Planning Alexandra Sweet Planner, Alta Planning DKS Peter Coffey, P.E. Principal-In-Charge David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager Tal Sztainer, E.I.T Associate Transportation Engineer Others IDAX Data Collection Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 175 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 2017 1 TO: Laurentiu Dusciuc, PE, Alta FROM: David Mahama, PE, DKS Erin Vaca, TE, DKS SUBJECT: Contra Costa County I-680 / Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Feasibility: Traffic Analysis of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 of Revised Concept 4 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ON CONCEPTS 4A AND 4B Previous analysis of Concepts 4a and 4b for this project was documented in a memorandum dated March 6, 2017 (revised October 9, 2017). This previously completed analysis assessed the Concept 4a which involved the removal of one eastbound lane between the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersections and modifications of the two intersections. Under this alternative, the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection was modified to eliminate the northbound free right turn lane. Under existing (2014) traffic conditions, Concept 4b was shown to result in excessively long queues and unacceptable delay during the AM peak hour as shown below in Table 1. Because the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection would be expected to operate unacceptably in the A.M., this alternative was excluded from future consideration. Furthermore, the expected queues for the northbound right turning vehicles were expected to extend back on the ramp all the way to NB I-680 in the A.M. and extend almost all the way to the freeway in the P.M. CONCEPTS 4C AND 4D Despite the results described above, interest remained in Concept 4a because of the potential safety benefits to bicyclists of eliminating the free right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection. Two additional variations were developed which retained the removal of the free right turn lane but supplemented the capacity of the northbound right turn movement. Under Concept 4c, the northbound approach of the intersection consists of one left turn lane, one through lane, one shared through-right lane, and a right turn lane. Under 1 This document has been revised from the version dated September 12, 2017 to reflect standardized naming conventions for the design alternatives. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 176 Table 1. Concepts 4a and 4b under Current Year (2014) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection Peak Hour Existing Alternative 4a Alternative 4b Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) A.M.30.3 C WBRT 126 34.7 C WBRT 130 112.9 F WBRT 640 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1446 P.M.17.5 B WBRT 169 19.5 B WBRT 638 62.1 E WBRT 638 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1308 Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length Concept 4d, the cross section includes one left turn lane, two through lanes, and two right turn lanes. Diagrams of these designs can be found in Appendix A. This memorandum documents the analysis of these two alternatives with respect to overall performance, delay, and queuing at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection. A modified version of Concept 4d, Concept 4e, is presented as the best option for this intersection. ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS 4C AND 4D UNDER FUTURE YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC While Concepts 4c and 4d perform adequately under existing traffic conditions (see Table 2), neither would operate acceptably under future traffic conditions (see Table 3). As shown in Table 3, both alternatives show a high level of delay and a 95th percentile northbound right turn queue in excess of 1000 feet during the AM peak hour. As stated previously, this length queue will reach back to the I-680 freeway. A modification to the proposed alternatives was tested whereby the second through lane in Concept 4d was changed to a shared through-right lane. This modification is termed Concept 4e. The triple right turn lanes can be accommodated by three receiving lanes on Treat Boulevard. With this modification, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with the northbound right turn queue under 600 feet, a length contained within the ramp north of the split to the weigh station. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 177 Table 1: Concepts 4c and 4d under Current Year (2014) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I- 680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection Peak Hour Concept 4c Concept 4d Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) A.M. 44.4 D* WBRT 633 43.1 D WBRT 698 NBRT 687 NBRT 611 P.M. 41.6 D* WBRT 218 41.3 D WBRT 495 NBRT 510 NBRT 484 Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length Table 3: Concepts 4c - 4e under Future Year (2040) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection Peak Hour Concept 4c Concept 4d Concept 4e Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) A.M. 61.2 E* WBRT 735 88.3 F WBRT 332 46.9 D* WBRT 332 NBRT 1036 NBRT 1002 NBRT 536 P.M. 40.2 D* WBRT 853 52.6 D WBRT 459 31.7 C* WBRT 401 NBRT 604 NBRT 534 NBRT 323 Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 178 Conclusion By 2040, Conecepts 4c and 4d are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions at the intersection of Treat Boulevard and I-680 off ramp/Buskirk Avenue during the AM peak hour. Instead, Concept 4e with two dedicated right turn lanes and one shared through-right lane presents a reasonable tradeoff between vehicle delay and improved conditions for bicyclists and is the recommended option for this intersection. Implementing this alternative will likely require some modifications to the median and shifts in striping on Treat Boulevard in order to create comfortable dimensions for motorists using the three receiving lanes. If desired, the shared through-right lane can operate on an as-needed basis during the AM peak hour with implementation of a variable lane assignment control sign installed at the intersection. Alternatively, the shared through-right movement may be allowed at all times with appropriate lane legends and striping. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 179 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 44 This page intentionally left blank. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 180 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 45 | Alta Planning + Design Appendix D: Additional Traffic Data The following traffic data and motor traffic level of service modeling is summarized from the separate Traffic Technical Memorandum. Traffic Data Data was collected as follows:  Turning movement counts for all users collected with a 24-hour video count during a sunny, dry day on Tuesday May 13, 2014 along Treat Boulevard at North Main Street, Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and Jones Road  Weekday and weekend motor traffic counts collected with pneumatic tube counters placed on Treat Boulevard between the Jones Road and Oak Road intersections over the seven-day period between May 31 to June 5, 2014 Based on the tube counts, approximately 48,000 vehicles per average weekday use Treat Boulevard (both directions). Figure C-1 presents the peak period turning movement counts for the four study intersections. Full datasets are available in the separate traffic analysis report. Figure C-1: AM (PM) peak period turning movement counts May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 181 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 46 Table C-6-8 and Table C-6-9 summarize the morning and afternoon peak period pedestrian and bicycle counts for the study intersections. Table C-6-8: Existing Pedestrian Count Summary Table C-6-9: Existing Bicycle Count Summary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 182 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 | Alta Planning + Design Motorist Traffic Level of Service Model This data was used to build an existing conditions traffic model that evaluates motorist level of service (LOS), which will be one of the metrics used to evaluate potential improvements. The corridor measures of effectiveness are presented in Table C-6-10. The intersection average control delay and corresponding LOS grade values are presented in Table C-6-11. For context, the length of the study segment is 0.43 miles. Under 35 mph free flow conditions with no stops for traffic signals, it would take about 45 seconds to traverse the segment. Table C-6-10: Measures of Effectiveness from Existing Conditions Synchro Model Table C-6-11: Intersection Average Level of Service from Existing Conditions Synchro Model LOS “D” is defined in the HCM as “approaching unstable/tolerable delay: drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly”. With all intersections modeled to be operating at LOS “D” or better (with the exception of Main Street, which is “E” in the morning peak), there is some excess capacity before excessive delay conditions would be expected to develop. However, the County has advised that with predicted future volumes in mind, no reduction in the number of lanes will be considered in this corridor. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 183 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 48 Multi-Modal Level of Service Model Multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) for Treat Boulevard in the current condition has been calculated for motorized and non-motorized modes of traffic using ARTPLAN 2012, the arterial street component of the LOSPLAN software suite. The underlying analysis methods are based on HCM 2010 procedures, which are the first attempt to quantify the inter-relationship of modes. These procedures are currently being revised to better account for a wider range of user types and environments. The HCM MMLOS methods are based on user perceptions of various conditions as assessed through video labs. The model omits consideration of the variety in bicyclist types and impacts of various crossing facilities. Bicycle LOS is gauged based on the average effective width of the outside through lane, motorized vehicle volumes, motorized vehicle speeds, heavy vehicle (truck) volumes, and pavement condition. Pedestrian LOS is gauged based on the existence of a sidewalk, lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles, motorized vehicle volumes, and motorized vehicle speeds. For all modes, a letter grade of “A” indicates superior LOS. LOS results for autos are not comparable to LOS as calculated by other traffic analysis / simulation methods. A summary of the results is provided in Table C-6-12. It should be noted that it is not necessary to have a dedicated bicycle facility for a roadway to be assigned a LOS grade, because a bicyclist may ride anywhere except where explicitly prohibited. These grades do not necessarily reflect what all people may consider acceptable, rather they are a relative grade based on the method’s video lab participant perceptions of conditions. While a grade of “D” may be acceptable to some confident bicyclists, it is not likely that most members of the general public would consider sharing a traffic lane with motorists along Treat Boulevard. In comparing the bicycle and pedestrian grades for various segments and peak periods, the values are intuitive in that the segment between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue has fewer provisions for these modes. The better bicycle grades for the eastbound direction during the afternoon peak are due to the lower eastbound traffic volumes at that time of day. Table C-6-12: Multi-Modal Level of Service – Base Condition Segment Direction Peak Hour Auto Bike Ped Main Street to Buskirk Avenue EB PM D D D WB AM D E D Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road EB PM D C C WB AM D D C Oak Road to Jones Road EB PM D C C WB AM D D C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 184 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Appendix E: Concept Plans and Features The following pages of this appendix contain:  Table describing the principal features of each concept  Concept 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 sketch plans, visual simulations and cross sections  Concept 4 Preliminary CAD plans  Concept 4A and I-680 Off-Ramp Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E  Concept 4A/Alternative 4C (Preferred Project)  Design Renderings (Preferred Project) May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes185 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 64 Table B-6-13 Treat Boulevard Detailed Concept Descriptions Mode Concept 1A: Bike Lanes Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Main Street to Buskirk Avenue Bicycle o Add 5-foot WB bike lane o Add 7-foot EB bike lane o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Add sharrows to EB outer lane o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Add 5 foot WB bike lane o Add 5 foot EB buffered bike lane with 2 foot striped buffer Pedestrian o No change o No change o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Add 7-foot sidewalk on south side o Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path o Add 7-foot sidewalk on south side o No changes Automobile o Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes) o Narrow outer eastbound lane (keep all lanes) o Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways o Remove outside WB lane (two WB lanes) o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes) o Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways o Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes) o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes) o Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways o Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes) o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes) o Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways o Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes) o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes) o Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways o Narrow all lanes Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road Bicycle o Update pedestrian islands to meet ADA standards o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Add EB buffered bike lane o Create protected intersection separating bikes from turning vehicles at Oak Road o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Add sharrows to EB outer lane o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Add WB bike lane o Add EB bike lane (buffered beginning near BART overcrossing) Pedestrian o No change o No change o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use path o Designate existing north side sidewalk as shared path o Update pedestrian islands to meet ADA standards Automobile o No change o Remove SB right channelized right turn lane and convert to buffered bike lane (Treat Blvd / Oak Rd) o Convert curbside travel lanes to buffered bike lanes o Remove SB right channelized right turn lane convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-use path from Oak Road to BART overpass o Remove EB outer travel lane and convert to buffered bike lane o Convert third WB travel lane to right-turn pocket o Remove SB channelized right turn o Convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-use path from Oak Road to BART overpass o Narrow EB outer lane to accommodate expanded sidewalk o Convert third WB travel lane to right-turn pocket o Remove northwest corner channelized right turn lane o Convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-use path from Oak Road to BART overpass o Remove northeast corner channelized right turn lane o Remove SB right channelized right turn lane convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-use path from Oak Road to BART overpass May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes186 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 | Alta Planning + Design Mode Concept 1A: Bike Lanes Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Oak Road to Jones Road Bicycle o No change o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Add WB cycle track (protected bike lane) o Add EB sharrows o Add WB sharrows o Add WB bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane Pedestrian o No change o No change o No change o No change o No change o No change Automobile o No change o Convert WB right turn lane into buffered bike lane o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o Convert WB right turn lane into buffered bike lane o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o Convert WB right turn lane into cycle track o Move parking to create “floating” parking lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o No change o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes187 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 1A May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes188 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard- Concept 1A: Short Term Improvement OptionConcept 1A Treat Blvd: Main to Buskirk 11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'11'11'11’11'5’7’11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'14'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'14'15'11'11'11'7'11'6'High visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksGreen color at bike lane entranceAdd 7’ bike laneNarrow outer laneConsolidate into 15' wide one-way drivewaysGreen colorin conflict zonesHigh visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection markingsGreen color at bike lane entranceNarrows lanes all thru lanes, add 5’ bike laneEastbound and westbound sharrows between Jones and BuskirkBike lane pocket, narrow lanes from 12’ to 11’ if necessaryAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Bike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 5'5'5'7'May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes189 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 1B May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes190 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'12'12'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'10'4’20'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'8’4’5'11'PPConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way driveways5’ bike lane with2’ bufferAdd 8’ bike lane and 6’ bufferGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two stage turn boxNarrow curbradiusConvert outer laneto 10’bike lane with 4’ bufferConvert outer lane to8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferConvert outer laneto right turn onlyGreen striping in conflict zonesGreen striping in conflict zonesRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferTwo-stage turn queueRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksReduce to 6’bike lane entranceBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceHigh visibilitycrosswalksConvert free - Concept 1B: Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer4'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 11'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane11'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike laneReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneBufferTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'12'12'8'6'2' 5'5'5'May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes191 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 2 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes192 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPP11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'3'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'8'5'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'5'11'View west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave - Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesConsolidate into 15’ one-way drivewaysReconfigureisland5’ bike lane with2’ bufferExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two-stage turnqueue boxesNarrow curbradius to 30’Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathConvert outer lane for8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferProtected intersectionseparates bikes from turning vehiclesHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferAllows for a two-stage left-turnRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathExtend curbKeep existing sidewalkConvert free right turn lane to 7’ bike Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11'2' 12'3'5'Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer6'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane12'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike laneMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes193 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 3 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes194 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPPPPP- Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and SidewalkTreat Blvd: Main to Buskirk (remix)Concept 3 Treat Blvd: Buskirk to OakConcept 3 Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave YIELDConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way drivewaysExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathAdd two-stage turnqueue box Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTGreen color at bike lane entranceRemove free right turn laneConvert free right turn lane to bike laneBike lane intersection crossing markingsConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathKeep existing sidewalkReconfigureisland5’ cycle track with 3’buffer, 10’ floating parkingRemove bulb outs to make room for cycle trackNarrow curbradius to 30’Expand sidewalk to 6’with 3’ landscape stripNarrow outer laneto 11’Add 7’ sidewalkAdd crosswalksNarrow lanes to accommodate sidewalk11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'11'12'12'12'11'11'11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'11’13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'12'11'Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Travel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathSide-walkTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 12'3'7'Travel laneSidewalkShared Use 12'Travel lane11'3'6'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane11' 11'Travel laneTravel laneTravel lane11' 14'2-4' 8-10'Plantedmedian13’Travel laneSidewalkSide-walk11'6’Travel lane14'Travel lane11'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'11'Travel laneTravel laneBike LanParking lane11'10' 3' 5' 8-10'Median5’14'Extend curbReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes195 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes196 TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST13'17'5'10'11'12'12'17'11'12'BUSKIRK AVESOUTHBOUND 680R40'12'17'12'12'14'5'18'18'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALK11'11'11'11'10'12'11'7'17'11'11'11'12'11'12'7'WIDEN SIDEWALK TO 12 FT MINIMUMTWO-WAY SHARED USE PATHHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)NARROW DRIVEWAYS ANDCONVERT TO ONE-WAY DRIVEWAYSRECONFIGURE ISLANDADD BICYCLESIGNAL FACES ATINTERSECTIONR40'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALKNORTHBOUND 680FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSRECONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLTO INCLUDE BICYCLE LEFT TURNWAITING AREASHARED LANE MARKINGS (TYPICAL)CONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKMAINTAIN WIDE LANE TOALLOW U-TURN MOVEMENTSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP)EXISTING LANEWIDTH (TYP)FUTUREIMPROVEMENTSBICYCLE TURNWAITING AREAEXISTING CURBADA CURB RAMPSEXISTING TREES,LANDSCAPING ANDDRIVEWAY TO REMAINAAADA CURB RAMPS11'11'RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE INLETRELOCATE STREET LIGHTYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494724Concept 4 - PHASE 1SECTION A-ANTSEXISTING LANDSCAPINGTO REMAINCONFORMNEW CURB & GUTTERREMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTERDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes197 OAK RD13'14'12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R30'12'12'12'15'11'12'12'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBUSKIRK AVEBARTR60'R60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'10'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMPADA CURB RAMPRECONFIGURE ISLAND10'EXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'RECONFIGURE ISLANDADA CURB RAMPSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYWIDEN SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE 10'MIN CLEARANCE AT BART COLUMNBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)SEE SHEET 4 FORFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSMATCHLINESEE SHEET 3MATCHLINESEE SHEET 140 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes198 TREAT BLVDJONES RD11'11'11'11'11'12'5'11'12'12'11'12'R25'R75'R65'11'11'14'12'5'11'14'11'12'6'7'IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILR35'R35'R25'SHARED LANE MARKINGS(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS(TYPICAL)14'YIELD LINE(TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 20 15' 30' 60' 90'4SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes199 OAK RD12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R60'R30'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTR60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'16'EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAINDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)CONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURNLANE TO BIKE LANE10'10'11'11'11'6'11'6'10'10'7'PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSBIKE RAMPEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'14'RELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALRELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALR30'R20'RECONFIGURE ISLANDREMOVEISLANDSPATH EDGE STRIPEADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNS10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'REMOVECROSSWALKOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'RETAINCROSSWALKMATCHLINESEE SHEET 340 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: AUGUST 14, 2015OF4TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122POTENTIAL VARIATIONS (REFER TO SECTION 7 OF THE PLAN):MITIGATION 1:SIGNAL TIMING ADJUSTMENTS ONLY (NO GEOMETRIC CHANGES)MITIGATION 2:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE1 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANE2 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANESREMOVAL OF WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETMITIGATION 3:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE2 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANES1 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANERETAIN WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETSOUTHBOUND RIGHT / EASTBOUND LEFT OVERLAPMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes200 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4A May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes201 TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST BUSKIRK AVE SOUTHBO U N D 6 8 0 NORTHBO U N D 6 8 0 11'11'11'5'5'12'11'11'11'11'11'10'10'12'5'5'12'11'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYPICAL)RECONFIGURE ISLAND2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERCONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)ADA CURB RAMPSYIELD LINE(TYP.)BIKE CROSSINGSKIP MARKINGSEXISTINGSIDEWALK TOREMAINBICYCLE CROSSING TREATMENT (TYP.)9'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERFLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)NB I-680 OFF-RAMP WALNUT CREE K CONTRA COST A C O U N T Y MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494723DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4AMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes202 OAK RD BUSKIRK AVE B A R T 10'12'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'12'11'11'8'14'5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'11'12'5'11'11'11'36'37'38'17'17'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMP(TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDRECONFIGUREISLANDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYP.)HIGH VISIBILITYCROSSWALK (TYP.)PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNSINSTALL ADDITIONAL RIGHTTURNING LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURN LANE TO BIKE LANECONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANEPATH EDGE STRIPEDASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGING AREA(TYP.)BICYCLE CROSSINGTREATMENT (TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)BIKE RAMP2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERSIGNAL POLE TO BE RELOCATEDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIAN3' STREET WIDENING2' STREET WIDENINGREMOVE EXISTINGCROSSWALKAPPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)6'FLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)5'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER40'40'5'OAK RD NB I-680 OFF-RAMP TREAT BLVDAPPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE(CALTRANS) MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 1 30 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4ADESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:MATCHLINE LDJPBH2016-355May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes203 TREAT BLVDJONES RD IRON HORS E REGIONAL T R A I L 5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'8'11'11'10'10'11'11'5' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER (TYP.)REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANECONVERT OUTERLANE TO BIKE LANEPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)SHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANREMOVE ISLANDADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)REALIGN CROSSWALKS (TYP.)DASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGINGAREA (TYP.)5'CONVERT TOTHROUGH-RIGHTTURN LANEMATCHLINESEE SHEET 2 0 15' 30' 60' 90'3SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4AMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes204 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I-680 Off-Ramp Alternatives May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes205 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I-680 Off-Ramp Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D and Alternative E 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R, 1 R 1 L, 2 T, 1 R 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R, 1 R 1 L, 2 T, 2 R (Con. D) 1 L, 1 T/R, 2 R (Con. E) Lane Configurations: L = Left, T = Through, R = Right Alternative E Alternative E May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes206 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4A/Alternative 4C (Preferred Project) May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes207 TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST BUSKIRK AVE SOUTHBOUND 6 8 0 NORTHBOUND 6 8 0 11'11'11'5'5'12'11'11'11'11'11'10'10'12'5'5'12'11'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYPICAL)RECONFIGURE ISLAND2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERCONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)ADA CURB RAMPSYIELD LINE(TYP.)BIKE CROSSINGSKIP MARKINGSEXISTINGSIDEWALK TOREMAINBICYCLE CROSSING TREATMENT (TYP.)9'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERFLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)NB I-680 OFF-RAMP WALNUT CREEK CONTRA COSTA CO U N T Y MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494723DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4AMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes208 7'REMOVE SLIP LANE ANDCONSTRUCT CURBEXTENSIONBUFFERED BIKE LANE TOREPLACE OUTER LANE7'CONVERT TO OPTIONALTHROUGH-RIGHT TURNLANEOAK RD B A R T 10'12'12'12'11'11'12'11'11'8'14'5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'36'37'38'5'40'40'5'OAK RD TREAT BLVD12'12'12'11'11'11'12'BUSKIRK AVENB I-680 OFF-RAMP APPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE(CALTRANS)0 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 20172BTREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4A/Alternative 4CDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:Concept 4A/Alternative 4CLDJPBH2016-355May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes209 TREAT BLVDJONES RD IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRA I L 5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'8'11'11'10'10'11'11'5' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER (TYP.)REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANECONVERT OUTERLANE TO BIKE LANEPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)SHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANREMOVE ISLANDADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)REALIGN CROSSWALKS (TYP.)DASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGINGAREA (TYP.)5'CONVERT TOTHROUGH-RIGHTTURN LANEMATCHLINESEE SHEET 2 0 15' 30' 60' 90'3SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4AMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes210 Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Design Renderings (Preferred Project) 1. Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east) 2. Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north) 3. Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west) 4. Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection) 5. Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west) 6. Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east) 1 2 34 56May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes211 Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes212 Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes213 Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes214 Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes215 Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes216 Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes217 Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes218 Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes219 Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes220 Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes221 Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes222 Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes223 Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 66 This page is intentionally blank May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes224 Appendix F: Concept 4A/Alternative C Cost Estimate NO.Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS $143,000 $143,000 2 Traffic Control 1 LS $85,000 $85,000 3 Water Pollution Control 1 LS $21,000 $21,000 4 Remove Concrete 11900 SF $10 $119,000 5 Remove Curb 1600 LF $20 $32,000 6 Remove Asphalt Concrete 23200 SF $6 $139,200 7 Remove Striping 1 LS $28,000 $28,000 8 Miscellaneous Demo 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 9 Adjust Utilities to Grade 45 LS $800 $36,000 10 Steel Railing Fence 900 LF $90 $81,000 11 Drainage Inlet and Pipe Connection 8 EA $8,000 $64,000 12 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 5750 SF $12 $69,000 13 Concrete (Sidewalk, Median, Curb Ramp) 22400 SF $15 $336,000 14 Concrete Curb 1000 LF $25 $25,000 15 Curb and Gutter 1870 LF $55 $102,850 16 Retaining Wall 330 SF $90 $29,700 17 Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 18 Green Pavement Marking 10760 SF $15 $161,400 19 Signage and Striping 1 LS $90,000 $90,000 20 Signal Improvements 1 LS $170,000 $170,000 Sub Total $1,757,150 Contingency (25%)$439,288 Design & Env. (15%) $263,573 TOTAL (In 2017 $)$2,460,010 ABBR.Unit LF Linear Foot LS Lump Sum SF Square Foot May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 225 1970 Broadway, Suite 740  Oakland, CA 94612  510.763.2061  www.dksassociates.com    DATE:    March 6, 2017  TO:     Brett Hondorp, AICP, Alta  FROM:   David Mahama, PE, DKS  CC:    Tal Stainer, DKS  SUBJECT:  Contra Costa County I‐680 / Treat Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian  Plan – Feasibility Study and Evaluation Traffic Analysis of Revised  Concept 4  #14070‐001  Introduction  With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has decided to complete the I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide safe and convenient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing especially on the I‐680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This project includes the following intersections:  Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street  Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps  Treat Boulevard and Oak Road  Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail The field observations on this corridor indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve pedestrians and cyclists. The performance of the four study intersections was evaluated for AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) traffic conditions and future year (2040) traffic conditions. Four initial study concept (Concept 1B, Concept 2, Concept 3, and Concept 4) geometric improvements as well as traffic signal timing improvements were evaluated to determine the performance of the network. Once the initial alternatives were evaluated by the stakeholders, a final concept (Revised Concept 4) was developed. This report presents a traffic impact evaluation for the Revised Concept 4 pedestrian and bicycle related improvements to the transportation environment along Treat Boulevard. This final design is a modified version of Concept 4 and can be found in Appendix A. This revision includes the elimination of the free southbound right turn lane at the Treat May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 226 Contra Costa County I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle  and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and Evaluation  Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4  2                               February 10, 2017    Experts Connecting Communities  Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, which is expected to eliminate traffic weaving along the segment of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue in the westbound direction. Current Year Analysis (2014)  For the current year (2014 volumes), overall network performance is not largely impacted as compared to the existing condition for the revised concept. Individual intersection level of service (LOS) was analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept. A queuing analysis was also included for traffic movements of concern and Table 1 presents the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 1, intersection delay is high in general under existing conditions. LOS generally remains the same, except at Oak Road, which deteriorates. The biggest impact occurs at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound movement – the free right is removed as well as one of the through lanes. The queuing analysis shows little to no impact at the Treat Boulevard/Main Street intersection. At the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, southbound through queues are expected to increase in the A.M. and in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound approach. It should be noted that the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to experience shorter queue lengths. This is due to the additional right turn lane. Furthermore, queuing is expected to increase for the westbound right turn at the Treat Boulevard/I‐680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. For the proposed alternatives the signal timing parameters were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. Optimization of the corridor is expected to result in improved performance of the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection but decreased efficiency of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection. Lastly, an alternate variation of the Revised Concept 4 was assessed. The variation includes the removal of one eastbound lane between the Treat Boulevard/I‐680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersections and modifying the two intersections described as follows: 1) Eliminate the northbound free right‐turn at the Treat Boulevard/I‐ 680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection. 2) Remove the eastbound right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, which will result in converting the curbside through lane to a shared through‐right lane. The traffic analysis results of this alternative are shown in Table 1. Because the Treat Boulevard/I‐680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection is expected to operate unacceptably in the A.M., the alternative was excluded from future considerations. Furthermore, the expected queues for the northbound right turning vehicles was shown to extend back on the ramp all the way to NB I‐680 in the A.M. and extend almost all the way to the freeway in the P.M. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 227 Table 1: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Revised Concept 4 Revised Concept 4 ‐ Alternative Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E WBLT 356 53.1 D WBLT 378 Not Applicable WBRT 0 WBRT 0 P.M. 42.9 D WBLT 174 42.9 D WBLT 160 WBRT 890 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and I‐680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.3 C WBRT 126 34.7 C WBRT 130 112.9 F WBRT 640 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1446 P.M. 17.5 B WBRT 169 19.5 B WBRT 638 62.1 E WBRT 638 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1308 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D SBRT 140 49.2 D SBRT 68 49.7 D SBRT 69 SBTH 295 SBTH 681 SBTH 731 P.M. 19.3 B SBRT 382 36.8 D SBRT 161 41.6 D SBRT 163 SBTH 127 SBTH 323 SBTH 323 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D No movement of interest 32.8 C No movement of interest Not Applicable P.M. 49.8 D 48.3 D Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length  May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes228 Contra Costa County I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle  and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and Evaluation  Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4  1                               February 10, 2017    Experts Connecting Communities  Future Year Analysis (2040)  Individual intersection delay and LOS were analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept for the future year (2040). A queuing analysis was also completed for movements of concern. Table 2, on the next page, presents the findings for this analysis. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year. In general, the removal of the free right turn (revised concept 4) has a negative impact on delay and queuing at Oak Road during the morning and evening peak periods. Since the improvement involves the removal of the SB free right turn as well as a removal of one of the through lanes, SB through movements are subject to much queueing, especially in the A.M. For the future year alternatives, the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. This optimization results in higher delays for side street and left turn movements, as indicated by the high delay at Treat Boulevard/Jones Road during the p.m. peak hour. Although performance degrades slightly with the free right turn removal at Oak Road, the high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps are mitigated. Removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment reduces the potential negative impact of the improvements at the corridor level. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 229 Contra Costa County I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle  and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and Evaluation  Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4  2                               February 10, 2017    Experts Connecting Communities  Table 2: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year (2040) Intersection Peak Hour Revised Concept 4 Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 60.1 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0 P.M. 60.0 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and I‐680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 36.5 D WBRT 131 NBRT 0 P.M. 26.1 C WBRT 193 NBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 53.8 D SBRT 82 SBTH 706 P.M. 42.7 D SBRT 189 SBTH 557 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 59.7 E No movement of interest P.M. 143.9 F Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95 th Percentile Queue Length Conclusion  Implementation of Revised Concept 4 is expected to result in some increased delay and queuing for motorists at specific intersections on Treat Boulevard. The alternative concept has been shown to be ineffective as it leads to unacceptable LOS levels even with 2014 volume levels. Therefore, these were not considered in future analysis. The reconfiguration of the southbound approach at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection is expected to result in increased delay and queuing. This is to be expected as one of the southbound through lanes is removed, the free southbound right turn is removed and replaced with two southbound right turn lanes. As a result, the southbound through queue is expected to increase and vehicles in this movement experience higher delays. It should be noted that the removal of free right‐turn is expected to achieve the goal of eliminating the potentially dangerous weaving along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk. Furthermore, the queues for the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to decrease. When compared to the benefits for other transportation modes, the increased delay for motorists is relatively small. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 230 Contra Costa County I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle  and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and Evaluation  Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4  3                               February 10, 2017    Experts Connecting Communities  STUDY PARTICIPANTS Client Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Technical Advisory Committee Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp Principal‐In‐Charge John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager, Alta Planning Alexandra Sweet Planner, Alta Planning DKS Peter Coffey, P.E. Principal‐In‐Charge David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager Tal Sztainer, E.I.T Associate Transportation Engineer Others IDAX Data Collection Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection  May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 231 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix A – Revised Concept 4 Plans May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 232 TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST BUSKIRK AVE SOUTHBO U N D 6 8 0 NORTHBO U N D 6 8 0 11'11'11'5'5'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'10'14'5'5'12'11'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYPICAL)RECONFIGURE ISLAND2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERCONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)ADA CURB RAMPSYIELD LINE(TYP.)6' BIKE CROSSINGSKIP MARKINGSEXISTINGSIDEWALK TOREMAINBICYCLE CROSSING TREATMENT (TYP.)MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JANUARY, 2017OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494723Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes233 OAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVE B A R T 10'12'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'12'11'11'8'14'5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'12'6'12'5'12'11'11'36'37'38'40'40'17'17'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDRECONFIGURE ISLANDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITYCROSSWALK (TYP.)PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNSINSTALL ADDITIONAL RIGHTTURNING LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURN LANE TO BIKE LANECONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANEPATH EDGE STRIPEDASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGING AREA(TYP.)BICYCLE CROSSINGTREATMENT (TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)BIKE RAMP (TYP.)2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERSIGNAL POLE TO BE RELOCATEDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIAN3' STREET WIDENING2' STREET WIDENINGREMOVE EXISTINGCROSSWALKAPPROXIMATEROW LINEEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)6'11'7'12'11'11'ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTREMOVE SLIP LANE ANDCONSTRUCT CURBEXTENSIONALTERNATIVE CONCEPTBUFFERED BIKE LANE TOREPLACE OUTER LANE7'MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3 SEE SHEET 1 30 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JANUARY, 2017OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:MATCHLINE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTLDJPBH2016-355May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes234 TREAT BLVDJONES RD IRON HORS E REGIONAL T R A I L 12'11'11'8'11'11'10'10'11'11'5' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER (TYP.)REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANECONVERT TOTHROUGH/RIGHT-TURN SHARED LANECONVERT OUTERLANE TO BIKE LANEPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)SHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANREMOVE ISLANDADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)REALIGN CROSSWALKS (TYP.)DASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGING AREA(TYP.)5'MATCHLINESEE SHEET 2 0 15' 30' 60' 90'3SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JANUARY, 2017OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes235 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix B – Current Year Synchro Reports May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 236 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430071 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.44 1.00 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 992 575 1534 1776 79 697 340 558 1197 522 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.46 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.00 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.75 0.15 0.30 1.05 0.81 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 49.1 56.7 24.2 0.0 66.0 46.5 47.9 58.1 41.3 31.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 28.8 22.1 0.2 0.9 31.4 0.5 2.2 51.4 6.1 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 78.0 78.8 24.4 0.9 97.4 47.0 50.2 109.5 47.4 31.6 Level of Service E E E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)77.7 30.2 55.0 67.5 Approach LOS E C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 237 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 2798 0 0 3049 968 386 823 379 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 57.5 61.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 7.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 58.2 68.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 18.0 66.4 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.0 26.3 94.7 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 116.0 29.0 83.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 21.7 27.5 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 91.6 0.6 53.3 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 238 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 244 2133 397 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.47 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5456 1016 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1348 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1449 500 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1659 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1348 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1882 649 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.70 0.00 0.83 0.34 0.11 0.86 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 1882 649 680 2437 766 441 955 360 198 899 414 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.5 39.7 39.7 62.2 30.9 0.0 67.5 46.8 44.1 67.5 50.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 2.6 7.3 7.1 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.1 19.0 2.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 17.9 19.4 10.5 18.7 0.0 5.2 5.0 1.2 6.0 9.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 42.4 47.0 69.3 31.9 0.0 72.7 46.8 44.2 86.5 52.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E C E D D F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 636 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.8 40.2 57.7 59.3 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.1 74.9 16.6 41.4 14.6 87.4 16.8 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 55.0 19.0 38.0 13.0 71.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 41.3 12.4 21.0 10.4 41.1 12.8 12.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 13.7 0.3 7.5 0.2 29.8 0.1 9.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.8 HCM 2010 LOS D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 239 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800013506400039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 571 53 116 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2632 379 3004 903 170 159 230 238 203 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.63 0.31 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.0 58.6 25.5 21.9 67.2 70.1 66.6 66.5 59.3 Progression Factor 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.0 7.4 2.2 3.4 0.4 13.2 16.9 14.8 0.0 Delay (s)66.1 34.5 66.0 27.7 25.2 67.6 83.3 83.4 81.2 59.4 Level of Service E C E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)35.8 30.4 79.8 79.8 Approach LOS D C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 240 Queues AM Base 2014 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 1007 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.04 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.62 0.14 0.57 1.09 0.77 0.23 Control Delay 76.0 87.0 80.4 25.7 0.9 91.7 45.2 11.9 100.4 45.0 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.0 87.0 80.4 25.7 0.9 91.7 45.2 11.9 100.4 45.0 10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 ~514 250 92 0 53 42 31 ~208 422 20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 #512 #356 131 0 #116 70 127 #295 510 69 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 179 968 577 1535 1776 99 758 608 539 1256 617 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 1.04 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.60 0.14 0.57 1.09 0.77 0.23 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 241 Queues AM Base 2014 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1134 1508 555 164 545 1049 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.40 0.51 0.61 0.56 0.84 0.65 Control Delay 81.0 7.4 10.4 11.5 66.6 75.3 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.0 7.9 10.5 11.8 66.6 75.3 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 195 111 95 158 292 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 281 246 130 126 222 334 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 616 2845 2976 910 351 777 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1132 424 68 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.66 0.47 0.70 0.65 Intersection Summary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 242 Queues AM Base 2014 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1949 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.82 0.88 0.74 0.07 0.74 0.34 0.09 0.80 0.60 0.46 Control Delay 89.3 44.0 88.0 13.1 0.5 84.1 51.2 0.5 104.3 57.6 20.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.3 44.0 88.0 13.3 0.5 84.1 51.2 0.5 104.3 57.6 20.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 531 225 506 3 130 135 0 131 252 70 Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 586 287 62 m0 168 170 0 #203 295 140 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 285 2389 613 2303 756 397 893 410 178 845 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 94 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.07 0.62 0.33 0.09 0.71 0.60 0.46 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 243 Queues AM Base 2014 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1833 286 2363 706 53 180 184 188 45 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.15 Control Delay 71.1 36.1 71.8 29.9 17.3 69.7 67.7 90.0 88.3 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.1 36.1 71.8 29.9 17.3 69.7 67.7 90.0 88.3 1.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 233 284 670 268 53 115 198 203 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m55 345 352 847 459 87 172 257 261 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 178 2640 379 3005 1038 381 413 369 380 410 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.14 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.11 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 244 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000024400130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 290 735 355 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.24 0.13 0.29 1.00 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 788 416 1036 1787 239 719 350 928 1298 560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.16 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.42 0.62 0.74 0.69 0.83 0.79 0.27 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 49.7 58.0 40.2 0.0 58.3 52.0 53.7 46.9 30.7 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.38 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.5 3.9 0.7 1.5 11.2 5.3 19.7 4.7 0.5 0.8 Delay (s)67.2 55.1 83.7 38.9 1.5 69.5 57.2 73.5 51.5 31.2 30.6 Level of Service E E F D AEEEDCC Approach Delay (s)56.5 22.8 66.2 42.3 Approach LOS E C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 245 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.81 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.80 0.69 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 630 2998 0 0 3074 995 524 1045 486 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 50.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 54.0 51.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.4 0.3 52.3 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 122.0 24.7 97.2 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.0 22.0 70.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 20.5 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 78.8 0.2 64.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 246 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 217 2622 217 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.86 0.86 0.12 0.85 0.00 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6125 507 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1491 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1427 522 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1774 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1491 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 217 2080 760 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.69 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.00 0.80 0.52 0.47 0.83 0.30 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 2080 760 302 2189 716 611 1108 467 397 1268 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.3 5.6 5.6 49.6 5.7 0.0 51.1 37.1 36.6 51.1 34.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 1.7 4.5 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.2 6.3 2.4 4.8 0.0 4.1 6.3 4.8 4.5 3.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 7.3 10.1 51.2 6.6 0.0 52.8 37.3 37.0 55.2 35.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D A D D D E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 11.0 41.7 42.3 Approach LOS B B D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 55.2 14.7 34.0 11.3 55.0 14.9 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 49.0 20.0 42.0 10.0 49.0 26.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 13.8 10.3 9.0 7.2 12.8 10.9 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 35.0 0.3 6.7 0.1 36.0 0.1 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 247 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000120014200083 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 172 132 325 0 289 296 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 2091 167 1966 574 391 354 343 349 304 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 c0.08 0.31 0.08 c0.21 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.00 0.80 0.82 0.30 0.34 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 65.4 47.0 61.8 38.8 30.1 45.6 53.0 53.1 53.2 44.4 Progression Factor 1.47 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 15.3 21.2 3.9 1.3 0.2 27.4 16.3 16.5 0.0 Delay (s)96.8 42.7 83.1 42.6 31.4 45.8 80.5 69.4 69.7 44.5 Level of Service F D F D C D F E E D Approach Delay (s)44.0 43.7 72.8 65.7 Approach LOS D D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 248 Queues PM Base 2014 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 607 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.42 0.62 0.74 0.68 0.90 0.79 0.27 0.35 Control Delay 79.8 54.8 86.5 38.9 7.0 75.9 57.4 41.9 36.2 34.1 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.8 54.8 86.5 38.9 7.0 75.9 57.4 41.9 36.2 34.1 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 265 126 138 128 156 221 224 197 118 21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 317 174 114 890 222 273 #395 #409 190 102 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 199 902 572 1178 1787 309 722 596 927 1300 690 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.67 0.48 0.37 0.62 0.57 0.68 0.90 0.79 0.27 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 249 Queues PM Base 2014 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 1112 1488 665 167 285 890 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.36 0.51 0.68 0.75 0.61 0.54 Control Delay 56.2 6.2 13.3 12.0 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.2 6.4 13.3 12.4 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 261 166 158 133 149 131 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m270 m244 181 169 218 170 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 710 3066 2911 981 428 888 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1144 0 61 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.58 0.51 0.72 0.39 0.32 0.54 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 250 Queues PM Base 2014 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 1949 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.74 0.10 0.71 0.45 0.32 0.73 0.26 0.78 Control Delay 71.8 40.4 91.4 29.3 5.1 71.4 42.3 6.6 80.5 38.1 38.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.8 40.4 91.4 29.3 5.1 71.4 42.3 6.6 80.5 38.1 38.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 462 77 182 3 120 180 0 123 94 268 Queue Length 95th (ft) 107 540 m99 275 m16 163 236 57 181 127 382 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 257 2524 243 1936 707 483 1021 557 314 1060 624 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.77 0.65 0.74 0.10 0.54 0.45 0.32 0.44 0.25 0.76 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 251 Queues PM Base 2014 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2085 133 1604 292 132 467 289 296 105 v/c Ratio 0.32 1.00 0.79 0.80 0.42 0.34 0.94 0.84 0.85 0.26 Control Delay 97.9 46.6 92.2 43.9 14.6 46.9 60.1 73.9 74.3 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 97.9 46.6 92.2 43.9 14.6 46.9 60.1 73.9 74.3 5.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 ~645 119 506 62 98 267 266 273 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m36 #756 #214 #693 162 150 #403 215 221 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 241 2093 186 1996 700 440 535 421 429 467 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 1.00 0.72 0.80 0.42 0.30 0.87 0.69 0.69 0.22 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 252 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 14 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3333 3236 3388 1671 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3333 3236 3388 1671 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002200071 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 125 585 973 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 43.6 23.0 61.3 140.0 7.1 25.6 25.6 25.8 48.3 48.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 43.6 23.0 61.3 140.0 7.1 25.6 25.6 25.8 48.3 48.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.16 0.44 1.00 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 1037 531 1483 1671 88 647 316 605 1180 516 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.49 0.07 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.96 1.01 0.20 0.49 0.67 0.17 0.40 0.97 0.82 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 47.3 58.5 24.3 0.0 65.3 48.2 50.4 56.7 42.0 31.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 19.1 40.9 0.2 1.0 18.2 0.6 3.7 28.2 6.6 0.6 Delay (s)70.5 66.4 99.4 24.5 1.0 83.5 48.8 54.1 84.8 48.6 32.1 Level of Service E E F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)66.5 37.0 56.4 59.7 Approach LOS E D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 253 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 500 2519 0 0 2810 858 293 625 288 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3597 0 0 5305 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1752 0 0 1712 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.9 21.5 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 14.3 23.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.9 21.5 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 14.3 23.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 500 2519 0 0 2810 858 293 625 288 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.56 0.87 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 639 2519 0 0 2810 858 371 791 364 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.2 9.4 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 60.4 64.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 7.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 10.7 10.6 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 6.7 12.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 9.9 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 61.0 71.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 23.7 69.2 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.0 27.5 92.5 32.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.0 30.0 81.0 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.5 22.9 32.1 25.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 85.8 0.6 47.2 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.7 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 254 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1881 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 231231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %221014116423 Cap, veh/h 239 1843 566 982 3006 945 261 1009 387 147 532 947 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.59 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5085 1561 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1370 1740 1863 2617 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1695 1561 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1370 1740 1863 1308 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 48.7 24.9 18.7 33.0 0.0 11.2 10.2 2.2 11.5 43.0 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 48.7 24.9 18.7 33.0 0.0 11.2 10.2 2.2 11.5 43.0 10.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 1843 566 982 3006 945 261 1009 387 147 532 947 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.89 0.54 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.94 0.29 0.09 0.86 0.96 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1843 566 982 3006 945 261 1009 387 174 536 951 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.82 0.82 0.82 0.58 0.58 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.5 48.0 40.4 48.2 20.6 0.0 73.6 44.9 21.3 72.3 56.2 35.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.4 5.9 3.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 39.2 0.1 0.0 27.1 29.2 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 4.8 23.8 11.2 9.0 15.6 0.0 6.8 5.1 0.8 6.6 26.4 3.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.9 53.9 43.5 48.3 21.1 0.0 112.8 44.9 21.4 99.4 85.4 35.7 LnGrp LOS F DDDC FDCFFD Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.6 27.1 72.5 73.6 Approach LOS E C E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.1 64.0 17.0 50.7 15.1 100.0 17.5 50.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 58 12.0 * 46 12.0 71.0 16.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.7 50.7 13.2 45.0 11.0 35.0 13.5 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 7.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 31.2 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 255 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 4817 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 4817 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0500012606500039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1828 0 286 2363 580 53 115 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 74.5 27.0 95.5 95.5 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 74.5 27.0 95.5 95.5 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.47 0.17 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 2242 294 3065 926 173 162 231 239 205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.38 c0.16 0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.82 0.97 0.77 0.63 0.31 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 75.9 36.8 66.1 24.1 20.8 66.9 69.8 66.5 66.4 59.3 Progression Factor 0.77 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 1.8 44.6 1.9 3.2 0.4 11.5 16.1 14.5 0.0 Delay (s)62.7 15.1 110.7 26.0 24.0 67.3 81.4 82.6 80.8 59.3 Level of Service E B F C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)17.0 32.8 78.2 79.3 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 256 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 1007 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.99 1.01 0.20 0.49 0.57 0.15 0.61 1.00 0.79 0.23 Control Delay 76.0 74.3 98.4 25.9 1.0 85.6 46.9 17.2 76.0 46.1 10.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.0 74.3 98.4 25.9 1.0 85.6 46.9 17.2 76.0 46.1 10.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 474 ~256 92 0 53 43 59 183 427 20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 473 #378 132 0 103 71 165 #304 516 70 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 215 1014 531 1484 1671 111 707 561 586 1238 611 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.99 1.01 0.20 0.49 0.53 0.15 0.61 1.00 0.79 0.23 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 257 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1134 1508 555 164 545 1049 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.44 0.53 0.68 0.56 0.84 0.65 Control Delay 81.0 8.1 5.9 7.7 66.4 74.9 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.0 8.6 6.0 7.9 66.4 74.9 2.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 206 115 96 158 292 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 281 265 m139 m130 221 332 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 616 2567 2836 822 357 790 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 900 314 23 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 55 000026 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.68 0.60 0.69 0.46 0.69 0.66 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 258 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1643 306 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.92 0.44 0.96 0.80 0.07 0.98 0.30 0.08 0.83 0.95 0.21 Control Delay 95.4 53.3 11.4 68.7 19.5 0.5 123.1 47.7 0.4 109.1 84.0 15.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 95.4 53.5 11.4 68.7 19.6 0.5 123.1 47.7 0.4 109.1 84.0 15.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 98 602 42 265 516 1 134 130 0 132 525 46 Queue Length 95th (ft) #159 648 78 #361 145 m2 #212 166 0 #215 #681 68 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 200 Base Capacity (vph) 248 1782 693 510 2131 751 251 969 450 167 535 1179 Starvation Cap Reductn 0800590000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.93 0.44 0.96 0.82 0.07 0.98 0.30 0.08 0.76 0.95 0.21 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 259 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 - Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1833 286 2363 706 53 180 184 188 45 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.82 0.97 0.77 0.67 0.31 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.14 Control Delay 71.1 16.9 110.8 28.0 16.5 69.5 65.2 89.4 87.9 1.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.1 16.9 110.8 28.0 16.5 69.5 65.2 89.4 87.9 1.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 138 302 645 267 53 113 198 203 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m50 #438 #442 799 444 87 171 256 261 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 120 2248 294 3066 1051 403 434 410 423 455 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.82 0.97 0.77 0.67 0.13 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.10 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 260 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 1049 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 447 1336 0 0 1156 353 936 1997 919 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3597 0 0 5305 1568 1675 3574 1645 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 1049 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1752 0 0 1712 1568 1675 1787 1645 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.0 47.4 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 7.7 12.7 89.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.0 47.4 0.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 7.7 12.7 89.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 447 1336 0 0 1156 353 936 1997 919 V/C Ratio(X) 1.01 0.85 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.18 0.27 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 447 1336 0 0 1156 353 936 1997 919 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.5 45.3 0.0 0.0 62.0 0.0 17.3 18.4 35.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 45.2 6.9 0.0 0.0 141.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 12.7 24.1 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 3.6 6.3 59.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 114.7 52.1 0.0 0.0 203.1 0.0 17.3 18.4 112.0 LnGrp LOS F D F B B F Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 1758 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.0 203.1 74.2 Approach LOS E F E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 66.0 25.0 41.0 94.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 61.0 21.0 36.0 89.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.4 23.0 38.0 91.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 112.9 HCM 2010 LOS F May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 261 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 - Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 230231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 241 1722 318 1000 3222 1013 261 905 343 147 489 681 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.63 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 4304 796 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1354 1740 1863 2594 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1293 656 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1698 1704 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1354 1740 1863 1297 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 59.1 60.0 18.5 29.6 0.0 11.2 10.6 2.4 11.5 42.0 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 59.1 60.0 18.5 29.6 0.0 11.2 10.6 2.4 11.5 42.0 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 241 1358 682 1000 3222 1013 261 905 343 147 489 681 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.95 0.96 0.49 0.53 0.00 0.94 0.32 0.11 0.86 1.04 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 301 1358 682 1000 3222 1013 261 905 343 163 489 681 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.09 0.09 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.4 46.5 46.8 47.5 16.6 0.0 73.6 48.6 24.6 72.3 59.0 48.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 2.2 4.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 39.2 0.1 0.0 30.8 51.8 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 4.3 28.1 29.1 9.0 14.0 0.0 6.8 5.3 0.9 6.8 28.6 4.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.7 48.7 51.5 47.6 17.0 0.0 112.8 48.7 24.6 103.1 110.8 49.2 LnGrp LOS E D D D B F D C F F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.9 23.8 74.6 92.6 Approach LOS D C E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.6 70.0 16.0 47.0 15.2 106.4 17.5 45.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 64 12.0 42.0 14.0 73.0 15.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 62.0 13.2 44.0 11.0 31.6 13.5 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 35.2 0.0 12.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 262 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 - Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1134 1508 555 164 545 1049 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.88 1.35 1.09 0.18 0.27 1.14 Control Delay 121.5 55.1 200.5 81.4 18.0 18.8 109.5 Queue Delay 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 121.5 72.8 200.5 81.4 18.0 18.8 109.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~263 579 ~739 ~420 82 152 ~1261 Queue Length 95th (ft) #352 632 m#832 m#640 120 181 #1446 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 431 1291 1116 509 902 1996 918 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 108 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 181 00001 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.05 1.02 1.35 1.09 0.18 0.27 1.14 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 263 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 AM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 - Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1949 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 v/c Ratio 0.72 1.01 1.04 0.77 0.07 0.98 0.33 0.09 0.85 1.04 0.27 Control Delay 80.5 46.2 92.7 16.7 0.9 123.1 50.7 0.4 113.7 107.6 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 80.5 56.7 92.7 17.2 0.9 123.1 50.7 0.4 113.7 107.6 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 ~689 ~291 581 6 134 133 0 133 ~573 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) m108 m638 #400 96 m0 #212 171 0 #226 #731 69 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 200 Base Capacity (vph) 290 1933 469 2211 757 251 888 422 157 489 900 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 59 0 181 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 1.04 1.04 0.84 0.07 0.98 0.33 0.09 0.81 1.04 0.27 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 264 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 14 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3336 3204 3455 1682 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3336 3204 3455 1682 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000019900134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 335 735 355 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 781 402 979 1682 239 902 440 780 1321 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.66 c0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.68 0.44 0.66 0.74 0.55 0.76 0.94 0.27 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 50.0 58.5 41.1 0.0 58.3 45.6 48.6 52.8 30.1 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.7 5.2 0.9 2.1 11.2 2.4 11.8 19.5 0.5 0.7 Delay (s)67.2 55.7 63.7 42.0 2.1 69.5 48.0 60.4 72.2 30.6 29.9 Level of Service E E E D A E D E E C C Approach Delay (s)57.0 20.9 56.7 53.4 Approach LOS E C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 265 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 1090 2953 0 0 2439 760 204 407 189 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3668 0 0 5305 1599 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1787 0 0 1712 1599 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 43.2 0.0 14.6 12.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 43.2 0.0 14.6 12.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1090 2953 0 0 2439 760 204 407 189 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.82 0.70 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1090 2953 0 0 2439 760 394 786 366 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 53.6 0.0 69.3 68.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 9.7 6.3 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 7.4 6.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 54.5 0.0 72.3 69.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.0 54.5 70.3 Approach LOS B D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 137.2 56.2 81.0 22.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.2 35.2 * 76 35.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.6 22.5 45.2 16.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 37.1 10.3 24.5 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 266 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1881 1900 1881 1881 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Adj No. of Lanes 231231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %210110021342 Cap, veh/h 206 2247 685 201 2302 724 315 847 356 159 427 810 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.90 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5136 1567 3476 5136 1615 3510 3539 1487 1757 1827 2727 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1712 1567 1738 1712 1615 1755 1770 1487 1757 1827 1363 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 51.8 11.5 7.0 10.5 0.0 11.6 18.3 12.8 12.4 20.3 16.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 51.8 11.5 7.0 10.5 0.0 11.6 18.3 12.8 12.4 20.3 16.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 206 2247 685 201 2302 724 315 847 356 159 427 810 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.80 0.22 0.78 0.62 0.00 0.82 0.55 0.50 0.87 0.61 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 2247 685 261 2302 724 395 847 356 231 468 872 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.89 0.89 0.89 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 75.8 50.1 35.9 69.7 5.1 0.0 71.6 53.3 31.7 71.8 54.8 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 2.8 0.6 5.8 0.9 0.0 9.0 0.4 0.4 15.5 5.2 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.8 25.1 5.1 3.5 4.7 0.0 6.1 9.0 5.3 6.7 10.9 6.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.4 52.9 36.5 75.6 6.1 0.0 80.6 53.7 32.1 87.4 60.0 26.8 LnGrp LOS F D D E A F D C F E C Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.1 12.9 57.2 46.2 Approach LOS D B E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 76.0 19.4 42.4 13.6 77.7 18.5 43.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 * 70 18.0 * 41 13.0 69.0 21.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 53.8 13.6 22.3 9.4 12.5 14.4 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 15.3 0.7 8.4 0.1 37.8 0.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 267 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 4914 1728 5136 1505 1745 1577 1641 1671 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 4914 1728 5136 1505 1745 1577 1641 1671 1456 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)02000108026300085 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2083 0 133 1604 184 132 204 0 289 296 20 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 69.4 16.7 74.1 74.1 23.4 23.4 30.5 30.5 30.5 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 69.4 16.7 74.1 74.1 23.4 23.4 30.5 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.43 0.10 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 253 2131 180 2378 697 255 230 312 318 277 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.42 c0.08 0.31 0.08 c0.13 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.98 0.74 0.67 0.26 0.52 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 69.5 44.5 69.5 33.5 26.3 63.1 67.0 63.6 63.7 53.1 Progression Factor 0.69 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 11.2 12.8 1.6 0.9 0.7 30.2 31.7 32.5 0.0 Delay (s)48.2 33.7 82.3 35.1 27.2 63.8 97.2 95.4 96.3 53.2 Level of Service D C F D C E F F F D Approach Delay (s)34.1 37.0 89.9 89.3 Approach LOS C D F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 268 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 607 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.68 0.44 0.66 0.74 0.55 0.84 0.94 0.27 0.35 Control Delay 79.8 55.3 67.4 42.2 2.1 75.9 48.3 37.2 53.4 33.1 8.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.8 55.3 67.4 42.2 2.1 75.9 48.3 37.2 53.4 33.1 8.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 265 124 169 0 156 206 250 197 118 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 321 160 203 0 222 255 377 #436 182 90 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 199 916 457 1046 1682 309 902 639 779 1321 704 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.66 0.60 0.42 0.66 0.57 0.55 0.84 0.94 0.27 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 269 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 1112 1488 665 167 285 890 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.39 0.53 0.75 0.78 0.64 0.54 Control Delay 65.6 4.8 11.1 14.8 90.9 72.8 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.6 5.3 11.3 16.3 90.9 72.8 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 274 141 156 133 172 152 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 343 216 241 638 247 194 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 722 2817 2832 882 380 786 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1082 515 86 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0500002 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.84 0.44 0.36 0.54 Intersection Summary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 270 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 1800 149 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.80 0.20 0.63 0.67 0.10 0.78 0.52 0.35 0.78 0.56 0.43 Control Delay 83.6 39.2 8.0 48.3 8.8 0.2 86.3 54.4 8.5 97.5 56.9 22.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.6 39.5 8.0 48.3 8.8 0.2 86.3 54.4 8.5 97.5 56.9 22.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 497 20 84 73 0 138 221 2 143 238 128 Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 541 65 121 83 m0 188 286 67 210 323 161 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 269 2238 759 251 2160 703 380 887 503 222 468 1115 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 101 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000190000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.84 0.20 0.63 0.67 0.10 0.68 0.52 0.35 0.62 0.56 0.43 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 271 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2085 133 1604 292 132 467 289 296 105 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.98 0.74 0.67 0.36 0.52 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.28 Control Delay 47.6 36.6 92.4 37.6 11.6 68.7 51.2 97.8 98.6 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.6 36.6 92.4 37.6 11.6 68.7 51.2 97.8 98.6 7.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 ~875 137 514 58 127 183 312 321 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m38 #1091 207 608 145 181 283 262 267 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 317 2135 302 2406 811 338 554 328 334 389 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.98 0.44 0.67 0.36 0.39 0.84 0.88 0.89 0.27 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 272 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 890 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 1064 2300 0 0 1541 480 833 1662 773 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3668 0 0 5305 1599 1792 3574 1662 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 890 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1787 0 0 1712 1599 1792 1787 1662 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.7 25.8 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 8.8 7.4 74.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.7 25.8 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 8.8 7.4 74.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1064 2300 0 0 1541 480 833 1662 773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.20 0.17 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1064 2300 0 0 1541 480 833 1662 773 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 63.1 0.0 25.3 24.9 42.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 9.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 4.4 3.6 51.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 15.5 0.0 0.0 76.2 0.0 25.3 24.9 125.6 LnGrp LOS D B E C C F Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 1342 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 76.2 91.8 Approach LOS C E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 108.2 55.2 53.0 79.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 76.0 24.0 * 48 74.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.8 22.7 48.0 76.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 27.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 62.1 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 273 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Adj No. of Lanes 230231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 206 2172 179 200 2364 743 313 845 355 159 427 810 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.92 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 4826 398 3476 5136 1615 3510 3539 1487 1757 1827 2727 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1276 673 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1713 1798 1738 1712 1615 1755 1770 1487 1757 1827 1363 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 55.5 55.8 7.0 8.1 0.0 11.7 18.3 13.0 12.4 20.3 16.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 55.5 55.8 7.0 8.1 0.0 11.7 18.3 13.0 12.4 20.3 16.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 206 1542 809 200 2364 743 313 845 355 159 427 810 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.61 0.00 0.83 0.55 0.50 0.87 0.61 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 1542 809 239 2364 743 373 845 355 220 468 872 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.36 0.36 0.36 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 75.8 50.1 50.2 69.8 3.8 0.0 71.7 53.3 33.0 71.8 54.8 25.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 2.0 3.8 8.2 0.9 0.0 10.8 0.4 0.4 18.2 5.2 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.6 26.8 28.6 3.6 3.6 0.0 6.1 9.0 5.4 6.8 10.9 6.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.5 52.1 54.0 78.1 4.6 0.0 82.5 53.7 33.4 90.1 60.0 27.9 LnGrp LOS E D D E A F D C F E C Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.8 11.9 58.1 47.3 Approach LOS D B E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 78.0 19.3 42.4 13.6 79.6 18.5 43.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 72 17.0 * 41 13.0 70.0 20.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 57.8 13.7 22.3 9.4 10.1 14.4 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 13.5 0.6 8.4 0.1 39.3 0.1 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 274 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 1112 1488 665 167 285 890 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.68 1.00 0.95 0.21 0.17 1.12 Control Delay 130.4 35.1 61.5 31.2 26.2 25.2 108.7 Queue Delay 0.0 1.7 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Delay 130.4 36.8 61.5 41.7 26.2 25.2 108.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~327 467 567 145 102 90 ~1043 Queue Length 95th (ft) #449 548 #678 #264 155 122 #1308 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 492 1641 1489 702 803 1661 793 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 340 0 40 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 43 000010 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.10 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.17 1.14 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 275 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2014 PM Revised Concept 4 - Alternative Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 1949 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.86 0.68 0.66 0.10 0.80 0.52 0.36 0.79 0.56 0.45 Control Delay 83.5 40.0 52.7 8.4 0.2 88.7 54.7 11.8 99.4 56.9 22.5 Queue Delay 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.5 41.4 52.7 8.4 0.2 88.7 54.7 11.8 99.4 56.9 22.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 85 585 85 70 0 138 221 16 143 238 128 Queue Length 95th (ft) m105 m617 125 79 m0 189 286 85 211 323 163 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 269 2256 230 2172 707 359 883 488 211 468 1081 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 149 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.93 0.68 0.66 0.10 0.72 0.52 0.36 0.65 0.56 0.44 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 276 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix C – Future Year Synchro Reports May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 277 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 14 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3388 1671 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3388 1671 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0000002560082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1198 0 577 378 1141 74 143 119 643 978 97 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 48.0 24.8 65.1 140.0 7.9 17.2 17.2 28.0 41.3 41.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 48.0 24.8 65.1 140.0 7.9 17.2 17.2 28.0 41.3 41.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.34 0.18 0.46 1.00 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)92 1145 573 1575 1671 97 434 212 657 1009 441 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.68 0.07 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.55 1.05 1.01 0.24 0.68 0.76 0.33 0.56 0.98 0.97 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 64.5 46.0 57.6 22.6 0.0 65.1 56.1 57.8 55.7 48.7 37.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 39.4 39.3 0.2 2.3 29.2 2.0 10.3 29.4 21.8 1.1 Delay (s)68.5 85.4 96.9 22.8 2.3 94.4 58.2 68.1 85.1 70.5 38.3 Level of Service E F F C A F E E F E D Approach Delay (s)84.7 32.0 69.0 72.6 Approach LOS F C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 278 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 499 2444 0 0 2701 825 306 654 301 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3597 0 0 5305 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1752 0 0 1712 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.9 31.6 0.0 0.0 44.5 0.0 19.2 25.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.9 31.6 0.0 0.0 44.5 0.0 19.2 25.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 2444 0 0 2701 825 306 654 301 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.70 0.88 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 618 2523 0 0 2701 825 369 786 362 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.2 12.1 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 61.3 63.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 8.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 10.8 15.4 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 9.2 13.2 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.6 12.9 0.0 0.0 29.1 0.0 64.4 72.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS F B C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 29.1 70.3 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 116.6 27.4 89.1 33.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.2 29.0 82.2 35.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 33.6 22.9 46.5 27.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 78.0 0.5 35.4 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.5 HCM 2010 LOS D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 279 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1881 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 231231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %221014116423 Cap, veh/h 263 2066 636 1475 3915 1231 348 931 354 156 454 847 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.76 0.00 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5085 1565 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1359 1740 1863 2573 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 276 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1695 1565 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1359 1740 1863 1287 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 65.0 27.2 14.3 23.9 0.0 16.0 13.6 3.5 12.4 39.0 15.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 65.0 27.2 14.3 23.9 0.0 16.0 13.6 3.5 12.4 39.0 15.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263 2066 636 1475 3915 1231 348 931 354 156 454 847 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 1.02 0.55 0.32 0.51 0.00 1.06 0.40 0.14 0.87 1.06 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 2066 636 1475 3915 1231 348 931 354 174 454 847 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.67 0.67 0.67 0.20 0.20 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.9 47.5 36.3 31.0 7.4 0.0 72.0 48.8 25.9 71.9 60.5 58.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.8 22.1 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 66.4 0.1 0.1 30.7 58.2 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.3 34.6 12.1 6.9 11.2 0.0 10.9 6.7 1.3 7.3 27.4 5.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.8 69.6 38.5 31.0 7.4 0.0 138.4 48.9 26.0 102.6 118.7 59.7 LnGrp LOS F F D C A F D C F F E Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 67.0 12.0 89.3 98.0 Approach LOS E B F F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.0 71.0 21.0 44.0 16.2 128.7 18.3 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 * 65 16.0 * 39 13.0 73.0 16.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 67.0 18.0 41.0 12.2 25.9 14.4 15.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 42.8 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 280 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 4793 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 4793 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph)0900023703100055 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2259 0 277 2442 728 76 193 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 73.6 21.0 76.6 76.6 21.8 21.8 23.6 23.6 23.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 73.6 21.0 76.6 76.6 21.8 21.8 23.6 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.46 0.13 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 2204 229 2458 743 237 227 242 251 214 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.47 c0.16 c0.48 0.04 c0.12 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.47 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.02 1.21 0.99 0.98 0.32 0.85 0.83 0.82 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 66.4 43.2 69.5 41.5 41.0 62.4 67.5 66.2 66.2 58.5 Progression Factor 0.88 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 17.5 127.8 16.7 28.6 0.3 23.7 19.2 18.5 0.0 Delay (s)58.8 32.7 197.3 58.1 69.5 62.7 91.2 85.4 84.7 58.6 Level of Service E C F E E E F F F E Approach Delay (s)34.4 71.6 84.0 81.4 Approach LOS C E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 59.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 281 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1210 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 v/c Ratio 0.49 1.04 1.04 0.24 0.68 0.76 0.31 0.79 0.98 0.95 0.34 Control Delay 78.5 82.7 104.8 24.0 2.3 105.8 57.5 26.8 70.9 66.6 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.5 82.7 104.8 24.0 2.3 105.8 57.5 26.8 70.9 66.6 15.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 ~621 ~291 110 0 68 63 70 226 460 41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 #596 #410 154 0 #154 98 #205 #277 #598 106 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 263 1158 554 1575 1671 99 455 476 657 1027 531 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 1.04 1.04 0.24 0.68 0.75 0.31 0.79 0.98 0.95 0.34 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 282 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1383 1900 571 215 575 1346 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.54 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.85 0.83 Control Delay 75.7 9.8 9.9 9.3 72.7 74.5 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 Total Delay 75.7 10.7 10.2 9.8 72.7 74.5 7.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 173 294 184 114 212 308 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 218 354 m256 m131 287 353 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 578 2540 2685 794 355 786 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 785 243 40 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 332 0000158 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.76 0.61 0.73 0.92 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 283 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 v/c Ratio 0.83 1.06 0.47 1.09 0.91 0.07 1.10 0.41 0.12 0.86 1.06 0.26 Control Delay 102.4 76.2 13.5 98.7 25.5 1.9 143.6 52.2 0.6 113.1 114.5 17.6 Queue Delay 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 102.4 94.5 13.5 98.7 26.2 1.9 143.6 52.2 0.6 113.1 114.5 17.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 116 ~885 68 ~277 252 0 ~226 173 0 142 ~548 58 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#163 #934 m112 m#283 m285 m2 #312 214 0 #236 #706 82 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 269 1997 748 428 2191 769 335 891 423 167 454 1069 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 53 0 0 50 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 419 00000014000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 1.34 0.47 1.09 0.93 0.07 1.10 0.41 0.12 0.81 1.06 0.26 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 284 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 AM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2268 277 2442 965 76 224 200 207 65 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.02 1.21 0.99 0.99 0.32 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.23 Control Delay 60.2 35.9 183.3 57.5 47.8 64.7 86.0 92.1 91.0 7.7 Queue Delay 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.2 66.2 183.3 57.5 47.8 64.7 86.0 92.1 91.0 7.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 ~957 ~352 ~954 691 72 196 216 224 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m89 m#973 #493 #1045 #922 115 263 280 288 23 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 362 2214 229 2458 978 284 302 307 319 339 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 176 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 1.11 1.21 0.99 0.99 0.27 0.74 0.65 0.65 0.19 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 285 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 14 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3455 1682 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3455 1682 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 00000031400112 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 864 0 693 589 1212 206 461 271 673 672 126 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 37.0 31.0 56.7 140.0 19.9 22.0 22.0 28.0 34.1 34.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 37.0 31.0 56.7 140.0 19.9 22.0 22.0 28.0 34.1 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.26 0.22 0.41 1.00 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 865 709 1399 1682 256 567 276 670 850 367 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.72 c0.15 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.98 0.42 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.98 1.00 0.79 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 62.2 51.5 54.2 29.9 0.0 58.2 57.0 58.8 56.0 49.6 43.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 30.1 28.0 0.6 2.7 16.6 12.1 49.4 35.9 7.4 2.5 Delay (s)67.8 81.6 82.2 30.5 2.7 74.7 69.1 108.2 91.9 57.0 46.3 Level of Service E F F C A E E F F E D Approach Delay (s)80.4 31.3 88.3 70.2 Approach LOS F C F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 286 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 921 2874 0 0 2581 804 244 486 226 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3668 0 0 5305 1599 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1787 0 0 1712 1599 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 16.4 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 18.3 11.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 16.4 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 18.3 11.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 921 2874 0 0 2581 804 244 486 226 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.86 0.56 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 921 2874 0 0 2581 804 392 782 364 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 67.6 64.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 5.8 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 10.8 8.2 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 9.4 5.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 73.4 65.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 21.8 68.6 Approach LOS B C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 133.6 48.2 85.4 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 31.0 * 80 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.4 24.8 46.0 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 44.4 5.3 31.9 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 287 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1881 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 231231221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %210110021342 Cap, veh/h 202 2118 646 343 2387 781 326 893 376 167 454 850 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.93 0.00 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5136 1565 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1492 1757 1827 2737 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1712 1565 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1492 1757 1827 1369 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 54.6 18.2 13.5 17.2 0.0 12.7 19.1 13.2 13.2 34.5 18.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 54.6 18.2 13.5 17.2 0.0 12.7 19.1 13.2 13.2 34.5 18.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 202 2118 646 343 2387 781 326 893 376 167 454 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.87 0.35 0.88 0.81 0.00 0.87 0.55 0.50 0.88 0.90 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 2118 646 391 2387 781 351 893 376 198 468 872 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 75.9 53.8 40.6 63.3 3.6 0.0 71.6 51.9 29.8 71.5 58.1 26.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 4.5 1.3 1.9 0.3 0.0 17.7 0.4 0.4 27.3 22.0 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 4.0 26.8 8.1 6.5 6.8 0.0 6.9 9.4 5.5 7.7 20.2 7.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.0 58.3 41.9 65.2 3.9 0.0 89.3 52.3 30.2 98.8 80.1 28.9 LnGrp LOS F E D E A F D C F F C Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2236 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.0 12.2 58.8 58.1 Approach LOS EBEE Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.8 72.0 19.8 44.8 13.4 80.4 19.2 45.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 * 66 16.0 * 41 10.0 74.0 18.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 56.6 14.7 36.5 9.4 19.2 15.2 21.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 9.1 0.2 3.3 0.0 48.1 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 288 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 5051 1728 5136 1503 1745 1579 1641 1681 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 5051 1728 5136 1503 1745 1579 1641 1681 1456 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)050001000148000102 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2140 0 228 2183 234 180 351 0 522 534 118 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 54.0 17.0 58.2 58.2 26.0 26.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 54.0 17.0 58.2 58.2 26.0 26.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 1704 183 1868 546 283 256 441 451 391 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.42 0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.22 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.21 1.26 1.25 1.17 0.43 0.64 1.37 1.18 1.18 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 68.9 53.0 71.5 50.9 38.4 62.6 67.0 58.5 58.5 46.6 Progression Factor 0.64 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 117.8 147.9 82.1 2.5 3.4 189.5 103.6 103.4 0.2 Delay (s)44.2 146.9 219.4 133.0 40.8 66.0 256.5 162.1 161.9 46.7 Level of Service D F F F D E F F F D Approach Delay (s)144.3 128.9 206.0 142.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 143.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 119.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 289 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 890 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.00 0.98 0.42 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.99 1.00 0.79 0.50 Control Delay 80.1 78.6 82.6 31.6 2.7 80.8 69.3 55.7 74.8 57.9 21.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 80.1 78.6 82.6 31.6 2.7 80.8 69.3 55.7 74.8 57.9 21.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 414 326 200 0 182 216 224 ~227 307 68 Queue Length 95th (ft) 132 #564 #410 250 0 260 269 #433 #297 #410 159 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 211 892 709 1400 1682 296 567 591 670 849 479 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 1.00 0.98 0.42 0.72 0.70 0.81 0.99 1.00 0.79 0.50 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 290 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 556 1229 2025 692 209 271 882 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.45 0.71 0.78 0.81 0.51 0.53 Control Delay 78.0 6.6 11.8 12.6 88.3 65.0 1.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.0 7.1 12.1 13.2 88.3 65.0 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 294 191 224 132 215 139 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #388 294 361 m193 294 176 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 636 2731 2838 885 378 781 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 966 270 38 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 34 000016 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.70 0.79 0.82 0.55 0.35 0.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 291 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.88 0.31 0.83 0.86 0.12 0.86 0.56 0.37 0.85 0.88 0.49 Control Delay 102.4 45.6 12.3 34.3 9.1 0.0 95.4 55.6 8.1 107.2 78.3 25.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 102.4 46.1 12.3 34.3 9.8 0.0 95.4 55.6 8.1 107.2 78.3 25.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 655 49 153 100 0 152 237 0 152 411 151 Queue Length 95th (ft) #146 563 103 m141 m76 m0 #226 299 65 #251 #557 189 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 207 2081 727 364 2250 825 338 873 509 190 468 1060 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 53 0 0 101 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.91 0.31 0.83 0.90 0.12 0.83 0.56 0.37 0.77 0.87 0.48 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 292 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 2/7/2017 2040 PM Revised Concept 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2145 228 2183 334 180 499 522 534 220 v/c Ratio 0.19 1.26 1.25 1.15 0.51 0.64 1.24 1.18 1.18 0.45 Control Delay 43.4 145.6 202.9 119.5 24.1 73.8 159.2 152.9 151.7 20.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.4 145.6 202.9 119.5 24.1 73.8 159.2 152.9 151.7 20.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 ~1046 ~295 ~1032 148 178 ~481 ~687 ~703 67 Queue Length 95th (ft) m35 #1116 #475 #1119 253 250 #641 447 455 47 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 338 1709 183 1893 653 283 404 441 452 492 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 1.26 1.25 1.15 0.51 0.64 1.24 1.18 1.18 0.45 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 293 Alternatives Traffic Analysis Report Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Prepared By 1970 Broadway, Suite 740 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763‐2061 July 22, 2015 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 294 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  i                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1  2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2  2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2  2.2 IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ................................................................................................... 4  3.0 ANALYSIS METHOD ........................................................................................................ 5  3.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ......................................................................................................... 5  3.2 STUDY SCENARIOS.................................................................................................................. 5  Supplemental Scenarios ........................................................................................ 6  3.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS METHODS AND PARAMETERS ................................ 6  Signalized Intersections ........................................................................................ 6  Arterials .................................................................................................................. 7  3.4 MODEL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7  3.5 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 7  4.0 LONG TERM CUMULATIVE (2040) CONDITIONS ......................................................... 7  5.0 CONCEPT EVALUATION – CURRENT YEAR 2014 ....................................................... 10  5.1 CURRENT YEAR CONCEPT OUTCOMES .............................................................................. 11  5.2 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION ................................................................. 13  6.0 CONCEPT EVALUATION – FUTURE YEAR 2040 .......................................................... 14  6.1 FUTURE YEAR CONCEPT OUTCOMES ................................................................................. 15  6.2 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION ................................................................. 17  7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 19  8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 20  STUDY PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................................... 21  May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 295 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  ii                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  List of Appendices APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT  APPENDIX B – TREAT BOULEVARD CONCEPTS – MODELING GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM (FROM  ALTA PLANNING)  APPENDIX C – CURRENT YEAR SYNCHRO MODEL OUTPUT FOR A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS  APPENDIX D – FUTURE YEAR SYNCHRO MODEL OUTPUT FOR A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS  APPENDIX E – FOCUSED ANALYSIS FOR CONCEPT 4  List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area Map ............................................................................................................. 3  Figure 2: Future Turn Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 9  List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Significant Impacts .................................................................................... 1  Table 2: System Measures of Effectiveness from Current Year (2014) Synchro Models ...... 11  Table 3: System Measures of Effectiveness Scenario Comparison for Current Year (2014) 12  Table 4: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) ............................................ 13  Table 5: Supplemental Analysis Intersection LOS for Current Year (2014) .......................... 14  Table 6: System Measures of Effectiveness from Future Year (2040) Synchro Models ....... 15  Table 7: Measures of Effectiveness Scenario Comparison for Future Year (2040) ............... 16  Table 8: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year ........................................................... 17  Table 9: Supplemental Analysis Intersection LOS for Future Year (2040) ............................ 19  P:\P\14\14070‐000 Contra Costa Treat Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan\Documents\Alternative Evaluation May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 296 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  1                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  1.0 SUMMARY This report presents a traffic impact evaluation for four design scenarios meant to improve the transportation environment for pedestrians and bicycles along Treat Boulevard. The field observations on this corridor indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve these populations. The performance of four study intersections was evaluated for AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) traffic conditions and future year (2040) traffic conditions. The study concept geometric improvements as well as traffic signal timing improvements were evaluated to determine the performance of the Existing Condition network (for current year analysis) and the Future No‐Build network (for future year analysis) using Synchro. Impacts of supplemental alternatives were also analyzed. The results, summarized in Table 1, indicate that the design alternatives result in little impact on Treat Boulevard for the current year traffic conditions. For future year traffic conditions, the design alternatives result in some impact to the intersection Level of Service (LOS) and the network performance, but these impacts are relatively small. The safety benefits for pedestrians and cyclists achieved by these improvements outweigh the small increase in delay for vehicles. Table 1: Summary of Significant Impacts Parameter Concept 1B Concept 2 Concepts 3and 4 Supplemental 1B Current Year (2014) Arterial LOS None None None N/A Intersection Impact Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Buskirk Avenue, LOS deterioration at Oak Road (LOS E) Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Oak Road Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Oak Road Congestion impacts Jones Road (for 150s Cycle length) Future Year (2040) Arterial LOS None None None N/A Intersection Impact Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Oak Road Congestion causes small delay increase at Main Street, Oak Road Congestion causes delay increase (for each supplemental alternative) Note: The performance of Concept 1A was not analyzed because it will have little effect on network performance and it is a temporary/ short term improvement. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 297 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  2                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Introduction The Contra Costa Centre Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in Walnut Creek is characterized by mixed commercial and residential land use. This area contains the Pleasant Hill BART Station and is accessed by pedestrians and cyclists via the Iron Horse Trail or Geary Road, west of N. Main Street. Though nearly complete, this area is lacking adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connecting the area west of the Interstate‐680 (I‐680) overcrossing with Treat Boulevard destinations, such as the BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail. This area represents a gap in the pedestrian and bicycle transportation network. In the study corridor there are as many as nine travel lanes and there is a lack of sidewalk connectivity and no sidewalk between Main Street and the I‐680 northbound ramp/Buskirk Avenue. As a result of poor pedestrian infrastructure, pedestrians dart into Treat Boulevard to cross the street rather than using crosswalks. Cyclists and pedestrians conflict with heavy traffic entering and exiting I‐680. No bicycle facilities exist on Treat Boulevard in this study area. With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has decided to complete the I‐680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide more efficient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing especially on the I‐680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This project includes the following intersections:  Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street  Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps  Treat Boulevard and Oak Road  Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the study corridor. As with any project that requires signal retiming and intersection reconfiguration, support of the city is important. The City of Walnut Creek is proactive about signal timing. Currently DKS is conducting a signal timing project as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) on several corridors in Walnut Creek, including Main Street and Geary Road (Treat Boulevard west of Main Street). Another consultant is working on implementing a Traffic Responsive Signal Timing strategy along Treat Boulevard by June of 2015. The existing conditions of the study corridor are described in the memorandum titled “Existing Traffic Conditions Report”, attached in Appendix A. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 298 00 2nd Ave Sunnyvale Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Cherry LaneLas Juntas Way I-680Jones RoadIron Horse Regional Trail Contra Costa Canal Trail Geary Road Main Street Oak RoadCoggins DrivePleasant Hill Contra Costa Centre Treat BoulevardBuskirk Avenue - Street - Trail - BART Line 3 42 Walnut Creek Study Area Map 1Figure NO SCALE - Study Intersection LEGEND 00 1 Hall Lane May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 299 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  4                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  2.2 Improvement Concepts To provide improved mobility and access for pedestrians and bicyclists, four concepts were developed, and are listed below. The goal of the roadway improvement concepts is to improve the environment for pedestrians and cyclists without significantly impacting the travel experience along the Treat Boulevard corridor for the automobile mode of transportation. These concepts were provided by Alta Planning (“Treat Boulevard Concepts – Modeling Guidance” Memorandum (November 5, 2014), attached in Appendix B), and described briefly below.  Concept 1A: Minor Striping Enhancements  Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes  Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes  Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk  Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk Concept 1A is a short‐term minor modification to the existing lane configuration between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue. It provides for restriping of the lanes to accommodate on street bike lanes. It also includes high visibility crosswalks at each of the four study intersections. Special bike markings are also added to enhance visibility of the bike lanes at critical locations. Due to the limited effect of this alternative and its temporary nature, this alternative was not evaluated. Concept 1B proposes the addition of a buffered bike lane westbound along Treat Boulevard from Jones Road to N. Main Street. This entails the conversion of the westbound shoulder area and right turn bay between Jones Road and Oak Road to the buffered bike lane. The outside westbound lane between Oak Road and N. Main Street would also be converted to the buffered bike lane. The southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road would be restricted to bicycle use only, eliminating the free right turn movement for vehicles. In Concept 2, a shared use path and buffered bike lane would be added westbound along Treat Boulevard. This involves conversion of the westbound shoulder area and right turn bay between Jones Road and Oak Road to a buffered bike lane, with parking remaining intact along the outside of the segment. The shared use path would be built along the north sidewalk from Oak Road to N. Main Street, traveling through the north side of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, and eliminating the southbound channelized right turn lane for vehicles. In Concept 3, a shared use path and cycle track would be added westbound along Treat Boulevard. This involves conversion of the westbound shoulder area and right turn bay between Jones Road and Oak Road to a cycle track, with parking located between the bicycle facility and lanes of travel. The shared use path would be built along the north sidewalk from Oak Road to N. Main Street, traveling through the north side of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, and eliminating the southbound channelized right turn lane for vehicles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 300 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  5                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Concept 4, a shared use path would be added westbound along Treat Boulevard. Concept 4 focuses on providing for two way bicycle travel along the north side of Treat Boulevard and enhancing pedestrian travel on the south side. High visibility “ladder” type crosswalk striping, yield lines and signs would be provided at the channelized right‐turns. All curb ramps would be replaced to meet America with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Removing the southbound channelized right‐turn at Oak Road and Jones Road will eliminate the weaving of westbound motorists between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps. This is expected to improve traffic operation and safety. A focused analysis for Concept 4 is attached in Appendix E. As instructed in the modeling guidance memorandum, only the improvements in the westbound direction were evaluated. Concept 1A, the short‐term improvement scenario, was not modeled as the impact on vehicular traffic would be very small and would not be captured by the Synchro model. This report presents a traffic analysis for Concepts 1B, 2, 3, and 4 for the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) and for a future year (2040). Measures of Effectiveness include traffic delays, the emission of harmful greenhouse gases, and automobile travel time along the study corridor. 3.0 ANALYSIS METHOD This section describes the study intersections, study scenarios, methods used to evaluate concept performance, development of the model, and the impact criteria. 3.1 Study Intersections The Treat Boulevard study segment extends from Main Street to Jones Road. The following intersections were selected for the project:  Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street  Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps  Treat Boulevard and Oak Road  Treat Boulevard and Jones Road All four intersections are operated by the City of Walnut Creek. Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road, and Jones Road on Treat Boulevard run actuated‐coordinated east‐west during daytime hours. However, Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north‐south) during the day. Treat Boulevard/Geary Road/Main Street has a different cycle length than the three other study intersections during the AM peak period. 3.2 Study Scenarios The traffic analysis was completed for the following three concepts. These concepts are described in more detail in the “Treat Boulevard Concepts – Modeling Guidance” Memorandum (November 5, 2014), attached in Appendix B. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 301 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  6                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities   Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes  Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes  Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk  Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk Each concept was analyzed under both A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions for the current year (2014) and the future year (2040). Supplemental Scenarios Three additional scenarios were tested in the Concept 1B AM network to investigate the expected traffic impact that may result in implementing additional traffic signal strategies to enhance pedestrian and cyclist traffic safety. Traffic signal timing strategies are listed as follows:  Leading Pedestrian Interval (Treat Blvd/Oak Rd intersection only) – this timing element provides a leading walk symbol to pedestrians before concurrent vehicle phases receive green, allowing pedestrians to establish themselves in the roadway before vehicles begin to move. In this case, the timing allows pedestrians to reach the center of the first travel lane before the concurrent vehicle phase is called.  150s Cycle Length (Treat Blvd/Buskirk Ave, Treat Blvd/Oak Rd, Treat Blvd/Jones Rd) – The cycle length for these three intersections was reduced from 160s to 150s. The green time for the westbound and eastbound movement was reduced first and the side street green was reduced when necessary.  Protected/concurrent phasing (Treat Blvd/Oak Rd intersection only) – Protected concurrent phasing was applied to the westbound right turn movement (which receives a green turn arrow along with the southbound left turn) and the northbound right turn movement (which receives a green arrow with the westbound left turn). In this case right turn on red was prohibited for these movements to provide safe crossing for pedestrians. 3.3 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Methods and Parameters LOS is a qualitative description of intersection operation that uses an A through F letter rating system related to travel delay and congestion. LOS A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back‐ups.  Signalized Intersections Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as average control delay with corresponding levels of service. LOS ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. The operating conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the 2000 and 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Signalized intersections methods. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 302 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  7                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Arterials Arterial roadway LOS was evaluated using the HCM 2000 Urban Street methods contained in the Synchro version 8 software analysis program. 3.4 Model Development The Synchro model developed for the previous task was used as a base to develop the models for each concept for each scenario. To make the corridor more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, the following three signal timing elements were updated for each intersection for each scenario:  The pedestrian walk time was increased to 7 seconds.  The pedestrian clearance interval (flashing don’t walk) was increased to provide sufficient time for pedestrians to clear the intersection. As the pedestrian crossing time is dependent on crosswalk length, the increase in the pedestrian clearance interval varied by crosswalk.  The minimum green time was increased to provide sufficient green time for cyclists to clear the intersection before the onset of the yellow timing interval. As the bicycle crossing time is dependent on intersection width, the increase in minimum green time varied by intersection approach. The Synchro networks were optimized for each concept for the current year. For the future year, the Synchro networks were optimized for each concept and the future no‐build network. 3.5 Significant Impact Criteria The traffic analysis relies on standards of significance established by the jurisdictions within the study area that are used to determine whether a project would result in a significant impact and to indicate a need for mitigation measures. To determine which intersections would be impacted by the Project, intersection delay estimates and LOS were used. The City of Walnut Creek and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Growth Management Program both use a standard of LOS D. The County General Plan uses a standard of low LOS E. 4.0 LONG TERM CUMULATIVE (2040) CONDITIONS This section includes the traffic volume forecasts for 2040 conditions. Future year volumes were developed using the CCTA Travel Demand Model (TDM). This model assigns trips based on the projected population growth and land use. It also incorporates planned projects. The changes in segment volumes between the 2014 and 2040 CCTA TDM were applied to the existing volumes to attain future year segment volumes. These were then processed into turning movement volumes using the furness adjustment method. This task May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 303 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  8                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  was completed for both the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 2 shows the A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour vehicle turning movement counts for the four study intersections. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 304 Treat Blvd. & Oak Road - Study Intersection00 Future Turn Movement Volumes Figure LEGEND - Traffic Signal Geary Rd./Treat Blvd. & Main St. 1.2.3.4. Woodside Rd. & Veterans Blvd. 9. 2nd Ave Sunnyvale Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Cherry LaneLas Juntas Way I-680Jones RoadIron Horse Regional TrailContra Costa Canal Trail Geary Road Main Street Oak RoadCoggins DrivePleasant Hill Contra Costa Centre Treat BoulevardBuskirk Avenue 3 421 Hall Lane 2 289 ( 2 1 3 ) 818 ( 4 9 3 ) LT RT (2063) 0(0) 1138RT TH0 (0)821 (682)TH RT 49 ( 2 6 7 ) 3 (1 5 ) 27 ( 2 8 ) LT TH RT (42) 15(1314) 1131(17) 29RT TH LT LT TH RT280 (214)1416 (1109)268 (78)(254 ) 2 2 2 (9) 1 8 (2) 3 RT TH LT 8 (5 8 ) 9 (3 2 ) 15 ( 9 5 ) LT TH RT (239) 117(885) 796(55) 58RT TH LT LT TH RT323 (316)1141 (833)46 (26)(428 ) 3 9 0 (30) 3 0 (128 ) 9 1 RT TH LT 177 ( 1 8 0 ) 3 (8) 70 ( 5 7 ) LT TH RT (5) 2(819) 665(90) 66RT TH LT LT TH RT22 (47)982 (891)264 (200)(55) 1 1 2 (31) 2 8 (3) 5 RT TH LTLT TH RT LT TH RT RT TH LT LT TH RT RTTHLT LTTHRT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT Treat Blvd. & Buskirk Ave. Treat Blvd. & Jones Rd. - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTHRT AM (PM) - Peak Hour Traffic Volume LT TH RT RTTHLT LT TH RT RT TH LT THRTLT RT LT RTLT RTLT P:\P\14\14070-000 RT TH LT 113905140174 48 176 83 25 18801047173 10851012961734 18 1651284235 14 12 50 118108711636321433 54 154 21 39 9 26830183163 (221) 890 (625) 585 (626) 1095 (1 0 3 0 ) 363 (50 1 ) 554 (58 9 ) (81) 4 0 (614) 7 8 9 (223 ) 1 6 7 (179) 70(401) 136(509) 356(523) 389 (1155) 1189 235 (445)408 (354) 116 (128) 531 (657) 1767 (1924) (201) 187(260) 500(847) 117144(93) 1745 (1877) 412 (292) (144) 195 (1657) 859 (201) 306 (259) 318(448) 317(174) 4455 (130) 106 (118) 236 (505) 811 (307) 2051 (2008) 233 (210) (50) 137 (1774) 1664 (135) 218 (153) 63(32) 80(392) 106XX (YY) - AM (PM) Turning Movement CountsMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 305 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  10                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  5.0 CONCEPT EVALUATION – CURRENT YEAR 2014 Each concept was evaluated using current year (2014) traffic volumes to provide a basis to assess the concept alternatives under future traffic conditions. The performance of each concept was evaluated against the performance of the existing geometry and traffic control system. Table 2 summarizes the estimated measures of effectiveness (MOEs) from the Synchro models for each concept alternative for the current year traffic conditions. Appendix C contains the Synchro model output results for the Arterial Levels of Service and the MOEs for Treat Boulevard under each of the study scenarios. The MOEs include such corridor performance measures as average number of stops per vehicle, total delay, average speeds, travel time, and emissions. Total delay and number of stops are measured as an average per vehicle. However, the travel time is measured as the cumulative travel time experienced by all vehicles on the corridor. The performance of the proposed improvement concepts is compared with the performance of the existing layout of Treat Boulevard in Table 3. It should be noted that the network offsets (the time green begins for the coordinated phase at each coordinated intersection) were optimized for the study concepts, which explains positive network impacts. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 306 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  11                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 2: System Measures of Effectiveness from Current Year (2014) Synchro Models Roadway Approach Peak Hour Total Delay/ Vehicle (sec/veh) Stops/ Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Average1 Speed (mph) CO Emissions (kg) NOx Emissions (kg) Arterial LOS Existing Westbound A.M. 22 0.43 103 15 9.27 1.80 D P.M. 23 0.43 91 13 8.07 1.57 E Eastbound A.M. 36 0.53 99 9 8.16 1.59 F P.M. 32 0.55 95 10 8.18 1.59 E Concept 1b* Westbound A.M. 20 0.47 99 15 9.3 1.81 D P.M. 18 0.39 79 15 7.3 1.42 E Eastbound A.M. 35 0.49 95 10 7.83 1.52 F P.M. 27 0.48 85 11 7.4 1.44 E Concept 2* Westbound A.M. 20 0.47 98 15 9.24 1.8 D P.M. 19 0.40 80 15 7.36 1.43 E Eastbound A.M. 36 0.50 99 9 8.06 1.57 F P.M. 27 0.48 84 11 7.35 1.43 E Concept 3* Westbound A.M. 20 0.47 98 15 9.24 1.8 D P.M. 19 0.40 80 15 7.36 1.43 E Eastbound A.M. 36 0.50 99 9 8.06 1.57 F P.M. 27 0.48 84 11 7.35 1.43 E Concept 4* Westbound A.M. 20 0.47 98 15 9.24 1.8 D P.M. 19 0.40 80 15 7.36 1.43 E Eastbound A.M. 36 0.50 99 9 8.06 1.57 F P.M. 27 0.48 84 11 7.35 1.43 E Notes: Total Delay/Vehicle (sec/veh) = The control delay plus the queue delay experienced per vehicle. Travel Time (hr) = The total time taken for all vehicles to travel through the corridor. CO Emissions (kg) = The amount of Carbon Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a period of one hour. NOx Emissions (kg) = The amount of Nitrogen Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a period of one hour. 1Average speed accounts for traffic signal delay at the study intersections and queuing delay. *Network optimized results. 5.1 Current Year Concept Outcomes Overall network performance is not negatively impacted for the current year. The high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps are mitigated with each of the study concepts. Although the removal of the southbound free right turn at Oak Road can affect individual intersection performance, removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment seems to have a positive effect on the network performance. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 307 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  12                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Individual intersection LOS was also analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the concept alternatives. Table 4 presents the findings. As shown, intersection delay is high in general under existing conditions. Concept 1B results in some delay increase at Main Street, I‐ 680/Buskirk, and Oak Road. Concepts 2 and 3 result in some delay increase at Main Street and Oak Road. LOS generally remains the same, except at Oak Road, which deteriorates, and Jones Road during the morning peak period, which improves to a C. Optimization improves the overall performance of the corridor, indicating limited network impact from any of the proposed alternatives. Additionally, optimizing the corridor results in improved performance of the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection but decreased efficiency of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection. Each of the study concepts would result in an improved transportation network for pedestrians and cyclists. Although the study concepts result in some delay impact at individual intersections, this delay increase is relatively small, especially compared to the benefits for other transportation modes. Table 3: System Measures of Effectiveness Scenario Comparison for Current Year (2014) Roadway Approach Peak Hour Total Delay/ Vehicle (sec/veh) Stops/ Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Average1 Speed (mph) CO Emissions (kg) NOx Emissions (kg) Arterial LOS B‐A: Concept 1b (‐) Existing Westbound A.M. ‐2 0.04 ‐4 0 0.03 0.01 No Change P.M. ‐5 ‐0.04 ‐12 2 ‐0.77 ‐0.15 No Change Eastbound A.M. ‐1 ‐0.04 ‐4 1 ‐0.33 ‐0.07 No Change P.M. ‐5 ‐0.07 ‐10 1 ‐0.78 ‐0.15 No Change C‐A: Concept 2 (‐) Existing Westbound A.M. ‐2 0.04 ‐5 0 ‐0.03 0.00 No Change P.M. ‐4 ‐0.03 ‐11 2 ‐0.71 ‐0.14 No Change Eastbound A.M. 0 ‐0.03 0 0 ‐0.10 ‐0.02 No Change P.M. ‐5 ‐0.07 ‐11 1 ‐0.83 ‐0.16 No Change D‐A: Concept 3 (‐) Existing Westbound A.M. ‐2 0.04 ‐5 0 ‐0.03 0.00 No Change P.M. ‐4 ‐0.03 ‐11 2 ‐0.71 ‐0.14 No Change Eastbound A.M. 0 ‐0.03 0 0 ‐0.10 ‐0.02 No Change P.M. ‐5 ‐0.07 ‐11 1 ‐0.83 ‐0.16 No Change E‐A: Concept 4 (‐) Existing Westbound A.M. ‐2 0.04 ‐5 0 ‐0.03 0.00 No Change P.M. ‐4 ‐0.03 ‐11 2 ‐0.71 ‐0.14 No Change Eastbound A.M. 0 ‐0.03 0 0 ‐0.10 ‐0.02 No Change P.M. ‐5 ‐0.07 ‐11 1 ‐0.83 ‐0.16 No Change   May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 308 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  13                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 4: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Concept 1B Concept 2 Concepts 3 & 4 Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E 60.0 E 60.1 E 60.1 E P.M. 42.9 D 41.1 D 42.2 D 42.2 D Treat Boulevard and I‐ 680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.3 C 32.9 C 30.3 C 30.3 C P.M. 17.5 B 17.7 B 17.4 B 17.4 B Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D 55.5 E 53.6 D 53.6 D P.M. 19.3 B 39.4 D 40.1 D 40.1 D Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D 28.8 C 29.8 C 29.8 C P.M. 49.8 D 37.7 D 38.2 D 38.2 D Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. The similarity in the results for Concepts 3 and 4 in Tables 2, 3, and 4 is because the two concepts are essentially the same in terms of the number of lanes and capacity along the segment of Treat Boulevard from N. Main Street to Jones Road. However, the two concepts differ with minor improvements listed as follows: 1. The segment of Treat Boulevard between N. Main Street and Buskirk Avenue has a side walk on the south side of the roadway, which Concept 3 does not have. 2. Concept 3 includes a Class II eastbound bicycle lane whereas Concept 4 has a Sharrow in lieu of the on street bike lane. But the number of eastbound travel lanes on Treat Boulevard is essentially the same in the eastbound direction. 3. The segment of Treat Boulevard between Buskirk Avenue and Jones Road has the same number of travel lanes in each of the eastbound and westbound directions. Additionally, a focused analysis of Concept 4, the preferred alternative is attached in Appendix E. 5.2 Supplemental Alternative Evaluation Three additional signal timing scenarios were tested in the Concept 1B AM network to investigate the expected traffic impact that may result in implementing additional traffic signal strategies to enhance pedestrian and cyclist traffic safety. These timing scenarios were described in more detail in section 3.2 in the Supplemental Scenarios subsection. The supplemental analysis results are shown in Table 5 and are compared against the base 1B AM network. The leading pedestrian interval and protected/concurrent phasing alternatives were tested at the Oak Road intersection only. The 150s cycle length alternative was tested at the I‐680/Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road, and Jones Road intersections. As noted before, the HCM 2010 analysis was used as a basis for the I‐680/Buskirk Avenue and Oak Road intersections and the HCM 2000 analysis was used for the Jones Road May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 309 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  14                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  intersection. However, limitations in the HCM 2010 methods prevented analysis for the leading pedestrian interval, and this alternative was analyzed using the HCM 2000 methods as indicated by an asterisk. The Base 1B Concept performance is shown for HCM 2010 and HCM 2000, also marked with an asterisk. The leading pedestrian interval and protected/concurrent phasing do not appear to affect traffic. Decreasing the cycle length from 160s to 150s results in a negative impact at Jones Road but a slightly positive impact for the I‐680/Buskirk Avenue and Oak Road intersections. Table 5: Supplemental Analysis Intersection LOS for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Base Concept 1B Leading Pedestrian Interval Cycle Length = 150s Protected/ Concurrent Phasing Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Treat Boulevard and I‐ 680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 32.9 C 30.5 C Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 55.5 (45.6*) E (D*) 45.7* D* 53.8 D 55.4 E Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 28.8 C 47.5 D Notes: HCM 2010 unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Both HCM version results are shown for Base Concept 1B at Treat Boulevard and Oak Road because the HCM 2010 analysis could not be used for the Leading Pedestrian Interval evaluation. 6.0 CONCEPT EVALUATION – FUTURE YEAR 2040 The future year (2040) volumes were applied to the existing network geometry to develop the future No‐Build alternative. Each concept was then evaluated under future year traffic conditions and compared to the future No‐Build network performance. For the purpose of this analysis, all networks were optimized, including the No‐Build alternative. Table 6 summarizes the estimated measures of effectiveness (MOEs) from the Synchro models for each alternative for the future year. Appendix D contains the Synchro model output results for the Arterial LOS and the MOEs for each signal corridor. The MOEs include such corridor performance measures as average number of stops per vehicle, total delay, average speeds, travel time, and emissions. The network was optimized for each scenario. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 310 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  15                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 6: System Measures of Effectiveness from Future Year (2040) Synchro Models Roadway Approach Peak Hour Total Delay/ Vehicle (sec/veh) Stops/ Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Average1 Speed (mph) CO Emissions (kg) NOx Emissions (kg) Arterial LOS No Build Westbound A.M. 27 0.42 137 13 11.64 2.27 E  P.M. 79 0.39 300 5 19.76 3.84 F  Eastbound A.M. 59 0.61 175 6 13.13 2.55 F  P.M. 63 0.55 176 6 12.73 2.48 F  Concept 1b Westbound A.M. 28 0.44 139 12 11.84 2.3 E  P.M. 80 0.39 305 5 19.99 3.89 F  Eastbound A.M. 62 0.61 182 6 13.47 2.62 F  P.M. 69 0.57 188 6 13.43 2.61 F  Concept 2 Westbound A.M. 34 0.47 158 11 13 2.53 E  P.M. 84 0.43 319 5 20.91 4.07 F  Eastbound A.M. 43 0.50 136 8 10.58 2.06 F  P.M. 62 0.55 172 6 12.5 2.43 F  Concept 3 Westbound A.M. 34 0.47 158 11 13 2.53 E  P.M. 84 0.43 319 5 20.91 4.07 F  Eastbound A.M. 43 0.50 136 8 10.58 2.06 F  P.M. 62 0.55 172 6 12.5 2.43 F  Notes: Total Delay/Vehicle (sec/veh) = The control delay plus the queue delay experienced per vehicle. Travel Time (hr) = The total time taken for all vehicles to travel through the corridor. CO Emissions (kg) = The amount of Carbon Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a period of one hour. NOx Emissions (kg) = The amount of Nitrogen Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a period of one hour. 1Average speed accounts for traffic signal delay at the study intersections and queuing delay. 6.1 Future Year Concept Outcomes Future year volumes result in a high level of delay and travel time for the No‐Build scenario, as indicated in Table 6. However, the high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps are mitigated with each of these alternatives due to the removal of the free southbound right turn at Oak Road. Although performance degrades slightly for each of the study concepts, removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment seems to reduce the potential negative impact of the improvements. The performance of the proposed improvement concepts is compared with the performance of the existing layout of Treat Boulevard (year 2040) in Table 7. Concept 1B results in a small level of network performance degradation compared to the No‐Build scenario. Concepts 2 and 3 also result in small network performance degradation in the westbound direction. However, these concepts result in improved operation in the eastbound direction, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 311 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  16                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  which is the result of network optimization. The combined eastbound and westbound MOEs for these two concepts result in less delay and travel time than Concept 1B. Individual intersection LOS was also analyzed. Table 8 presents the findings. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year No Build scenario. Concept 1B results in some increased intersection delay, specifically small delay increases at Main Street, Buskirk Avenue, and Oak Road. Although concepts 2 and 3 do not encroach on automobile infrastructure near the Main Street intersection, they have a negative impact at Main Street during the PM peak period due to signal timing reallocation. Concepts 2 and 3 also have a small impact at Oak Road during the morning peak period. Overall high delay is related to future traffic volumes rather than the proposed study concepts. Each of the study concepts would result in an improved transportation network for pedestrians and cyclists. Although the study concepts result in some network impact and some delay impact at individual intersections, this delay increase is relatively small, especially compared to the benefits for other transportation modes. Table 7: Measures of Effectiveness Scenario Comparison for Future Year (2040) Roadway Approach Peak Hour Total Delay/ Vehicle (sec/veh) Stops/ Vehicle Total Travel Time (hr) Average1 Speed (mph) CO Emissions (kg) NOx Emissions (kg) Arterial LOS B‐A: Concept 1b (‐) No Build Westbound A.M. 1 0.02 2 ‐1 0.20 0.03 No Change  P.M. 1 0.00 5 0 0.23 0.05 No Change  Eastbound A.M. 3 0.00 7 0 0.34 0.07 No Change  P.M. 6 0.02 12 0 0.70 0.13 No Change  C‐A: Concept 2 (‐)No Build Westbound A.M. 7 0.05 21 ‐2 1.36 0.26 No Change  P.M. 5 0.04 19 0 1.15 0.23 No Change  Eastbound A.M. ‐16 ‐0.11 ‐39 2 ‐2.55 ‐0.49 No Change  P.M. ‐1 0.00 ‐4 0 ‐0.23 ‐0.05 No Change  D‐A: Concept 3 (‐) No Build Westbound A.M. 7 0.05 21 ‐2 1.36 0.26 No Change  P.M. 5 0.04 19 0 1.15 0.23 No Change  Eastbound A.M. ‐16 ‐0.11 ‐39 2 ‐2.55 ‐0.49 No Change  P.M. ‐1 0.00 ‐4 0 ‐0.23 ‐0.05 No Change  Note: The No‐Build scenario reflects future volumes applied to the existing network geometry. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 312 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  17                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 8: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year Intersection Peak Hour No Build Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 83.1 F 86.0 F 83.3 F 83.3 F  P.M. 67.9 E 67.4 E 75.9 E 75.9 E  Treat Boulevard and I‐ 680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 31.4 C 36.4 D 30.5 C 30.5 C  P.M. 19.9 B 24.9 C 13.7 B 13.7 B  Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 63.8 E 63.3 E 67.3 E 67.3 E  P.M. 46.3 D 48.9 D 45.5 D 45.5 D  Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 61.9 E 61.9 E 49.6 D 49.6 D  P.M. 211.9 F 212.4 F 212.1 F 212.1 F  Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. 6.2 Supplemental Alternative Evaluation Three additional scenarios were tested in the Concept 1B AM network to investigate the expected traffic impact that may result in implementing additional traffic signal strategies to enhance pedestrian and cyclist traffic safety. The supplemental analysis results are shown in May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 313 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  18                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 9 and are compared against the Base 1B AM network. The leading pedestrian interval and protected/concurrent phasing alternatives were tested at the Oak Road intersection only. The 150s cycle length alternative was tested at the I‐680/Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road, and Jones Road intersections. As noted before, the HCM 2010 analysis was used as a basis for the I‐680/Buskirk Avenue and Oak Road intersections and the HCM 2000 analysis was used for the Jones Road intersection. However, limitations in the HCM 2010 methods prevented analysis for the leading pedestrian interval, and this alternative was analyzed using the HCM 2000 methods as indicated by an asterisk. The Base 1B Concept performance is shown for HCM 2010 and HCM 2000, the HCM 2000 results also marked with an asterisk. The leading pedestrian interval and protected/concurrent phasing do affect intersection performance, increasing delay somewhat. Decreasing the cycle length from 160s to 150s negatively impacts traffic at the Oak Road and Jones Road intersections. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 314 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  19                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 9: Supplemental Analysis Intersection LOS for Future Year (2040) Intersection Peak Hour Base Concept 1B Leading Pedestrian Interval Cycle Length = 150s Protected/ Concurrent Phasing Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Control Delay (s) LOS Treat Boulevard and I‐ 680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 36.4 D 35.7 D Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 63.3/ (59.5*) E (E*) 72* E* 72.6 E 68.9 E Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 61.9 E 76.5 E Notes: HCM 2010 unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Both HCM version results are shown for Base Concept 1B at Treat Boulevard and Oak Road because the HCM 2010 analysis could not be used for the Leading Pedestrian Interval evaluation. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The results indicate that the design alternatives result in relatively low impact on Treat Boulevard for the current year traffic conditions. However, reducing the cycle length from 160 seconds to 150 seconds is expected to impact the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection in the supplemental 1B alternative scenario. Although capacity is reduced by removing the southbound free right turn at Oak Road, this also removes the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps, which appears to improve traffic operation as well as safety along Treat Boulevard. For future year traffic conditions, the design alternatives result in some impact to the intersection LOS and the network performance. There is no significant impact on Arterial LOS, but Concepts 2, 3, and 4 have a small delay impact at Oak Road during the morning peak hour and Main Street during the afternoon peak hour. Concept 1B results in more overall network delay and higher travel times than Concept 2 and Concept 3, and also results in a small delay impact at Main Street, Buskirk Avenue, and Oak Road. Concept 4, the preferred alternative is a modified version of Concept 3 and is split into Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 represents the near‐term improvements while Phase 2 represents the long‐term improvements options. Phase 2 includes the elimination of free right‐turns at Treat Boulevard/Oak Road, which is expected to eliminate the weaving behavior along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue in the westbound direction. Concept 4 would result in some increased delay and queuing for motorists at specific intersections on Treat Boulevard. As expected, Phase 2 results in more delay and queuing than Phase 1. However, implementation of Concept 4 also results in an improved transportation network for pedestrians and cyclists and Phase 2 specifically results in the reduction of potentially dangerous weaving along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 315 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  20                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  Buskirk. When compared to the benefits for other transportation modes, the increased delay for motorists is relatively small. The study concepts achieve the project goal by providing high connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Although the study concepts result in some network impact and some delay impact at individual intersections, this delay increase is relatively small when compared to the expected benefits for other non‐motorized transportation modes. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Each of the study concepts result in a similar level of impact to the Treat Boulevard network. Concepts 1A and 1B keep bike lanes throughout the entire length of the study corridor along Treat Boulevard in the westbound direction, whereas Concepts 2 and 3 keep a bike pathway on the sidewalk in the segment between Oak Road and Main Street. However, Concepts 3 provides the highest degree of separation between automobiles and cyclists with the cycle track between Jones Road and Oak Road, and represents the safest and most comfortable option for pedestrians and cyclists. However, implementing the cycle track is not cost effective due to the expected usage of the facility. The landing for the Iron horse trail and the location of the Pleasant Hill BART Station are located on the north side of Treat Boulevard. It is therefore expected that majority of cyclists will access Treat Boulevard via Oak Road rather than use the segment of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Jones Road. For these reasons DKS recommends implementation of Concept 4, which is cost effective than Concept 3. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 316 Task 4.2: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan –Feasibility Study and  Evaluation Traffic Analysis  21                             July 22, 2015   Experts Connecting Communities  STUDY PARTICIPANTS Client Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Technical Advisory Committee Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp Principal‐In‐Charge John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager, Alta Planning Alexandra Sweet Planner, Alta Planning DKS Thomas Krakow, P.E. Principal‐In‐Charge David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager Maria Tribelhorn, E.I.T Assistant Transportation Engineer Others IDAX Data Collection Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection References 1. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, Transportation Research Board. 2. Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Transportation Research Board. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 317 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix A – Existing Conditions Report May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 318 Existing Traffic Conditions  Report  Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan       Prepared for  Contra Costa County Department of  Conservation and Development    Prepared By  1970 Broadway, Suite 740  Oakland, CA 94612  (510) 763‐2061   July 30, 2014        May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 319 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  i                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Table of Contents  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1  SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 3  EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 4  STUDY INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................................................... 4  ROADWAY NETWORK ..................................................................................................................... 4  TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PATTERNS ................................................................................................ 5  RESULTS OF FIELD CHECKS .............................................................................................................. 8  Corridor‐wide ........................................................................................................................... 8  Main Street ............................................................................................................................. 10  I‐680 Overcrossing .................................................................................................................. 10  I‐680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue ................................................................................................. 10  Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I‐680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue ......................... 11  Oak Road ................................................................................................................................ 12  Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road ............................................................ 12  Jones Road .............................................................................................................................. 12  DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS OPERATIONS MODEL ........................................... 13  CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS TO SYNCHRO DEFAULT VALUES .................................................. 13  SYSTEM MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................... 13  NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................... 14  STUDY PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................ 15  List of Appendices  APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC COUNTS  APPENDIX B – SYNCHRO MODEL OUTPUT FOR A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS  List of Figures  Figure 1: Study Area Map ............................................................................................................... 2  Figure 2: Existing Turning Movement and ADT Volumes ............................................................... 6  Figure 3: Existing Conditions Lane Configurations and Signal Phasing .......................................... 9  List of Tables  Table 1: Existing Pedestrian Count Summary ................................................................................. 7  Table 2: Existing Bicycle Count Summary ....................................................................................... 7  Table 3: System Measures of Effectiveness from Existing Conditions Synchro Model ................ 13  Table 4: Intersection Level of Service from Existing Conditions Synchro Model ......................... 14  P:\P\14\14070-000 Contra Costa Treat Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan\Documents\Existing Conditions Report May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 320 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  1                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction  The Contra Costa Centre Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in Walnut Creek is characterized by  mixed commercial and residential land use.  This area contains the Pleasant Hill BART Station and  is accessed by pedestrians and cyclists via the Iron Horse Trail or west of Main Street. Though  nearly finished, this TOD is lacking safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connecting the area  west of the I‐680 bridge overcrossing with Treat Boulevard destinations, such as the BART Station  and the Iron Horse Trail.  This area represents a gap in the pedestrian and bicycle transportation network. In the study  corridor there are as many as nine travel lanes.  There is a lack of sidewalk connectivity and no  sidewalk between Main Street and the I‐680 northbound ramp (Buskirk Avenue). As a result of  poor pedestrian infrastructure, pedestrians dart into Treat Boulevard to cross the street rather  than using crosswalks. Cyclists and pedestrians conflict with heavy traffic entering and exiting I‐ 680. No bicycle facilities exist within the study area.  With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of  Conservation and Development has decided to complete the Interstate‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra  Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide more  efficient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing  especially on the I‐680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is  the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation  Authority (CCTA).   This project includes the following intersections:    Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street   Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps   Treat Boulevard and Oak Road   Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail  Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the study corridor.    Prior to developing alternatives for an improved pedestrian and bicycle environment, it is  necessary to establish current traffic conditions and system performance under existing traffic  signal timing and corridor geometry.  Accordingly, this report includes a description of existing  conditions as measured in the field and also as estimated in Synchro models based on current  signal timing parameters. Specifically this report discusses the existing conditions for the roadway  network, the existing traffic volumes and patterns, observations of field conditions, and a  discussion of the development of the simulation network for existing conditions.     May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 321 00 2nd Ave Sunnyvale Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Cherry LaneLas Juntas Way I-680Jones RoadIron Horse Regional Trail Contra Costa Canal Trail Geary Road Main Street Oak RoadCoggins DrivePleasant Hill Contra Costa Centre Treat BoulevardBuskirk Avenue - Street - Trail - BART Line 3 42 Walnut Creek Study Area Map 1Figure NO SCALE - Study Intersection LEGEND 00 1 Hall Lane May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 322 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  3                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  With the completion of the existing conditions, it will be possible to develop alternatives for  improved pedestrian and bicycle environment in the study area. One focus will be to complete  the sidewalk network.  Another focus will be to evaluate from a traffic standpoint whether it is  possible to make provisions for Class II (bike lanes) or Class IV (cycle track) bicycle facilities, using  MLOS and queuing analysis. Intersection and lane configuration options will be developed and  evaluated for the weekday A.M. peak and P.M. peak periods, focusing on traffic safety but  without significantly increasing traffic congestion. Measures of effectiveness will include traffic  delays, the emission of harmful greenhouse gases, and automobile travel time along the study  corridor.  Summary  This report has compiled the following data for this project:   Traffic signal timing sheets,   Video turning movement counts for each study intersection for the A.M. and P.M. peak  periods along Treat Boulevard.  These counts include vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists  (See Appendix A),   Weekday and weekend 24‐hour traffic counts on Treat Boulevard for seven days by  direction in 15‐minute intervals (See Appendix A),   Field review verifying lane configurations, speed limits, and turn lane storage lengths, and   Field review that identifies intersections that are oversaturated, major driveways and  unsignalized intersections that may affect arrival rates and patterns at signalized  intersections, parking maneuvers, pedestrian activity, and other traffic patterns that may  affect traffic operations along Treat Boulevard.  The compiled and collected data were used to develop Synchro models for the existing  conditions. Locations where left‐turn or right turn queue exceed the storage length of the turning  lane are noted as appropriate, as well as locations that provide for challenging pedestrian and  bicycle conditions.  The field observations indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with  pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that  the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve these populations. Based on the  current geometry and traffic patterns, there may be opportunities to reallocate roadway space to  encourage pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel through bike lanes, shared use paths, and/or  widened sidewalks. This is true in the eastbound direction from the I‐680 ramps/Buskirk  intersection to Jones Road and in the westbound direction from Main Street to Jones Road,  especially at the I‐680 overcrossing.  This report presents findings and conclusions with respect to existing conditions and the potential  for traffic signal timing improvements and geometric improvements to accommodate pedestrians  and bicycles.  It also serves as a baseline for assessing future roadway improvement concepts  with existing roadway performance.   May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 323 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  4                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Intersections  The Treat Boulevard study segment extends from Main Street to Jones Road.  The following  intersections were selected for the project:   Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street   Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps   Treat Boulevard and Oak Road   Treat Boulevard and Jones Road  All four intersections are operated by the City of Walnut Creek.  Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road, and  Jones Road on Treat Boulevard run actuated‐coordinated east‐west during daytime hours.   However, Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north‐ south) during the day. Treat Boulevard/Geary Road/Main Street has a different cycle length than  the three other study intersections during the AM peak period.  Roadway Network  The Treat Boulevard study segment is characterized by the mixed land use of office, retail, and  multi‐family residential.  Treat Boulevard serves as an important corridor in the study area  because it serves as an east‐west arterial and also provides access to the Pleasant Hill/Contra  Costa Centre BART Station and I‐680, which connects Lafayette to the south and Concord to the  north. The I‐680 northbound ramps intersect Treat Boulevard at Buskirk Avenue.  The  southbound off‐ramps enter the network on Main Street, north of Treat Boulevard. Entrance  ramps to I‐680 southbound are accessed from eastbound Treat Boulevard and Main Street (north  of Treat Boulevard).  In the study corridor there are as many as nine travel lanes in the east‐west direction. The  eastbound geometry varies from two to four through lanes with dual left turn pockets.  In the  westbound direction the geometry varies from two to three through lanes with a right turn  pocket/lane and one or dual left turn pocket(s).  Sidewalks exist along both sides of Treat Boulevard except for the south side of the existing  bridge overpass of I‐680, but the existing sidewalks are narrow and in poor condition.  No  bicycle facilities exist along Treat Boulevard within the study area.  There is a multi‐purpose  path (Iron Horse Trail) that crosses over Treat Boulevard at Jones Road with a bridge structure.  The Contra Costa Canal Trail runs parallel to Treat Boulevard and intersects with the Iron Horse  Trail south of Jones Road.      May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 324 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  5                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Traffic Volumes and Patterns  The traffic patterns are complex in this area due to the close spacing of intersections and the  BART overcrossing columns that divide the travel lanes between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps.   Visual observation during a field review indicates that a significant amount of traffic weaving  occurs at this location.  Using tube count technology, DKS conducted 24‐hour traffic volume and speed counts over a  seven day period on Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Jones Road.  The data indicate pace  speeds (speed at which traffic travels when not stopped at the signal) of 21‐35 mph during the  morning and afternoon peak periods.   The 24‐hour traffic volume data plots for the study corridors are shown in Appendix A.  The plots  depict the average weekday and weekend 24‐hour volumes, the proportion of traffic in each  direction on weekdays, and average hourly volumes on weekdays that include their 95th  percentile confidence intervals. A review of the traffic distribution chart indicates the following  traffic pattern along Treat Boulevard: westbound/eastbound split = 58/42 and 48/52 during the  A.M. and P.M. peak periods, respectively. The 24‐hour counts were also used to identify peak  periods for the turning movement counts.  Video data collection methodology was implemented to collect the turning movement counts,  which were conducted for 24 hours during a typical weekday (Tuesday) in May 2014, which was  characterized by sunny, dry weather. Appendix A contains the peak hour vehicle, pedestrian, and  bicycle counts for the study intersections, which were transcribed from the video counts based  on the analysis of the daily flow profile for the seven‐day counts.  The peak hour traffic count  data were entered into the Synchro model for existing conditions analysis. Some volume  balancing was conducted within the Synchro network for both the A.M. and P.M. peak periods.  The video data enabled verification of the traffic counts and aided in capturing pedestrian and  bicycle activities and validating turning movements at the study intersections.  Figure 2 shows the A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour vehicle turning movement counts for the  four study intersections.  It also shows the weekday average daily traffic (ADT) along the study  corridor. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the A.M and P.M. peak period pedestrian and bicycle counts  for the study intersections, respectively.     May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 325 Treat Blvd. & Oak Road - Study Intersection00 Existing Turn Movement and ADT Volumes Figure LEGEND - Traffic Signal Geary Rd./Treat Blvd. & Main St. 1.2.3.4. Woodside Rd. & Veterans Blvd. 9. 2nd Ave Sunnyvale Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Cherry LaneLas Juntas Way I-680Jones RoadIron Horse Regional Trail Contra Costa Canal Trail Geary Road Main Street Oak RoadCoggins DrivePleasant Hill Contra Costa Centre Treat BoulevardBuskirk Avenue 3 421 Hall Lane 2 289 ( 2 1 3 ) 818 ( 4 9 3 ) LT RT (2063) 0(0) 1138RT TH0 (0)821 (682)TH RT 49 ( 2 6 7 ) 3 (1 5 ) 27 ( 2 8 ) LT TH RT (42) 15(1314) 1131(17) 29RT TH LT LT TH RT280 (214)1416 (1109)268 (78)(254 ) 2 2 2 (9) 1 8 (2) 3 RT TH LT 8 (5 8 ) 9 (3 2 ) 15 ( 9 5 ) LT TH RT (239) 117(885) 796(55) 58RT TH LT LT TH RT323 (316)1141 (833)46 (26)(428 ) 3 9 0 (30) 3 0 (128 ) 9 1 RT TH LT 177 ( 1 8 0 ) 3 (8) 70 ( 5 7 ) LT TH RT (5) 2(819) 665(90) 66RT TH LT LT TH RT22 (47)982 (891)264 (200)(55) 1 1 2 (31) 2 8 (3) 5 RT TH LTLT TH RT LT TH RT RT TH LT LT TH RT RTTHLT LTTHRT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT Treat Blvd. & Buskirk Ave. Treat Blvd. & Jones Rd. - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTHRT AM (PM) - Peak Hour Traffic Volume LT TH RT RTTHLT LT TH RT RT TH LT THRTLT RT LT RTLT RTLT P:\P\14\14070-000 RT TH LT 113905140174 48 176 83 25 18801047173 10851012961734 18 1651284235 14 12 50 118108711636321433 54 154 21 39 9 26830183129 (226) 885 (330) 532 (684) 792 (94 4 ) 290 (37 0 ) 514 (23 4 ) (74) 2 7 (481) 6 4 6 (89) 1 4 9 (153) 56(429) 103(465) 328(508) 389 (1045) 975 207 (413)433 (226) 108 (120) 516 (632) 1402 (1414) (160) 143(274) 474(854) 91346 (70) 1500 (1394) 430 (152) (145) 173 (1620) 1446 (134) 269 (239) 211(425) 251(163) 3138 (62)78 (46) 234 (299) 593 (269) 1985 (1476) 240 (122) (47) 64 (1774) 1380 (82) 141 (112) 44(28) 43(369) 106XX (YY) - AM (PM) Turning Movement Counts 24637 23207 YY -Directional ADT (Vehs/Day) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 326 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  7                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Table 1: Existing Pedestrian Count Summary  ID Intersection  Peak  Period   (1‐hour  counts)  South  Crosswalk North  Crosswalk East  Crosswalk West  Crosswalk Total  1 Treat Blvd/  Main St  A.M. 5 27 4 8 44  P.M. 7 36 4 17 64  2 Treat Blvd/  Buskirk Ave  A.M.  ‐‐ 51 2  ‐‐ 53  P.M. 1 ‐‐ 44 0 1 ‐‐ 46  3 Treat Blvd/  Oak Rd  A.M. 6 29 84 6 125  P.M. 26 23 46 27 122  4 Treat Blvd/  Jones Rd  A.M. 18 10 13 20 61  P.M. 23 13 17 19 72  Notes:  ‐‐ Crosswalk does not exist  1‐‐ Crosswalk does not exist but one pedestrian crossed illegally  n/a – Data not available    Table 2: Existing Bicycle Count Summary  ID Intersection  Peak  Period   (1‐hour  counts)  Southbound Northbound Eastbound Westbound Total  1 Treat Blvd/  Main St  A.M. 1 0 2 2 5  P.M. 1 1 3 0 5  2 Treat Blvd/  Buskirk Ave  A.M.  ‐‐ 0 0 1 1  P.M.  ‐‐ 0 0 3 3  3 Treat Blvd/  Oak Rd  A.M. 0 2 0 1 3  P.M. 0 2 1 0 3  4 Treat Blvd/  Jones Rd  A.M. 0 0 0 2 2  P.M. 2 1 0 13 16  Notes:  ‐‐ Direction does not exist at intersection     May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 327 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  8                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Results of Field Checks  The traffic data collection effort was supplemented with field review of the study corridor to  verify the lane configurations, ascertain the validity of the traffic counts, and also understand  traffic patterns. Figure 3 shows the existing lane configurations and traffic signal phases at the  study intersections.   Details regarding the specific traffic signal phasing sequences, intersection lane configurations,  and other attributes for the study corridors are contained in the Synchro model outputs  (Appendix B). The following paragraphs describe the observations made while conducting the  field review.  Corridor‐wide  Yield controlled channelized right turns (with pork chops) exist at each study intersection in the  westbound direction and at Jones Road in the eastbound direction.  Northbound Buskirk Avenue  and southbound Oak Road also have channelized right turns.  The westbound right turn at Main  Street, the southbound right turn at Oak Road, and the northbound right turn at Buskirk Avenue  have dedicated receiving lanes to allow for higher traffic flow.  Although channelized right turns  are advantageous for automobile traffic, they present a less comfortable and safe environment  for pedestrians and cyclists, who must cross faster moving right turning traffic that frequently  does not expect to conflict with pedestrians.  As previously stated, Treat Boulevard consists of nine lanes of travel in some locations.  While this  provides capacity for automobiles, it presents a long distance for pedestrians to traverse when  crossing the street. Reducing this distance, providing longer walk times, or reducing wait times  for pedestrians can improve the pedestrian experience.  Narrow sidewalks, especially those along the south side of the corridor, do not provide adequate  space for two pedestrians to walk side by side.  Intrusions into the sidewalks, such as for utility  poles, obstruct the path and can pose difficulties for pedestrians with disabilities. Pavement  quality is poor on many sidewalks and pork chops (triangular medians provided for pedestrians,  usually elevated, that are located between a free right turn lane and through lanes), usually  presents an uneven environment that is challenging for pedestrians with limited mobility to  navigate.  Long cycle lengths (140 seconds to 160 seconds) provide higher capacity for automobile traffic  but cause frustration for other users and sometimes can result in pedestrians taking risks to  reduce their travel time.  The cycle length, split times, and signal operation in conjunction with  geometry should be examined when considering improvements to the corridor.  Lane widths within the study area vary from 11 ft to 17 ft. A standard lane width is 12 feet but  can be reduced to 11 feet, which provides an opportunity to shift extra lane width from  automobile use to bicycle use. This converted space can be used in the form of a bicycle lane or  potentially a shared use path. In some cases, it may be possible to eliminate lanes in favor of  bicycle infrastructure. Queuing analyses will be used to validate the need for current lanes.    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 328 Treat Blvd. & Oak Road - Study Intersection00 Existing Conditions Lane Configurations and Traffic Signal Phasing Figure LEGEND - Lane Geometry - Traffic Signal Geary Rd./Treat Blvd. & Main St. 1.2.3.4. Woodside Rd. & Veterans Blvd. 9. 2nd Ave Sunnyvale Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Cherry LaneLas Juntas Way I-680Jones RoadIron Horse Regional Trail Contra Costa Canal Trail Geary Road Main Street Oak RoadCoggins DrivePleasant Hill Contra Costa Centre Treat BoulevardBuskirk Avenue 3 421 Hall Lane 14 72 5 386 85 2 2 547 1 6 3842 5 1 6 86 3 289 ( 2 1 3 ) 818 ( 4 9 3 ) LT RT (2063) 0(0) 1138RT TH0 (0)821 (682)TH RT 49 ( 2 6 7 ) 3 (1 5 ) 27 ( 2 8 ) LT TH RT (42) 15(1314) 1131(17) 29RT TH LT LT TH RT280 (214)1416 (1109)268 (78)(254 ) 2 2 2 (9) 1 8 (2) 3 RT TH LT 8 (5 8 ) 9 (3 2 ) 15 ( 9 5 ) LT TH RT (239) 117(885) 796(55) 58RT TH LT LT TH RT323 (316)1141 (833)46 (26)(428 ) 3 9 0 (30) 3 0 (128 ) 9 1 RT TH LT 177 ( 1 8 0 ) 3 (8) 70 ( 5 7 ) LT TH RT (5) 2(819) 665(90) 66RT TH LT LT TH RT22 (47)982 (891)264 (200)(55) 1 1 2 (31) 2 8 (3) 5 RT TH LTLT TH RT LT TH RT RT TH LT LT TH RT RTTHLT LTTHRT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT Treat Blvd. & Buskirk Ave. Treat Blvd. & Jones Rd. - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTHRT AM (PM) - Peak Hour Traffic Volume LT TH RT RTTHLT LT TH RT RT TH LT THRTLT RT LT RTLT RTLT P:\P\14\14070-000 RT TH LT 113905140174 48 176 83 25 18801047173 10851012961734 18 1651284235 14 12 50 118108711636321433 54 154 21 39 9 26830183- Traffic Signal Phasing May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 329 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  10                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Main Street  Both the westbound left turn/U‐turn and westbound right turn movements are heavy at this  intersection.  Due to the high turning volumes and high left lane utilization, the queue from  westbound Main Street backs to the I‐680 ramps during the A.M. peak hour. The westbound left  turn bays are not adequate for the forming left turn queues and vehicles sometimes queue in the  through lanes, creating potential for rear‐end collisions.    The southbound left turn volumes are high at Main Street during both the morning and afternoon  peak periods.  Queues spill back beyond the turn bays during both time periods.  Currently Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north‐ south), rather than in coordination with the Treat Boulevard corridor, which may contribute to  the formation of westbound queues. East‐west coordination should be considered as a potential  alternative for this location. Ygnacio Valley Road is about 3 miles south of the Treat  Boulevard/Main Street intersection. There are about four traffic signals on Main Street between  Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. Additionally, Ygnacio Valley Boulevard, Main Street and  Treat Boulevard have interchanges with the I‐680 freeway.  I‐680 Overcrossing  The bridge that crosses over I‐680 between Main Street and I‐680 Northbound off‐ramp has no  sidewalk on the south side and a narrow (5ft to 8ft) sidewalk on the north side. Despite that the  sidewalk is not wide enough to comfortably accommodate two pedestrians walking side‐by‐side,  it is also shared by cyclists due to the roadway traffic conditions. The I‐680 overcrossing has three  westbound through lanes and two eastbound through lanes and two eastbound left‐turn lanes.  The bridge carries over 20,000 vehicles per day in each direction.   The bridge has wide shoulders in both directions, but particularly in the westbound direction,  which presents an opportunity to increase the pedestrian and bicycle space.  This could be  accomplished through one or a combination of the following: lane adjustment, addition of a  sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, widening of the existing sidewalk, and/or addition of  bicycle lanes or a cycle track.  The construction of a multiuse path on one side would provide  service to both pedestrians and bi‐directional travel for cyclists on one side of the road. The  multiuse path provides excellent service to non‐automobile modes, but requires 15’ of space  including path, shoulder, and traffic buffer.  I‐680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue  The I‐680 northbound ramps at Buskirk Avenue present a challenge to pedestrians wishing to  cross the intersection. The northbound right turn traffic onto Treat Boulevard is heavy and due to  channelization does not always yield to pedestrians and bicycles.  During the morning peak period, the northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left  turn bay storage capacity. During the evening peak period, the eastbound Treat Boulevard traffic  turning left onto the I‐680 ramp was observed to exceed the left turn storage bay.  May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 330 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  11                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I‐680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue  Westbound  The segment of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I‐680 ramps is characterized by high  weaving volumes and poor visibility. The southbound right turn lane at Oak Road has its own  receiving lane westbound which immediately becomes a right turn only onto Buskirk Avenue,  which feeds the I‐680 NB on ramp and causes high weaving traffic into and out of the westbound  Treat Boulevard lane due to the high traffic demand for northbound I‐680. Further exacerbating  this issue, the BART support columns separate the lanes of travel and limit visibility for traffic  merging from the right lane.    These conditions cause two specific problems: a challenging environment for cyclists and the  formation of a westbound queue during the afternoon peak hour. High weaving levels demand  driver attention, taking away driver awareness of nearby cyclists. Due to this lack of attention,  cyclists are currently safest riding in the middle of the lane rather than at the edge of the lane,  which is ideally where a bicycle lane would be located. As indicated by low bicycle volumes on  this segment (three westbound during the P.M. peak hour), few cyclists brave this environment.  Another effect of the weaving on the westbound portion of this segment is the reduction in travel  speeds.  The reduced speeds and the disproportionally high right lane utilization through this  segment cause traffic to back to Oak Road, reducing the number of vehicles that can travel  westbound through the Oak Road intersection during a green light, and in turn the number of  vehicles that can travel through the Jones Road intersection during a green light, effectively  “wasting” green time at these intersections.  Over 400 vehicles complete the southbound right turn movement from Oak Road onto Treat  Boulevard during the P.M. peak period, while the southbound through movement is about half  that number. Potential solutions will be assessed in the next task. Measures such as converting  the rightmost through lane to a right turn lane and removing the existing right turn lane from Oak  may reduce weaving on the Oak Road – I‐680 segment.  For this scenario, the rightmost  westbound lane on Treat Boulevard could be converted to a narrower right turn bay, allowing for  bicycle infrastructure and potentially raising driver awareness of cyclists.  Side street delay and  queuing would need to be evaluated to determine the impact on automobile traffic.  Eastbound  Similar to the westbound direction, the eastbound segment on Treat Boulevard between the I‐ 680 ramps and Oak Road is characterized by high weaving volumes during the morning and  afternoon peak periods.  A high traffic volume exits the I‐680 northbound ramp and turns right  onto Treat Boulevard.  Many vehicles must execute lane changes in a short space to access Oak  Road or Jones Road. The BART support columns separate the lanes and limit visibility,  exacerbating this issue.  Because two lanes currently travel eastbound through the I‐680/Buskirk intersection and there  are three receiving lanes, it may be possible to eliminate the rightmost lane and turn it into a bike  lane.  Northbound right turn traffic would enter the adjacent lane, rather than the rightmost lane,  May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 331 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  12                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  avoiding the rightmost lane altogether.  This would improve safety for cyclists and increase the  distance in which weaving can occur by avoiding BART column roadway separation.  Oak Road  Oak Road is commonly used for pedestrian access to the BART station.  About 90 pedestrians  cross Treat Boulevard at Oak Road during the morning peak hour.  Because the cycle length is  long (160s in the morning), many pedestrians cross in two stages, waiting in the narrow median  to avoid waiting a full cycle for another opportunity to cross the intersection.  Providing the  opportunity for pedestrians to cross Treat Boulevard in one stage would minimize pedestrian  exposure to traffic and reduce pedestrian delay. During the morning peak period, the westbound  left turn and northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left turn bay storage capacity.  Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road  During the P.M. peak period, about 70 vehicles complete the westbound right turn movement  from Treat Boulevard to Oak Road, a volume the through travel lanes may be able to absorb in  this segment.  Conversion of the rightmost westbound lane on this segment would provide an  opportunity for the construction of a wide bicycle lane.  East of Jones Road, the number of eastbound through lanes drops from four to three, and based  on field observations it appears most through vehicles avoid the rightmost lane for this reason.   Due to the relatively low level of eastbound right turn traffic at Jones, it may be possible to  remove the rightmost lane and convert the next lane to accommodate eastbound through/right  traffic.  This would allow for bicycle infrastructure for eastbound bicycles or for an extension of  the curb to accommodate a wider sidewalk.  During the morning peak hour the pace speed is 21 – 30 mph westbound and 21 – 35 mph  eastbound between Oak Road and Jones Road.  During the afternoon peak hour vehicles travel at  a pace of 21 – 35 mph westbound and eastbound.   Jones Road  The Iron Horse Trail crosses over Treat Boulevard at Jones Road.  For this reason, pedestrians and  cyclists access Treat Boulevard from Jones Road, many of them remaining on the trail overpass to  cross the busy street. Westbound left turn traffic occasionally exceeds the left turn storage  capacity during the morning and evening peak period.      May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 332 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  13                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS OPERATIONS MODEL Changes and Adjustments to Synchro Default Values  The City of Walnut Creek provided signal timing sheets for the four study intersections. The  timing parameters were entered into the Synchro models.  The default value for ideal saturation flow rate (1,900 vehicles per hour per lane [vphpl]) was  used for all study intersections. Additionally, the Synchro models contain heavy vehicle  percentages obtained from the turning movement traffic counts, and the peak period conflicting  pedestrian and bicycle volumes.   System Measure of Effectiveness  Table 3 summarizes the estimated measures of effectiveness (MOEs) from the Synchro models  under existing conditions. Appendix B contains the Synchro model output results for the Arterial  Levels of Service and the MOEs for each signal corridor.  The MOEs include such corridor  performance measures as average number of stops per vehicle, total delay, average speeds,  travel time, and emissions.  The MOEs for existing conditions provide a basis for evaluating the proposed improvement  concepts (to be presented in the next task of this project).  This will be done by comparing the  performance of the proposed improvement concepts with the performance of the existing layout  of Treat Boulevard.  The goal of the roadway improvement concepts will be to improve the  environment for pedestrians and cyclists without significantly degrading the efficiency of the  Treat Boulevard corridor for the automobile mode of transportation.  Table 3: System Measures of Effectiveness from Existing Conditions Synchro Model  Roadway Approach Peak Hour  Total  Delay/  Vehicle  (sec/veh)  Stops/  Vehicle   Total   Travel   Time (hr)  Average1  Speed  (mph)  CO  Emissions  (kg)  NOx  Emissions  (kg)  Arterial  LOS  Treat  Boulevard  Westbound  A.M. 22 0.43 103 15 9.27 1.80 D  P.M. 23 0.43 91 13 8.07 1.57 E  Eastbound  A.M. 36 0.53 99 9 8.16 1.59 F  P.M. 32 0.55 95 10 8.18 1.59 E  Notes: Total Delay/Vehicle (sec/veh) = The control delay plus the queue delay experienced per vehicle.  Travel Time (hr) = The total time taken for all vehicles to travel through the corridor.  CO Emissions (kg) = The amount of Carbon Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a  period of one hour.  NOx Emissions (kg) = The amount of Nitrogen Monoxide emissions by all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a  period of one hour.  1Average speed accounts for traffic signal delay at the study intersections and queuing delay.    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 333 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  14                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  Individual intersection Level of Service (LOS) was also analyzed.  Table 4 presents the findings.  As shown, delays are high at each intersection, except the Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue  intersection.  It will be important to limit the impact on automobile traffic when considering  improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The LOS and delay results will also  serve as a basis to evaluate the conceptual improvement plans.    Table 4: Intersection Level of Service from Existing Conditions Synchro Model  Intersection Peak Hour Control  Delay (s) LOS   Treat Boulevard and Main Street*  A.M. 55.7 E  P.M. 42.9 D  Treat Boulevard and I‐680 Northbound  Ramps/Buskirk Avenue  A.M. 30.3 C  P.M. 17.5 B  Treat Boulevard and Oak Road  A.M. 46.8 D  P.M. 19.3 B  Treat Boulevard and Jones Road*  A.M. 37.6 D  P.M. 49.8 D  Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *.   *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.  NEXT STEPS In the next tasks of this project, the transportation improvement concepts will be analyzed with  future (2040) traffic volumes, which will be obtained from the CCTA County wide Travel Demand  Model. Our focus will be on the traffic engineering aspect, geometry considerations and traffic  analysis, including the traffic signal timing impact for pedestrian crossing.  As stated above, this  will include an assessment of lane reduction opportunities to provide bicycle lanes.  DKS will also  evaluate the feasibility of eliminating right turn lanes and implementing right turn on red  restriction with the objective of eliminating conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians and  bicycles. An assessment of queue spillback from left turn pockets will also be assessed due to the  potential for rear‐end collisions.    This task will also include exploring the alteration of signal timing strategies for each concept to  enhance traffic operations along Treat Boulevard. The analysis for each concept will take into  account the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements for  setting pedestrian and bicycle timing parameters.     May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 334 Task 2.7: Contra Costa Centre I‐680/Treat Boulevard  Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ‐ Draft Memorandum on  Existing Conditions  15                             July 30, 2014   Experts Connecting Communities  STUDY PARTICIPANTS DKS Personnel  Thomas Krakow, P.E.    Principal‐In‐Charge  David Mahama, P.E.    Project Manager  Maria Tribelhorn, E.I.T  Assistant Transportation Engineer    Others  Jamar Stamps    Planner, Contra Costa County  John Lieswyn, PTP, MET  Project Manager, Alta Planning  Alexandra Sweet    Planner, Alta Planning   IDAX     Data Collection  Quality Counts , LLC    Data Collection      References  1. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, Transportation Research Board.  2. Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Transportation Research Board.      May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 335 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix A – Traffic Counts  Seven‐day machine classification counts   Turning movement counts   Pedestrian and Bicycle counts  May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 336 Experts Connecting Communities      0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 12345678910111213141516171819202122230Hourly VolumeHour Ending Exhibit 1: Daily Traffic: Treat Boulevard between Jones Road & Oak Road, EB and WB directions (Weekday) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 12345678910111213141516171819202122230Hourly VolumeHour Ending Exhibit 2: Daily Traffic: Treat Boulevard between Jones Road & Oak Road, EB and WB directions (Weekend) Saturday Sunday May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 337 Experts Connecting Communities      0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0Hourly VolumeHour Ending Exhibit 3: Hourly Volume Analysis: Treat Boulevard between Jones Road & Oak Road, WB Direction (Weekday) Average Lower 95% Conf. Int. Upper 95% Conf. Int. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0Hourly VolumeHour Ending Exhibit 4: Hourly Volume Analysis: Treat Boulevard between Jones Road & Oak Road, EB Direction (Weekday) Average Lower 95% Conf. Int. Upper 95% Conf. Int. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 338 Experts Connecting Communities    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 0Percent of Total ADTHour Ending Exhibit 5: Traffic Distribution: Treat Boulevard between Jones Rd and Oak Rd, SB and NB directions (Weekday) Eastbound Westbound May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 339 CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak RdVICINITY:Walnut Creek, CALOCATION #:001PROJECT #:14070-000ON STREET:Treat BlvdSTART DATE:Friday, May 30, 2014020004000600080001000012000140001600018000Monday AM Monday PM Tuesday AM Tuesday PM Wednesday AM Wednesday PM Thursday AM Thursday PM Friday AM Friday PM Saturday AM Saturday PM Sunday AM Sunday PMTotal Daily AM/PM Volume (Directional)NBSBEBWB050010001500200025003000350040001:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00Total Daily Volume (Bi‐Directional)MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySundayMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes340 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 58 32 12:00 342 375 00:15 65 34 12:15 389 365 00:30 42 18 12:30 348 365 00:45 36 201 20 104 305 12:45 350 1429 359 1464 2893 01:00 41 21 13:00 398 368 01:15 39 20 13:15 362 393 01:30 24 12 13:30 382 347 01:45 23 127 13 66 193 13:45 424 1566 358 1466 3032 02:00 27 13 14:00 410 368 02:15 22 14 14:15 457 360 02:30 9 5 14:30 404 466 02:45 10 68 10 42 110 14:45 433 1704 481 1675 3379 03:00 19 15 15:00 452 400 03:15 5 18 15:15 428 406 03:30 16 26 15:30 432 434 03:45 17 57 25 84 141 15:45 446 1758 470 1710 3468 04:00 20 39 16:00 405 401 04:15 12 50 16:15 396 371 04:30 26 60 16:30 458 393 04:45 44 102 77 226 328 16:45 420 1679 388 1553 3232 05:00 50 110 17:00 428 416 05:15 54 128 17:15 441 371 05:30 53 154 17:30 487 386 05:45 98 255 195 587 842 17:45 454 1810 368 1541 3351 06:00 95 243 18:00 371 357 06:15 114 308 18:15 427 355 06:30 163 359 18:30 417 311 06:45 187 559 449 1359 1918 18:45 356 1571 316 1339 2910 07:00 234 476 19:00 337 259 07:15 243 512 19:15 290 276 07:30 370 536 19:30 293 242 07:45 445 1292 534 2058 3350 19:45 322 1242 296 1073 2315 08:00 448 480 20:00 272 229 08:15 355 498 20:15 268 256 08:30 348 452 20:30 267 220 08:45 390 1541 448 1878 3419 20:45 272 1079 240 945 2024 09:00 275 393 21:00 234 202 09:15 310 400 21:15 252 170 09:30 316 386 21:30 238 159 09:45 330 1231 423 1602 2833 21:45 226 950 160 691 1641 10:00 316 382 22:00 218 172 10:15 342 406 22:15 186 159 10:30 301 340 22:30 200 128 10:45 314 1273 379 1507 2780 22:45 137 741 117 576 1317 11:00 302 376 23:00 138 92 11:15 286 402 23:15 145 73 11:30 332 325 23:30 124 86 11:45 380 1300 401 1504 2804 23:45 106 513 62 313 826 TOTALS:8006 11017 19023 TOTALS:16042 14346 30388 SPLIT 42.1% 57.9%38.5%SPLIT 52.8% 47.2%61.5% PEAK HOUR 07:30 07:15 07:30 PEAK HOUR 17:00 14:30 14:30 PH VOLUME 1618 2062 3666 PH VOLUME 1810 1753 3470 PHF 0.90 0.96 0.94 PHF 0.93 0.91 0.95 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Friday, May 30, 2014 24048 25363 49411 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 341 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 101 58 12:00 344 422 00:15 83 46 12:15 352 389 00:30 64 43 12:30 344 406 00:45 77 325 46 193 518 12:45 338 1378 380 1597 2975 01:00 44 24 13:00 336 406 01:15 55 23 13:15 367 380 01:30 60 24 13:30 374 384 01:45 43 202 21 92 294 13:45 341 1418 354 1524 2942 02:00 30 20 14:00 352 345 02:15 35 18 14:15 426 340 02:30 28 18 14:30 382 374 02:45 32 125 23 79 204 14:45 385 1545 402 1461 3006 03:00 23 16 15:00 361 364 03:15 14 13 15:15 364 324 03:30 19 21 15:30 366 353 03:45 18 74 12 62 136 15:45 384 1475 321 1362 2837 04:00 14 24 16:00 373 361 04:15 10 23 16:15 396 354 04:30 17 25 16:30 342 322 04:45 21 62 24 96 158 16:45 318 1429 326 1363 2792 05:00 13 41 17:00 376 329 05:15 28 50 17:15 341 331 05:30 25 71 17:30 346 294 05:45 55 121 78 240 361 17:45 347 1410 316 1270 2680 06:00 27 65 18:00 308 268 06:15 54 111 18:15 315 289 06:30 62 110 18:30 370 284 06:45 89 232 116 402 634 18:45 280 1273 260 1101 2374 07:00 84 142 19:00 291 216 07:15 118 195 19:15 252 241 07:30 151 240 19:30 230 199 07:45 196 549 209 786 1335 19:45 233 1006 210 866 1872 08:00 203 259 20:00 216 192 08:15 233 289 20:15 233 181 08:30 280 320 20:30 208 192 08:45 342 1058 357 1225 2283 20:45 229 886 262 827 1713 09:00 284 333 21:00 209 189 09:15 258 345 21:15 223 180 09:30 294 396 21:30 228 172 09:45 333 1169 375 1449 2618 21:45 219 879 138 679 1558 10:00 305 366 22:00 188 132 10:15 308 384 22:15 183 162 10:30 348 406 22:30 179 118 10:45 349 1310 408 1564 2874 22:45 160 710 98 510 1220 11:00 344 342 23:00 174 95 11:15 344 455 23:15 129 93 11:30 308 416 23:30 130 78 11:45 352 1348 434 1647 2995 23:45 144 577 47 313 890 TOTALS:6575 7835 14410 TOTALS:13986 12873 26859 SPLIT 45.6% 54.4%34.9%SPLIT 52.1% 47.9%65.1% PEAK HOUR 11:45 11:15 11:15 PEAK HOUR 14:15 12:00 14:15 PH VOLUME 1392 1727 3075 PH VOLUME 1554 1597 3034 PHF 0.99 0.95 0.96 PHF 0.91 0.95 0.96 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Saturday, May 31, 2014 20561 20708 41269 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 342 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 109 62 12:00 337 326 00:15 81 54 12:15 310 345 00:30 87 45 12:30 427 411 00:45 78 355 54 215 570 12:45 404 1478 362 1444 2922 01:00 56 37 13:00 378 361 01:15 70 28 13:15 377 357 01:30 57 32 13:30 368 313 01:45 51 234 25 122 356 13:45 346 1469 344 1375 2844 02:00 32 24 14:00 380 310 02:15 40 19 14:15 309 312 02:30 22 16 14:30 331 306 02:45 23 117 11 70 187 14:45 337 1357 288 1216 2573 03:00 21 11 15:00 306 293 03:15 28 20 15:15 366 325 03:30 19 15 15:30 342 386 03:45 21 89 15 61 150 15:45 333 1347 418 1422 2769 04:00 10 19 16:00 350 421 04:15 14 24 16:15 311 381 04:30 18 14 16:30 329 317 04:45 18 60 33 90 150 16:45 320 1310 281 1400 2710 05:00 11 30 17:00 301 290 05:15 22 44 17:15 318 278 05:30 28 42 17:30 331 240 05:45 30 91 65 181 272 17:45 304 1254 234 1042 2296 06:00 19 64 18:00 308 224 06:15 47 86 18:15 311 270 06:30 51 88 18:30 283 228 06:45 51 168 98 336 504 18:45 282 1184 240 962 2146 07:00 78 97 19:00 244 193 07:15 103 120 19:15 290 189 07:30 166 139 19:30 258 180 07:45 178 525 162 518 1043 19:45 278 1070 197 759 1829 08:00 202 156 20:00 236 198 08:15 232 169 20:15 259 220 08:30 274 221 20:30 198 198 08:45 243 951 244 790 1741 20:45 186 879 171 787 1666 09:00 190 236 21:00 206 134 09:15 178 280 21:15 168 156 09:30 234 289 21:30 171 126 09:45 251 853 348 1153 2006 21:45 136 681 93 509 1190 10:00 220 316 22:00 116 114 10:15 242 306 22:15 142 92 10:30 236 379 22:30 91 65 10:45 289 987 491 1492 2479 22:45 100 449 57 328 777 11:00 292 502 23:00 84 50 11:15 281 394 23:15 73 48 11:30 250 336 23:30 71 46 11:45 304 1127 320 1552 2679 23:45 48 276 33 177 453 TOTALS:5557 6580 12137 TOTALS:12754 11421 24175 SPLIT 45.8% 54.2%33.4%SPLIT 52.8% 47.2%66.6% PEAK HOUR 11:45 10:30 10:30 PEAK HOUR 12:30 15:30 12:30 PH VOLUME 1378 1766 2864 PH VOLUME 1586 1606 3077 PHF 0.81 0.88 0.90 PHF 0.93 0.95 0.92 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Sunday, June 01, 2014 18311 18001 36312 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 343 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 52 23 12:00 328 331 00:15 51 22 12:15 320 383 00:30 33 27 12:30 304 354 00:45 21 157 14 86 243 12:45 350 1302 325 1393 2695 01:00 28 17 13:00 308 354 01:15 27 10 13:15 317 327 01:30 14 10 13:30 308 302 01:45 13 82 9 46 128 13:45 352 1285 318 1301 2586 02:00 11 12 14:00 403 322 02:15 16 8 14:15 446 342 02:30 13 16 14:30 419 422 02:45 14 54 14 50 104 14:45 469 1737 360 1446 3183 03:00 30 9 15:00 490 378 03:15 58 40 15:15 434 404 03:30 38 95 15:30 441 415 03:45 29 155 79 223 378 15:45 392 1757 401 1598 3355 04:00 17 46 16:00 425 386 04:15 15 46 16:15 452 378 04:30 24 71 16:30 414 389 04:45 44 100 78 241 341 16:45 443 1734 378 1531 3265 05:00 36 101 17:00 460 382 05:15 54 154 17:15 450 393 05:30 67 154 17:30 466 406 05:45 107 264 215 624 888 17:45 417 1793 369 1550 3343 06:00 75 256 18:00 446 332 06:15 95 332 18:15 426 340 06:30 124 353 18:30 420 340 06:45 174 468 460 1401 1869 18:45 384 1676 286 1298 2974 07:00 192 506 19:00 348 241 07:15 234 542 19:15 316 240 07:30 338 546 19:30 262 209 07:45 394 1158 459 2053 3211 19:45 305 1231 204 894 2125 08:00 342 550 20:00 212 198 08:15 322 507 20:15 228 186 08:30 288 434 20:30 206 172 08:45 332 1284 374 1865 3149 20:45 215 861 183 739 1600 09:00 326 393 21:00 253 143 09:15 276 409 21:15 201 156 09:30 264 435 21:30 181 109 09:45 316 1182 438 1675 2857 21:45 152 787 109 517 1304 10:00 260 334 22:00 165 76 10:15 269 374 22:15 132 83 10:30 293 348 22:30 107 68 10:45 336 1158 336 1392 2550 22:45 93 497 62 289 786 11:00 259 318 23:00 86 50 11:15 317 345 23:15 86 51 11:30 322 353 23:30 88 34 11:45 351 1249 359 1375 2624 23:45 57 317 24 159 476 TOTALS:7311 11031 18342 TOTALS:14977 12715 27692 SPLIT 39.9% 60.1%39.8%SPLIT 54.1% 45.9%60.2% PEAK HOUR 07:30 07:15 07:30 PEAK HOUR 14:45 15:15 14:45 PH VOLUME 1396 2097 3458 PH VOLUME 1834 1606 3391 PHF 0.89 0.95 0.97 PHF 0.94 0.97 0.98 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Monday, June 02, 2014 22288 23746 46034 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 344 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 49 29 12:00 350 358 00:15 46 19 12:15 328 358 00:30 22 20 12:30 326 363 00:45 35 152 12 80 232 12:45 368 1372 351 1430 2802 01:00 18 20 13:00 335 332 01:15 17 14 13:15 326 321 01:30 32 12 13:30 377 316 01:45 20 87 10 56 143 13:45 368 1406 319 1288 2694 02:00 8 9 14:00 370 300 02:15 19 11 14:15 431 332 02:30 12 20 14:30 423 448 02:45 10 49 11 51 100 14:45 474 1698 431 1511 3209 03:00 12 12 15:00 460 382 03:15 7 14 15:15 444 408 03:30 4 20 15:30 408 421 03:45 12 35 39 85 120 15:45 474 1786 402 1613 3399 04:00 17 39 16:00 382 398 04:15 10 51 16:15 515 349 04:30 24 74 16:30 429 394 04:45 46 97 84 248 345 16:45 436 1762 393 1534 3296 05:00 36 123 17:00 475 409 05:15 73 135 17:15 466 393 05:30 58 169 17:30 448 392 05:45 90 257 233 660 917 17:45 442 1831 362 1556 3387 06:00 79 299 18:00 457 317 06:15 96 300 18:15 471 314 06:30 137 422 18:30 424 320 06:45 196 508 544 1565 2073 18:45 450 1802 324 1275 3077 07:00 214 508 19:00 372 275 07:15 268 535 19:15 349 268 07:30 383 516 19:30 303 249 07:45 383 1248 459 2018 3266 19:45 275 1299 256 1048 2347 08:00 358 514 20:00 311 250 08:15 299 464 20:15 294 223 08:30 336 556 20:30 236 184 08:45 292 1285 484 2018 3303 20:45 247 1088 181 838 1926 09:00 294 451 21:00 257 179 09:15 300 414 21:15 221 166 09:30 319 347 21:30 190 164 09:45 342 1255 393 1605 2860 21:45 196 864 136 645 1509 10:00 246 346 22:00 168 112 10:15 264 348 22:15 145 110 10:30 237 358 22:30 135 67 10:45 290 1037 361 1413 2450 22:45 88 536 66 355 891 11:00 251 347 23:00 82 70 11:15 308 336 23:15 86 61 11:30 279 355 23:30 86 35 11:45 323 1161 352 1390 2551 23:45 70 324 32 198 522 TOTALS:7171 11189 18360 TOTALS:15768 13291 29059 SPLIT 39.1% 60.9%38.7%SPLIT 54.3% 45.7%61.3% PEAK HOUR 07:30 06:45 07:15 PEAK HOUR 16:15 14:30 14:30 PH VOLUME 1423 2103 3416 PH VOLUME 1855 1669 3470 PHF 0.93 0.97 0.95 PHF 0.90 0.93 0.96 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Tuesday, June 03, 2014 22939 24480 47419 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 345 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 56 25 12:00 358 344 00:15 45 27 12:15 340 342 00:30 39 30 12:30 370 389 00:45 25 165 16 98 263 12:45 387 1455 348 1423 2878 01:00 32 14 13:00 349 324 01:15 28 16 13:15 380 385 01:30 15 14 13:30 359 319 01:45 20 95 15 59 154 13:45 382 1470 318 1346 2816 02:00 15 15 14:00 345 378 02:15 16 7 14:15 433 386 02:30 14 8 14:30 431 410 02:45 13 58 13 43 101 14:45 420 1629 398 1572 3201 03:00 4 10 15:00 456 378 03:15 9 15 15:15 456 451 03:30 11 24 15:30 459 428 03:45 17 41 31 80 121 15:45 444 1815 381 1638 3453 04:00 15 38 16:00 398 368 04:15 14 46 16:15 454 374 04:30 23 79 16:30 423 391 04:45 50 102 78 241 343 16:45 405 1680 338 1471 3151 05:00 52 92 17:00 405 398 05:15 57 134 17:15 459 386 05:30 66 191 17:30 439 411 05:45 113 288 226 643 931 17:45 420 1723 389 1584 3307 06:00 87 262 18:00 433 332 06:15 108 328 18:15 468 365 06:30 135 396 18:30 420 312 06:45 186 516 497 1483 1999 18:45 411 1732 334 1343 3075 07:00 192 546 19:00 395 238 07:15 240 544 19:15 370 257 07:30 298 485 19:30 331 219 07:45 314 1044 442 2017 3061 19:45 266 1362 241 955 2317 08:00 320 517 20:00 308 206 08:15 330 522 20:15 286 213 08:30 410 491 20:30 250 194 08:45 499 1559 464 1994 3553 20:45 260 1104 193 806 1910 09:00 350 470 21:00 278 184 09:15 294 432 21:15 256 175 09:30 258 411 21:30 228 149 09:45 339 1241 415 1728 2969 21:45 205 967 140 648 1615 10:00 298 362 22:00 184 113 10:15 279 388 22:15 166 109 10:30 302 394 22:30 140 80 10:45 302 1181 369 1513 2694 22:45 105 595 74 376 971 11:00 288 363 23:00 108 60 11:15 298 365 23:15 89 49 11:30 298 366 23:30 92 42 11:45 327 1211 370 1464 2675 23:45 73 362 44 195 557 TOTALS:7501 11363 18864 TOTALS:15894 13357 29251 SPLIT 39.8% 60.2%39.2%SPLIT 54.3% 45.7%60.8% PEAK HOUR 08:15 06:45 08:00 PEAK HOUR 15:00 14:45 15:00 PH VOLUME 1589 2072 3553 PH VOLUME 1815 1655 3453 PHF 0.80 0.95 0.92 PHF 0.99 0.92 0.95 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Wednesday, June 04, 2014 23395 24720 48115 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 346 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Quality Counts NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 00:00 64 25 12:00 319 332 00:15 57 31 12:15 346 332 00:30 33 24 12:30 327 324 00:45 41 195 25 105 300 12:45 350 1342 330 1318 2660 01:00 26 21 13:00 314 343 01:15 28 17 13:15 384 372 01:30 23 10 13:30 398 331 01:45 11 88 9 57 145 13:45 412 1508 379 1425 2933 02:00 11 15 14:00 419 408 02:15 14 7 14:15 411 400 02:30 10 14 14:30 430 392 02:45 12 47 11 47 94 14:45 388 1648 412 1612 3260 03:00 14 16 15:00 417 370 03:15 5 15 15:15 396 414 03:30 15 18 15:30 443 380 03:45 14 48 33 82 130 15:45 433 1689 410 1574 3263 04:00 9 34 16:00 350 401 04:15 19 48 16:15 471 356 04:30 21 53 16:30 414 374 04:45 46 95 91 226 321 16:45 470 1705 362 1493 3198 05:00 37 122 17:00 434 390 05:15 46 156 17:15 422 393 05:30 59 176 17:30 478 367 05:45 90 232 229 683 915 17:45 439 1773 397 1547 3320 06:00 84 254 18:00 486 357 06:15 97 334 18:15 413 364 06:30 149 422 18:30 436 313 06:45 182 512 500 1510 2022 18:45 399 1734 316 1350 3084 07:00 205 526 19:00 361 303 07:15 259 560 19:15 403 278 07:30 356 522 19:30 388 251 07:45 446 1266 427 2035 3301 19:45 295 1447 251 1083 2530 08:00 397 510 20:00 336 201 08:15 309 497 20:15 316 270 08:30 281 498 20:30 256 218 08:45 387 1374 530 2035 3409 20:45 275 1183 237 926 2109 09:00 329 412 21:00 245 172 09:15 306 437 21:15 254 183 09:30 311 362 21:30 221 152 09:45 314 1260 395 1606 2866 21:45 195 915 131 638 1553 10:00 258 371 22:00 155 110 10:15 307 362 22:15 162 96 10:30 280 366 22:30 133 103 10:45 301 1146 381 1480 2626 22:45 122 572 79 388 960 11:00 289 338 23:00 82 67 11:15 334 367 23:15 87 63 11:30 301 320 23:30 86 48 11:45 327 1251 409 1434 2685 23:45 80 335 44 222 557 TOTALS:7514 11300 18814 TOTALS:15851 13576 29427 SPLIT 39.9% 60.1%39.0%SPLIT 53.9% 46.1%61.0% PEAK HOUR 07:30 06:45 07:15 PEAK HOUR 17:15 14:00 17:15 PH VOLUME 1508 2108 3477 PH VOLUME 1825 1612 3339 PHF 0.85 0.94 0.96 PHF 0.94 0.98 0.99 SB VICINITY:Walnut Creek, CA LOCATION #:001 PROJECT #:14070-000 ON STREET:Treat Blvd DATE:Thursday, June 05, 2014 23365 24876 48241 DAY'S TOTAL NB EB WB TOTAL AM COUNTS PM COUNTS CROSS STREETS:Jones Rd and Oak Rd May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 347 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 3 10 10 8 14 12 12 8 77 44 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 7:45 AM 8:45 AM TOTAL 2.0%0.92 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 9962362124238 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:15 AM 9:15 AM Peak Hour: SB 2.3%0.91 1.6%0.79 WB 1.5%0.96 NB 3.3%0.95 N. Main St 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT N .Main St 28 1,0381852117229 LT TH RT LT 243 87:15 AM 3 111 36 112 81 Interval Start Geary Rd Treat Blvd 5 210 44 141 90 210 10 57:30 AM 8 131 35 118 66 157 29 90 114 224 29 1,148 4,4268:00 AM 6 189 29 151 78 203 12 23 25 82 140 258 29 1,2447:45 AM 4,467 8:30 AM 9 123 31 107 91 236 195 17 25 75 143 2198:15 AM 7 124 45 115 82 1,083 4,554 18 17 32 1,079 30 81 135 184 39 4,287 4,396 9:00 AM 11 122 38 96 69 198 18 40 27 81 159 188 60 1,0868:45 AM 9 104 23 112 94 211 281 952 69 161 171 46 1,039 1,711 292 8,7136511,653 105 211 592 1,093 SB 328 532 885 129 4,554All2764614951434184456 90 2% 3 East West North South Total 7:15 AM 6 5 2 11 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 0 1 0 1 1 7:30 AM 4 5 1 7 17 24 0 0 0 2 2 0 7 0000 6 1 8:00 AM 2 6 2 9 19 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 07:45 AM 4 6 5 9 24 1 0 0 1 5 7 1 0 8:15 AM 4 7 6 7 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 3 6 3 8:45 AM 4 8 3 10 25 0 0 1 0 0 1 08:30 AM 3 7 3 10 23 6 4 9:00 AM 9 4 1 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 11 41 12 2000330 Count Total 36 48 23 74 181 2 2 0 8 27 5 HV 1 8 4 5 11 10 2 2 0 1 5 4Peak Hr 13 26 16 35 90 3 7 Peak Hour Count Total 2 2 12 17 15 3 2%1%4%2%4%3%2%HV%4%1%3%1%3% 103 58 1,114 01027 0005 1 1 0 81 0 14N1298855321,546974149 646 27 822 526 328103564871,548844 341 514 1,699 1,506 Treat Blvd N .Main StGeary Rd N. Main St4,554TEV: 0.92PHF: N. Main St Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 348 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 5 3 2 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 4 2 0 3 1 1 2 5 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 2 0 2 4 1 2 0 1 8 2 0 0 3 1 2 2 3 0 0 6 2 5 2 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 1 3 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 6 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5Peak Hour 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 9:00 AM 1 Peak Hour 1 8 4 5 11 10 2 2 12 17 15 3 90 Southbound 9:00 AM 97 23 90 8:45 AM 25 91 8:30 AM 19 84 8:15 AM 24 84 8:00 AM 17 7:45 AM 3 6 2 0 3 1 0 Count Total 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 1 5 8:45 AM 0 2 8:30 AM 1 6 8:15 AM 0 4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 3 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 2 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 2 0 Geary Rd Treat Blvd N .Main St N. Main St 25 Count Total 1 29 6 9 19 20 3 3 17 35 29 10 181 24 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 24 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Geary Rd Treat Blvd N .Main St N. Main St Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 349 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 3 20 6 17 23 14 14 13 110 64 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 4:30 PM 5:30 PM TOTAL 0.7%0.92 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,12410497190113 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:30 PM 5:30 PM Peak Hour: SB 0.3%0.93 1.4%0.94 WB 0.6%0.85 NB 0.8%0.87 N. Main St 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT N .Main St 56 1,0727211219596 LT TH RT LT 213 263:30 PM 14 122 19 64 83 Interval Start Geary Rd Treat Blvd 10 148 21 56 69 201 19 373:45 PM 15 148 28 51 85 194 62 101 168 82 54 1,121 4,3394:15 PM 11 167 18 64 83 240 33 100 78 104 187 81 48 1,0224:00 PM 4,300 4:45 PM 15 120 18 69 101 245 212 28 106 126 185 694:30 PM 24 102 24 37 70 1,071 4,247 45 33 50 1,033 87 110 153 68 52 4,479 4,388 5:15 PM 20 131 18 78 119 259 47 107 129 126 168 101 64 1,1635:00 PM 15 128 29 50 80 228 175 469 103 178 92 60 1,212 702 446 8,8186901,792 268 783 879 1,424 SB 465 684 330 226 4,479All7448189234370944153 31 1% 2 East West North South Total 3:30 PM 2 2 3 3 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 0 0 0 2 1 3:45 PM 3 1 8 7 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0000 4 0 4:15 PM 1 1 4 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24:00 PM 3 1 3 4 11 0 1 2 1 4 16 2 4 4:30 PM 3 2 4 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 4 4 5:00 PM 4 3 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 24:45 PM 2 4 3 3 12 8 1 5:15 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 4 6 24 68 12 0002058 Count Total 18 15 26 22 81 0 4 1 17 36 7 HV 0 8 1 5 3 2 0 4 1 1 6 4Peak Hr 9 10 8 4 31 1 6 Peak Hour Count Total 0 1 7 4 0 0 0%0%0%0%2%1%0%HV%0%2%1%2%1% 429 124 1,066 01036 0107 0 0 0 171 3 04N2263306841,2401,44789 481 74 644 749 4654291531,047653944 370 234 1,548 1,630 Treat Blvd N .Main StGeary Rd N. Main St4,479TEV: 0.92PHF: N. Main St Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 350 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 5:15 PM 6 Peak Hour 0 8 1 5 3 2 0 1 7 4 0 0 31 Southbound 5:15 PM 31 12 42 5:00 PM 8 39 4:45 PM 10 50 4:30 PM 9 49 4:15 PM 19 4:00 PM 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 Count Total 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 1 3 5:00 PM 1 4 4:45 PM 0 0 4:30 PM 2 2 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4:00 PM 0 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 Geary Rd Treat Blvd N .Main St N. Main St 2 Count Total 0 16 2 7 6 2 2 6 18 15 3 4 81 11 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 10 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Geary Rd Treat Blvd N .Main St N. Main St Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 351 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 12 15 21 12 15 5 12 21 113 53 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Peak Hour Count Total 11 6 14 0 0 0 -3%8%1%2%--HV%3%3%--1% 474 779 1,764 0 51 0 HV 10 26 0 0 19 15 0 1 0 0 1 2Peak Hr 36 34 31 0 101 0 3Count Total 80 66 58 0 204 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 109 0 000120199:00 AM 12 5 7 0 24 0 1 1 0 5 0 8:45 AM 11 9 9 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:30 AM 10 10 10 0 30 12 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 8:15 AM 13 9 7 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 0 8:00 AM 4 8 6 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 07:45 AM 9 7 8 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7:30 AM 10 5 9 0 24 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 00000 East West North South Total 7:15 AM 11 13 2 0 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB 913 0 0 0 5,057All389969001,653 516 143 101 2% 0 0 171 0 0 0 1,096 0 0 9,5773,191 963 300 906 1,674 0 4,710 4,861 9:00 AM 113 205 0 0 335 105 53 114 128 192 0 0 0 1,2268:45 AM 105 220 0 0 432 108 41 31 0 1,209 123 169 0 0 0 4,991 8:30 AM 100 219 0 0 428 109 124 38 119 223 0 08:15 AM 82 228 0 0 395 1,179 5,057 0 220 0 0 0 1,247 4,8678:00 AM 92 243 0 0 398 129 38 127 105 301 0 0 0 1,4227:45 AM 115 279 0 0 432 154 36 357:30 AM 76 204 0 0 333 121 7:15 AM 96 166 0 0 438 Interval Start Treat Blvd Treat Blvd 0 1,0858715700 LT TH RT LT 113 28 Buskirk Ave 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT I-680 Off Ramp Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:15 AM 9:15 AM Peak Hour: SB -- 2.7%0.86 WB 1.6%0.93 NB 2.0%0.87 HV %:PHF EB 7:45 AM 8:45 AM TOTAL 2.0%0.89 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,11310324100000510000 0 0 0 01 0 02N00001,3790 969 389 1,358 1,796 9134741431,5300516 1,653 0 2,169 1,882 Treat Blvd I-680 Off RampTreat Blvd Buskirk Ave5,057TEV: 0.89PHF: Buskirk Ave Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 352 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Treat Blvd Treat Blvd I-680 Off Ramp Buskirk Ave 24 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 26 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat Blvd Treat Blvd I-680 Off Ramp Buskirk Ave 24 Count Total 23 57 0 0 37 29 17 12 29 0 0 0 204 0 7:45 AM 1 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 0 1 8:45 AM 1 1 8:30 AM 0 1 8:15 AM 0 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Southbound 9:00 AM 112 30 101 8:45 AM 29 106 8:30 AM 18 92 8:15 AM 29 95 8:00 AM 24 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 9 0 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 9:00 AM 2 Peak Hour 10 26 0 0 19 15 11 6 14 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 1Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 6 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 7 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 5 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 6 2 3 5 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 4 5 2 1 4 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 2 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 7 2 2 2 5 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 353 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 10 20 13 8 12 6 16 12 97 46 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Peak Hour Count Total 2 4 11 0 0 0 -1%1%1%1%--HV%3%1%--1% 274 967 2,354 1 44 1 HV 13 8 0 0 15 5 0 3 0 0 3 0Peak Hr 21 20 17 0 58 0 7Count Total 47 35 35 0 117 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 93 2 000101115:15 PM 1 4 3 0 8 0 1 2 0 6 0 5:00 PM 6 5 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 PM 8 7 7 0 22 15 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 4:30 PM 6 4 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 13 0 4:15 PM 8 4 3 0 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 5 0 5 0 10 0 0 2 1 0 9 0 3:45 PM 8 6 3 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 00020 East West North South Total 3:30 PM 5 5 7 0 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB 854 0 0 0 5,203All5081,201 0 0 1,574 632 160 58 1% 0 0 219 0 0 0 1,364 0 0 10,0502,878 1,279 362 526 1,684 0 5,203 5,057 5:15 PM 122 331 0 0 427 153 38 74 61 210 0 0 0 1,2985:00 PM 127 308 0 0 407 143 42 45 0 1,275 73 219 0 0 0 4,878 4:45 PM 120 265 0 0 375 169 167 35 66 206 0 04:30 PM 139 297 0 0 365 1,266 4,920 0 197 0 0 0 1,218 4,8474:15 PM 108 303 0 0 342 152 45 71 62 183 0 0 0 1,1614:00 PM 107 280 0 0 337 155 37 633:45 PM 135 263 0 0 308 182 3:30 PM 109 307 0 0 317 Interval Start Treat Blvd Treat Blvd 0 1,2446423200 LT TH RT LT 158 57 Buskirk Ave 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT I-680 Off Ramp Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:30 PM 5:30 PM Peak Hour: SB -- 1.2%0.94 WB 0.9%0.95 NB 1.3%0.96 HV %:PHF EB 4:30 PM 5:30 PM TOTAL 1.1%0.95 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,2245521800000440001 0 0 0 11 2 00N00001,4140 1,201 508 1,709 1,734 8542741601,2880632 1,574 0 2,206 2,055 Treat Blvd I-680 Off RampTreat Blvd Buskirk Ave5,203TEV: 0.95PHF: Buskirk Ave Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 354 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Treat Blvd Treat Blvd I-680 Off Ramp Buskirk Ave 10 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 17 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat Blvd Treat Blvd I-680 Off Ramp Buskirk Ave 8 Count Total 28 19 0 0 22 13 3 9 23 0 0 0 117 2 4:00 PM 0 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 PM 2 4 4:45 PM 2 4 4:30 PM 0 4 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Count Total 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Southbound 5:15 PM 58 22 62 5:00 PM 13 65 4:45 PM 15 59 4:30 PM 15 57 4:15 PM 17 4:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 5:15 PM 3 Peak Hour 13 8 0 0 15 5 2 4 11 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 3Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 3 1 2 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 5 2 2 1 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 355 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 21 21 30 34 40 44 22 21 233 125 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 7:30 AM 8:30 AM TOTAL 1.6%0.90 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,1845171799 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:15 AM 9:15 AM Peak Hour: SB 2.5%0.85 1.8%0.88 WB 1.2%0.88 NB 1.4%0.86 Oak Rd 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT Oak Rd 52 1,0704181968 LT TH RT LT 20 327:15 AM 54 225 44 88 419 Interval Start Treat Blvd Treat Blvd 43 439 53 114 413 10 55 387:30 AM 41 383 32 101 359 12 44 11 29 89 47 1,210 4,8638:00 AM 47 338 80 101 337 12 54 65 63 6 28 111 64 1,3997:45 AM 5,014 8:30 AM 32 296 71 114 374 21 12 64 72 7 34 1348:15 AM 42 286 104 114 300 1,177 5,007 46 60 52 1,221 36 17 26 80 50 4,458 4,713 9:00 AM 35 280 65 69 311 11 43 35 42 9 13 49 50 1,1058:45 AM 29 345 61 76 368 17 510 777 10 19 41 36 955 671 395 9,3212,881 115 392 405 75 185 SB 31 108 433 207 5,014All1731,446 269 430 1,409 46 211 82 2% 19 East West North South Total 7:15 AM 8 11 4 6 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 0 19 0 2 0 7:30 AM 11 4 1 6 22 29 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0000 10 0 8:00 AM 6 8 4 2 20 0 0 1 1 0 2 20 07:45 AM 6 6 2 4 18 0 0 0 19 6 9 6 0 8:15 AM 11 4 0 7 22 0 0 0 1 0 1 26 0 8 9 10 11 8:45 AM 13 8 1 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 148:30 AM 16 11 1 3 31 4 5 9:00 AM 12 2 1 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 127 29 50 27 5000385 Count Total 83 54 14 34 185 0 1 5 6 29 6 HV 4 26 4 1 19 2 0 1 2 0 3 84Peak Hr 34 22 7 19 82 0 6 Peak Hour Count Total 3 2 2 4 9 6 3%4%1%1%6%4%2%HV%2%2%1%0%1% 251 323 2,592 00029 0206 0 0 0 60 1 084N207433108748470269 1,446 173 1,888 1,827 312512114931,13246 1,409 430 1,885 1,585 Treat Blvd Oak RdTreat Blvd Oak Rd5,014TEV: 0.9PHF: Oak Rd Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 356 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 12 1 0 8 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 13 2 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 9 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 2 1 7 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 0 11 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 9:00 AM 0 Peak Hour 4 26 4 1 19 2 3 2 2 4 9 6 82 Southbound 9:00 AM 96 31 91 8:45 AM 24 97 8:30 AM 20 89 8:15 AM 22 82 8:00 AM 22 7:45 AM 0 4 2 0 10 1 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 8:45 AM 0 1 8:30 AM 1 6 8:15 AM 0 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 2 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 3 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 Treat Blvd Treat Blvd Oak Rd Oak Rd 19 Count Total 8 65 10 1 50 3 6 5 3 6 17 11 185 18 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 29 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat Blvd Treat Blvd Oak Rd Oak Rd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 357 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 8 11 17 17 40 15 35 32 175 122 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 4:30 PM 5:30 PM TOTAL 1.1%0.94 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,14753192434 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:30 PM 5:30 PM Peak Hour: SB 2.5%0.87 0.9%0.90 WB 0.6%0.97 NB 1.3%0.92 Oak Rd 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT Oak Rd 60 1,16842182437 LT TH RT LT 17 683:30 PM 34 424 52 43 349 Interval Start Treat Blvd Treat Blvd 28 361 58 35 322 8 66 723:45 PM 30 405 46 48 346 14 56 38 31 40 86 1,233 4,6634:15 PM 31 410 57 56 355 26 54 49 65 27 24 37 84 1,1154:00 PM 4,709 4:45 PM 38 374 36 42 321 20 16 56 81 36 33 484:30 PM 29 413 23 29 356 1,217 4,779 57 63 94 1,214 110 32 29 55 97 5,101 4,981 5:15 PM 42 442 42 43 360 15 63 111 123 45 32 64 122 1,3175:00 PM 36 391 33 38 357 19 347 334 50 26 59 100 1,353 374 699 9,7642,766 135 499 634 265 223 SB 163 120 226 413 5,101All1451,620 134 152 1,394 70 239 57 1% 0 East West North South Total 3:30 PM 4 4 3 4 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 0 3 2 1 2 3:45 PM 7 2 4 2 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 2000 2 8 4:15 PM 4 3 2 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 54:00 PM 5 0 1 5 11 0 0 0 13 6 10 11 2 4:30 PM 5 1 4 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 5 1 1 0 5:00 PM 4 1 3 6 14 1 0 0 2 0 2 134:45 PM 6 3 3 5 17 7 7 5:15 PM 3 4 1 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 14 54 46 35 40 80001365 Count Total 38 18 21 32 109 1 0 2 27 23 26 HV 3 15 0 1 8 0 1 0 2 0 3 46Peak Hr 18 9 11 19 57 0 3 Peak Hour Count Total 1 8 2 3 8 8 2%0%0%2%1%3%4%HV%2%1%0%1%1% 425 268 3,220 00023 02026 1 0 0 270 0 046N413226120759640134 1,620 145 1,899 2,046 16342523982751270 1,394 152 1,616 1,903 Treat Blvd Oak RdTreat Blvd Oak Rd5,101TEV: 0.94PHF: Oak Rd Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 358 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 1 2 3 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 5 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 2 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 5:15 PM 3 Peak Hour 3 15 0 1 8 0 1 8 2 3 8 8 57 Southbound 5:15 PM 57 17 52 5:00 PM 14 55 4:45 PM 11 52 4:30 PM 13 50 4:15 PM 15 4:00 PM 1 0 3 0 6 1 0 Count Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 5:00 PM 1 3 4:45 PM 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4:00 PM 0 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 Treat Blvd Treat Blvd Oak Rd Oak Rd 13 Count Total 5 32 1 2 16 0 6 12 3 6 12 14 109 11 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 15 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat Blvd Treat Blvd Oak Rd Oak Rd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 359 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 17 21 15 15 10 13 21 22 134 61 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 7:30 AM 8:30 AM TOTAL 1.3%0.86 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,14311185715 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:15 AM 9:15 AM Peak Hour: SB 0.9%0.84 2.0%0.83 WB 0.9%0.84 NB 1.0%0.83 Jones Rd 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT Jones Rd 8 974517318 LT TH RT LT 183 107:15 AM 19 162 14 57 460 Interval Start Treat blvd Treat Blvd 24 374 29 70 569 199 12 87:30 AM 12 311 26 52 481 144 8 28 62 20 8 1,093 4,5968:00 AM 22 285 37 49 419 138 14 11 14 19 51 19 6 1,3867:45 AM 4,776 8:30 AM 14 228 33 76 493 94 112 10 7 41 64 248:15 AM 6 240 49 69 516 1,066 4,699 12 13 16 1,154 6 35 37 25 12 4,202 4,406 9:00 AM 11 233 26 45 425 48 9 4 2 23 41 18 9 1,0938:45 AM 7 275 52 48 506 100 266 466 39 30 8 11 889 137 78 8,7983,869 1,018 88 60 220 373 SB 106 234 78 38 4,776All641,210 141 240 1,985 593 44 60 1% 3 East West North South Total 7:15 AM 5 9 0 1 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 1 3 5 4 5 7:30 AM 8 2 1 0 11 15 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 8001 2 8 8:00 AM 3 8 1 2 14 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 27:45 AM 9 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 2 8:15 AM 9 11 0 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 4 8 5 0 8:45 AM 12 9 0 1 22 0 0 1 0 0 1 08:30 AM 11 10 0 2 23 2 9 9:00 AM 10 4 0 2 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7 24 44 29 37 5001548 Count Total 67 58 2 9 136 0 5 0 20 10 18 HV 3 25 1 1 18 7 0 2 0 0 2 13Peak Hr 29 26 2 3 60 0 5 Peak Hour Count Total 0 2 0 3 0 0 0%1%0%5%0%1%0%HV%5%2%1%0%1% 43 115 2,108 00010 00018 0 0 0 202 0 013N3878234350700141 1,210 64 1,415 2,067 1064344193459593 1,985 240 2,818 1,550 Treat Blvd Jones RdTreat blvd Jones Rd4,776TEV: 0.86PHF: Jones Rd Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 360 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 8 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 9:00 AM 2 Peak Hour 3 25 1 1 18 7 0 2 0 3 0 0 60 Southbound 9:00 AM 82 23 72 8:45 AM 22 80 8:30 AM 14 54 8:15 AM 21 60 8:00 AM 11 7:45 AM 1 0 0 1 6 1 1 Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 8:45 AM 0 1 8:30 AM 0 3 8:15 AM 0 2 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 1 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 1 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 Treat blvd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Jones Rd 16 Count Total 3 63 1 2 42 14 0 2 0 7 0 2 136 14 7:30 AM RT LT TH RT 7:15 AM 15 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat blvd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Jones Rd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 361 www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 13 12 12 8 26 23 15 16 125 72 Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles HV %:PHF EB 4:15 PM 5:15 PM TOTAL 0.8%0.91 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 1,065356666 Date: Tue, May 13, 2014 Peak Hour Count Period: 3:30 PM 5:30 PM Peak Hour: SB 0.5%0.59 0.7%0.89 WB 1.0%0.92 NB 0.4%0.85 Jones Rd 15-min TotalTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT Jones Rd 8 1,026262554 LT TH RT LT 42 243:30 PM 17 391 18 31 372 Interval Start Treat blvd Treat Blvd 9 332 22 25 340 33 28 153:45 PM 12 393 23 44 385 52 10 62 53 9 10 1,157 4,2184:15 PM 12 448 24 39 406 60 29 5 10 95 56 7 13 9704:00 PM 4,245 4:45 PM 12 357 18 39 360 65 63 21 9 100 72 134:30 PM 11 375 14 22 342 1,050 4,230 34 28 11 1,053 9 96 47 7 12 4,500 4,500 5:15 PM 24 351 15 43 303 93 32 19 5 111 127 17 29 1,2405:00 PM 12 408 26 22 368 81 160 265 136 97 10 34 1,157 73 127 8,7182,876 489 211 62 718 573 SB 369 299 46 62 4,500All471,588 82 122 1,476 269 112 34 1% 1 East West North South Total 3:30 PM 1 5 0 0 Total EB WB NB SB Total Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB 0 1 2 5 0 6 3:45 PM 9 3 0 1 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 3001 1 8 4:15 PM 6 5 0 0 11 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 34:00 PM 3 2 0 1 6 0 0 1 10 4 5 7 3 4:30 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 2 3 7 5 7 5:00 PM 5 5 1 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 2 44:45 PM 1 5 1 2 9 0 6 5:15 PM 3 4 0 1 8 1 6 4 0 2 6 3 6 23 40 20 42 2007365 Count Total 28 32 2 5 67 1 20 1 19 13 23 HV 0 12 0 1 10 7 0 13 1 2 16 17Peak Hr 12 18 2 2 34 3 25 Peak Hour Count Total 0 1 1 2 0 0 0%3%0%4%0%1%0%HV%0%1%0%1%1% 28 109 3,055 00213 10023 0 0 0 196 7 017N624629940734482 1,588 47 1,717 1,650 36928112509250269 1,476 122 1,867 2,256 Treat Blvd Jones RdTreat blvd Jones Rd4,500TEV: 0.91PHF: Jones Rd Treat Blvd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 362 www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 16Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound 5:15 PM 16 Peak Hour 0 12 0 1 10 7 0 1 1 2 0 0 34 Southbound 5:15 PM 31 9 29 5:00 PM 11 34 4:45 PM 11 36 4:30 PM 3 33 4:15 PM 13 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 7 Count Total 1 0 0 0 12 8 0 0 1 2 1 0 25 2 11 5:00 PM 6 16 4:45 PM 7 9 4:30 PM 1 10 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4:00 PM 1 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH 0 0 0 Treat blvd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Jones Rd 8 Count Total 2 26 0 2 18 12 0 1 1 5 0 0 67 6 3:45 PM RT LT TH RT 3:30 PM 6 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Interval Start 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthbound Treat blvd Treat Blvd Jones Rd Jones Rd Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.comMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 363 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix B – Synchro Model Output for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours  Arterial level of service   Synchro reports for system MOEs   Synchro reports for intersection level of service    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 364 Arterial Level of Service 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 87.0 119.7 0.27 8.2 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 7.4 25.0 0.14 19.7 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 44.0 61.8 0.14 8.1 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 36.1 55.0 0.15 9.7 F Total III 87.0 174.5 261.5 0.70 9.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 29.9 60.9 0.26 15.2 D Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 13.1 32.0 0.15 16.6 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 10.4 28.2 0.14 17.8 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 25.7 43.3 0.14 11.4 E Total III 85.3 79.1 164.4 0.68 14.9 D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 365 Measures of Effectiveness 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)36 22 28 Total Delay (hr)72 60 132 Stops / Veh 0.53 0.43 0.47 Stops (#)3797 4209 8006 Average Speed (mph)9 15 12 Total Travel Time (hr)99 103 201 Distance Traveled (mi)919 1501 2420 Fuel Consumed (gal)117 133 249 Fuel Economy (mpg)7.9 11.3 9.7 CO Emissions (kg)8.16 9.27 17.43 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.59 1.80 3.39 VOC Emissions (kg)1.89 2.15 4.04 Performance Index 83.0 71.4 154.4 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)33 Total Delay (hr)206 Stops / Veh 0.51 Stops (#)11440 Average Speed (mph)11 Total Travel Time (hr)307 Distance Traveled (mi)3465 Fuel Consumed (gal)367 Fuel Economy (mpg)9.4 CO Emissions (kg)25.69 NOx Emissions (kg)5.00 VOC Emissions (kg)5.95 Performance Index 238.3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 366 Arterial Level of Service 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 54.8 87.5 0.27 11.2 E NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 6.2 23.8 0.14 20.7 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 40.4 58.2 0.14 8.6 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 46.6 65.5 0.15 8.1 F Total III 87.0 148.0 235.0 0.70 10.7 E Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 43.9 74.9 0.26 12.4 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 29.3 48.2 0.15 11.0 E Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 13.3 31.1 0.14 16.1 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 38.9 56.5 0.14 8.7 F Total III 85.3 125.4 210.7 0.68 11.7 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 367 Measures of Effectiveness 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)32 23 28 Total Delay (hr)68 56 124 Stops / Veh 0.55 0.43 0.48 Stops (#)4173 3687 7860 Average Speed (mph)10 13 12 Total Travel Time (hr)95 91 186 Distance Traveled (mi)940 1219 2159 Fuel Consumed (gal)117 116 233 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.0 10.6 9.3 CO Emissions (kg)8.18 8.07 16.26 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.59 1.57 3.16 VOC Emissions (kg)1.90 1.87 3.77 Performance Index 79.6 66.6 146.2 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)31 Total Delay (hr)194 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)11647 Average Speed (mph)11 Total Travel Time (hr)291 Distance Traveled (mi)3324 Fuel Consumed (gal)354 Fuel Economy (mpg)9.4 CO Emissions (kg)24.76 NOx Emissions (kg)4.82 VOC Emissions (kg)5.74 Performance Index 226.2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 368 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430071 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.44 1.00 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 992 575 1534 1776 79 697 340 558 1197 522 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.46 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.00 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.75 0.15 0.30 1.05 0.81 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 49.1 56.7 24.2 0.0 66.0 46.5 47.9 58.1 41.3 31.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 28.8 22.1 0.2 0.9 31.4 0.5 2.2 51.4 6.1 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 78.0 78.8 24.4 0.9 97.4 47.0 50.2 109.5 47.4 31.6 Level of Service E E E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)77.7 30.2 55.0 67.5 Approach LOS E C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 369 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 2798 0 0 3049 968 386 823 379 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 57.5 61.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 7.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 58.2 68.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 18.0 66.4 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.0 26.3 94.7 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 116.0 29.0 83.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 21.7 27.5 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 91.6 0.6 53.3 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 370 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 244 2133 397 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.47 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5456 1016 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1348 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1449 500 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1659 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1348 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1882 649 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.70 0.00 0.83 0.34 0.11 0.86 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 1882 649 680 2437 766 441 955 360 198 899 414 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.5 39.7 39.7 62.2 30.9 0.0 67.5 46.8 44.1 67.5 50.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 2.6 7.3 7.1 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.1 19.0 2.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 17.9 19.4 10.5 18.7 0.0 5.2 5.0 1.2 6.0 9.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 42.4 47.0 69.3 31.9 0.0 72.7 46.8 44.2 86.5 52.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E C E D D F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 636 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.8 40.2 57.7 59.3 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.1 74.9 16.6 41.4 14.6 87.4 16.8 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 55.0 19.0 38.0 13.0 71.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 41.3 12.4 21.0 10.4 41.1 12.8 12.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 13.7 0.3 7.5 0.2 29.8 0.1 9.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.8 HCM 2010 LOS D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 371 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800013506400039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 571 53 116 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2632 379 3004 903 170 159 230 238 203 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.63 0.31 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.0 58.6 25.5 21.9 67.2 70.1 66.6 66.5 59.3 Progression Factor 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.0 7.4 2.2 3.4 0.4 13.2 16.9 14.8 0.0 Delay (s)66.1 34.5 66.0 27.7 25.2 67.6 83.3 83.4 81.2 59.4 Level of Service E C E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)35.8 30.4 79.8 79.8 Approach LOS D C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 372 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000024400130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 290 735 355 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.24 0.13 0.29 1.00 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 788 416 1036 1787 239 719 350 928 1298 560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.16 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.42 0.62 0.74 0.69 0.83 0.79 0.27 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 49.7 58.0 40.2 0.0 58.3 52.0 53.7 46.9 30.7 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.38 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.5 3.9 0.7 1.5 11.2 5.3 19.7 4.7 0.5 0.8 Delay (s)67.2 55.1 83.7 38.9 1.5 69.5 57.2 73.5 51.5 31.2 30.6 Level of Service E E F D AEEEDCC Approach Delay (s)56.5 22.8 66.2 42.3 Approach LOS E C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 373 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.81 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.80 0.69 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 630 2998 0 0 3074 995 524 1045 486 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 50.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 54.0 51.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.4 0.3 52.3 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 122.0 24.7 97.2 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.0 22.0 70.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 20.5 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 78.8 0.2 64.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 374 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 217 2622 217 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.86 0.86 0.12 0.85 0.00 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6125 507 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1491 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1427 522 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1774 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1491 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 217 2080 760 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.69 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.00 0.80 0.52 0.47 0.83 0.30 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 2080 760 302 2189 716 611 1108 467 397 1268 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.3 5.6 5.6 49.6 5.7 0.0 51.1 37.1 36.6 51.1 34.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 1.7 4.5 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.2 6.3 2.4 4.8 0.0 4.1 6.3 4.8 4.5 3.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 7.3 10.1 51.2 6.6 0.0 52.8 37.3 37.0 55.2 35.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D A D D D E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 11.0 41.7 42.3 Approach LOS B B D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 55.2 14.7 34.0 11.3 55.0 14.9 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 49.0 20.0 42.0 10.0 49.0 26.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 13.8 10.3 9.0 7.2 12.8 10.9 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 35.0 0.3 6.7 0.1 36.0 0.1 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 375 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000120014200083 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 172 132 325 0 289 296 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 2091 167 1966 574 391 354 343 349 304 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 c0.08 0.31 0.08 c0.21 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.00 0.80 0.82 0.30 0.34 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 65.4 47.0 61.8 38.8 30.1 45.6 53.0 53.1 53.2 44.4 Progression Factor 1.47 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 15.3 21.2 3.9 1.3 0.2 27.4 16.3 16.5 0.0 Delay (s)96.8 42.7 83.1 42.6 31.4 45.8 80.5 69.4 69.7 44.5 Level of Service F D F D C D F E E D Approach Delay (s)44.0 43.7 72.8 65.7 Approach LOS D D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 376 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix B – Treat Boulevard Concepts – Modeling Guidance Memorandum (from Alta Planning) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 377 Memorandum 100 Webster St Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 540-5008 phone (510)-788-6465 fax www.altaplanning.com Date: November 5, 2014 To: David Mahama, P.E., DKS Associates From: John Lieswyn, Alexandra Sweet, Alta Planning + Design Re: Treat Boulevard Concepts – Modeling Guidance Alta Planning + Design has developed four concepts for the Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The concepts can be seen on the accompanying figures and described briefly below. This memo seeks to provide modeling guidance. Listed below is general modeling guidance. Any guidance with the term “consider,” is not required. 1. EXCLUDE south side (eastbound) roadway changes - i.e. all the eastbound changes will be conceptual long term improvements only and NOT modeled. 2. Retain all right turn on red permissions that currently exist - any two stage turn boxes would need to be indented into the curbs. 3. Consider Leading Pedestrian Intervals at intersections, with particularly attention to the Treat Blvd / Oak Rd intersection. 4. Consider Shortening Signal Phases at intersections, particularly Treat Blvd / Oak Rd intersection. 5. Consider Protected/Concurrent Phasing to Minimize Conflict with bicyclists and pedestrians. Please refer to Figures 1A, Figure 1B, Figure 2, and Figure 3. Please note that the following description do not include descriptions of any eastbound changes because they will not be included in the modeling task.  Narrow westbound lanes between N. Main St and Buskirk Ave to accommodate 5-foot bike lane.  Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 378 November 5, 2014  Page 2  No Change  No Change  Remove outside westbound lane to accommodate buffered bike lane.  Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways  Remove southbound right free-right turn lane and convert to buffered bike lane (Treat Blvd / Oak Rd)  Remove outside westbound travel lane and convert to buffered bike lane  Convert third westbound travel lane to right-turn pocket.  Remove westbound outside dedicated turn pocket and convert to buffered bike lane  Install westbound right-turn turn pocket 150’ in advance of intersection.  Narrow and retain all westbound travel lanes  Convert sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path  Remove southbound right free-right turn lane and convert to bike lane (Treat Blvd / Oak Rd)  Convert sidewalk to two-way shared-use path  Consider bike signals  Remove westbound outside turn pocket and convert to buffered bike lane  Convert third westbound travel to a thru-right at Treat Blvd and Oak Rd intersection  Remove the westbound free-right turn lane at Treat Blvd and Oak Rd intersection  Narrow and retain all westbound travel lanes  Convert sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use path  Convert Walgreens driveways into two 15-foot one-way driveways May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 379 November 5, 2014  Page 3  Remove southbound right free-right turn lane and convert to bike lane (Treat Blvd / Oak Rd)  Convert sidewalk to two-way shared-use path  Consider bike signals  Remove westbound outside turn pocket and convert to parking-protected cycle-track  Convert third westbound travel to a thru-right at Treat Blvd and Oak Rd intersection  Remove the westbound free-right turn lane at Treat Blvd and Oak Rd intersection May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 380 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardWalnut Creek, CA October 2014- Concept 1A: Short Term Improvement Option11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'11'11'11’11'5’7’11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'14'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'14'15'11'11'11'7'11'6'High visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksGreen color at bike lane entranceAdd 7’ bike laneNarrow outer laneConsolidate into 15' wide one-way drivewaysGreen colorin conflict zonesHigh visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection markingsGreen color at bike lane entranceNarrows lanes all thru lanes, add 5’ bike laneEastbound and westbound sharrows between Jones and BuskirkBike lane pocket, narrow lanes from 12’ to 11’ if necessaryAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)7’Bike lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane5’Side-walk5’Bikelane5’medianMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes381 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardWalnut Creek, CA October 201411'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'12'12'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'10'4’20'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'8’4’5'11'PPConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way driveways5’ bike lane with2’ bufferAdd 8’ bike lane and 6’ bufferGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two stage turn boxNarrow curbradiusConvert outer laneto 10’bike lane with 4’ bufferConvert outer lane to8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferConvert outer laneto right turn onlyGreen striping in conflict zonesGreen striping in conflict zonesRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferTwo-stage turn queueRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksReduce to 6’bike lane entranceBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceHigh visibilitycrosswalksConvert free right turn lane to bike lane- Concept 1B: Buffered Bike LanesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standards11’Drive lane11’Drive lane5’Median12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane6’Buffer6’Buffer4’Buffer8’Bikelane8’Bikelane10’Bikelane8’Side-walk12’Drive lane4’Buffer4’Buffer4’Buffer8’Parkinglane10’Side-walk12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane5’Median7’Bikelane6’Bikelane6’Side-walk4’Land-scaping5’Side-walk5’Side-walk5’Bikelane2’May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes382 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardWalnut Creek, CA October 2014PP11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'3'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'8'5'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'5'11'View west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave - Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike LanesConsolidate into 15’ one-way drivewaysReconfigureisland5’ bike lane with2’ bufferExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two-stage turnqueue boxesNarrow curbradius to 30’Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathConvert outer lane for8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferProtected intersectionseparates bikes from turning vehiclesHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferAllows for a two-stage left-turnRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathExtend curbKeep existing sidewalkConvert free right turn lane to 7’ bike laneAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standards11’Drive lane11’Drive lane3’Median11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane11’Drive lane13’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane14’Drive lane5’Buffer8’Bikelane10’Shared Use Path12’Drive lane4’Buffer4’Buffer4’Buffer8’Parkinglane10’Side-walk12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane5’Median7’Bikelane6’Bikelane6’Side-walk2’Land-scaping12’Shared Use Path5’Side-walk5’Bikelane2’May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes383 13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardWalnut Creek, CA October 2014PPPPP- Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and SidewalkView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave YIELDConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way drivewaysExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathAdd two-stage turnqueue box Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTGreen color at bike lane entranceRemove free right turn laneConvert free right turn lane to bike laneBike lane intersection crossing markingsConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathKeep existing sidewalkReconfigureisland5’ cycle track with 3’buffer, 10’ floating parkingRemove bulb outs to make room for cycle trackNarrow curbradius to 30’Expand sidewalk to 6’with 3’ landscape stripNarrow outer laneto 11’Add 7’ sidewalkAdd crosswalksNarrow lanes to accommodate sidewalk11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'11'12'12'12'11'11'11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'11’13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'12'11'Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)14'Extend curbReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standards11’Drive lane11’Drive lane3’Median11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane12’Drive lane13’Median11’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane3’Land-scaping14’Drivelane8-10’Shared Use Path14’Drive lane3’Buffer10’Parkinglane8-10’Side-walk11’Drive lane12’Drive lane11’Drive lane12’Drive lane11’Drive lane11’Drive lane5’Median5’Bikelane6’Side-walk2-4’Land-scaping12’Side-walk6’Side-walk7’Side-walkMay 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes384 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix C – Current Year Synchro Model Output for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours  Arterial LOS  Synchro reports for system MOEs  Synchro reports for intersection LOS    May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 385 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 115.3 148.0 0.27 6.6 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 7.5 25.1 0.14 19.7 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 51.9 69.7 0.14 7.2 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 9.3 28.2 0.15 18.9 C Total III 87.0 184.0 271.0 0.70 9.3 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 29.7 60.7 0.26 15.3 D Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 15.4 34.3 0.15 15.5 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 7.5 25.3 0.14 19.8 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 27.8 45.4 0.14 10.9 E Total III 85.3 80.4 165.7 0.68 14.8 D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 386 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)35 20 26 Total Delay (hr)69 56 125 Stops / Veh 0.49 0.47 0.48 Stops (#)3503 4645 8148 Average Speed (mph)10 15 12 Total Travel Time (hr)95 99 194 Distance Traveled (mi)919 1501 2420 Fuel Consumed (gal)112 133 245 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.2 11.3 9.9 CO Emissions (kg)7.83 9.30 17.13 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.52 1.81 3.33 VOC Emissions (kg)1.82 2.15 3.97 Unserved Vehicles (#)87 0 87 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)144 141 285 Performance Index 78.9 68.6 147.5 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)32 Total Delay (hr)200 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)11651 Average Speed (mph)12 Total Travel Time (hr)301 Distance Traveled (mi)3465 Fuel Consumed (gal)364 Fuel Economy (mpg)9.5 CO Emissions (kg)25.45 NOx Emissions (kg)4.95 VOC Emissions (kg)5.90 Unserved Vehicles (#)128 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)336 Performance Index 232.4 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 387 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3333 3236 3388 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3333 3236 3388 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430069 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.18 0.42 1.00 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 921 575 1410 1776 79 773 378 558 1270 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.46 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.08 0.93 0.21 0.46 0.75 0.14 0.27 1.05 0.77 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 50.6 56.7 26.2 0.0 66.0 44.1 45.4 58.1 38.7 29.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 53.1 22.1 0.2 0.9 31.4 0.4 1.7 51.4 4.5 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 103.8 78.8 26.4 0.9 97.4 44.5 47.2 109.5 43.1 29.6 Level of Service E F E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)102.7 30.6 52.4 64.8 Approach LOS F C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 388 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 632 2787 0 0 1951 856 288 614 283 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 3668 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1787 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 632 2787 0 0 1951 856 288 614 283 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 632 2787 0 0 1951 856 389 829 382 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 57.4 61.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 58.0 68.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 28.6 66.1 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.4 33.0 87.4 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 28.0 * 82 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 20.8 52.0 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 37.7 6.2 25.2 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 389 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1857 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 250 1813 338 622 2244 706 308 1006 385 148 608 289 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5452 1015 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1370 1740 2239 1066 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 400 353 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1654 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1370 1740 1764 1540 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 44.1 44.1 20.4 42.9 0.0 10.6 9.8 2.0 11.0 32.8 33.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 44.1 44.1 20.4 42.9 0.0 10.6 9.8 2.0 11.0 32.8 33.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 250 1601 550 622 2244 706 308 1006 385 148 479 418 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.76 0.00 0.80 0.29 0.09 0.86 0.84 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 292 1601 550 664 2244 706 408 1026 393 193 483 422 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 48.9 48.9 60.3 36.4 0.0 68.5 43.1 18.4 69.2 52.6 52.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 7.7 18.5 3.0 1.4 0.0 5.7 0.1 0.0 20.7 14.8 17.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 20.8 23.0 10.2 20.5 0.0 5.3 4.8 1.1 6.2 18.0 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.9 56.6 67.4 63.3 37.8 0.0 74.2 43.2 18.4 89.9 67.5 70.1 LnGrp LOS EEEED EDBFEE Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.3 43.5 54.9 71.8 Approach LOS E D D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.8 57.0 18.6 46.6 21.8 73.0 17.0 48.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 51.0 18.0 * 42 13.0 67.0 17.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.4 46.1 12.6 35.2 10.6 44.9 13.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 4.7 1.0 4.5 0.5 19.8 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 390 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800012806500039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 578 53 115 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 66.7 34.8 93.5 93.5 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 66.7 34.8 93.5 93.5 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 2617 379 3001 906 173 162 231 239 205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.29 0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.64 0.31 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 74.0 38.4 58.6 25.6 22.0 66.9 69.8 66.5 66.4 59.3 Progression Factor 0.46 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.8 7.4 2.2 3.4 0.4 11.5 16.1 14.5 0.0 Delay (s)34.6 7.6 66.0 27.8 25.5 67.3 81.4 82.6 80.8 59.3 Level of Service C A E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)8.7 30.5 78.2 79.3 Approach LOS A C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 391 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 115.3 148.0 0.27 6.6 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 7.5 25.1 0.14 19.7 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 52.0 69.8 0.14 7.2 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 10.0 28.9 0.15 18.4 C Total III 87.0 184.8 271.8 0.70 9.2 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 30.1 61.1 0.26 15.2 D Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 15.4 34.3 0.15 15.5 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 7.0 24.8 0.14 20.2 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 27.8 45.4 0.14 10.9 E Total III 85.3 80.3 165.6 0.68 14.8 D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 392 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)36 20 27 Total Delay (hr)72 55 127 Stops / Veh 0.50 0.47 0.48 Stops (#)3604 4633 8237 Average Speed (mph)9 15 12 Total Travel Time (hr)99 98 196 Distance Traveled (mi)919 1501 2420 Fuel Consumed (gal)115 132 247 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.0 11.4 9.8 CO Emissions (kg)8.06 9.24 17.30 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.57 1.80 3.37 VOC Emissions (kg)1.87 2.14 4.01 Unserved Vehicles (#)87 0 87 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)112 121 233 Performance Index 82.5 67.6 150.1 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)33 Total Delay (hr)203 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)11736 Average Speed (mph)11 Total Travel Time (hr)303 Distance Traveled (mi)3465 Fuel Consumed (gal)367 Fuel Economy (mpg)9.5 CO Emissions (kg)25.63 NOx Emissions (kg)4.99 VOC Emissions (kg)5.94 Unserved Vehicles (#)128 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)284 Performance Index 235.2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 393 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430069 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.18 0.42 1.00 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 921 575 1410 1515 79 773 378 558 1270 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.54 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.08 0.93 0.21 0.54 0.75 0.14 0.27 1.05 0.77 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 50.6 56.7 26.2 0.0 66.0 44.1 45.4 58.1 38.7 29.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 53.1 22.1 0.2 1.4 31.4 0.4 1.7 51.4 4.5 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 103.8 78.8 26.4 1.4 97.4 44.5 47.2 109.5 43.1 29.6 Level of Service E F E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)102.7 30.9 52.4 64.8 Approach LOS F C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 394 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 655 2787 0 0 3033 963 389 829 382 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 57.4 61.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 58.0 68.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 18.2 66.1 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.4 26.3 94.1 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 29.0 82.4 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 21.7 27.7 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 90.9 0.6 52.6 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 395 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1857 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116422 Cap, veh/h 243 1905 355 582 2339 71 293 935 355 148 587 279 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5453 1016 3510 5111 156 3476 3574 1359 1740 2236 1064 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1141 616 245 292 36 127 401 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1656 1755 1710 1846 1738 1787 1359 1740 1764 1536 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 42.6 42.6 20.5 41.2 41.2 10.5 10.0 2.1 10.9 32.9 33.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 42.6 42.6 20.5 41.2 41.2 10.5 10.0 2.1 10.9 32.9 33.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 1681 578 582 1565 845 293 935 355 148 463 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.31 0.10 0.86 0.87 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 1681 578 625 1565 845 435 989 376 195 465 405 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.5 46.0 46.0 61.4 33.5 33.5 68.4 45.1 19.5 68.5 53.4 53.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 5.2 13.5 5.1 1.7 3.1 5.7 0.1 0.0 20.0 18.2 21.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 19.6 21.6 10.3 19.9 21.8 5.3 4.9 1.1 6.1 18.4 16.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.9 51.2 59.5 66.4 35.2 36.6 74.2 45.1 19.6 88.4 71.6 74.8 LnGrp LOS F D E E D D E D B F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2246 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 42.4 55.9 75.3 Approach LOS E D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.4 59.0 16.8 44.8 14.7 83.7 16.9 44.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 * 53 19.0 40.0 13.0 69.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 44.6 12.5 35.3 10.6 43.2 12.9 12.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 8.1 0.3 3.5 0.1 23.3 0.1 14.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 396 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800012806500039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 578 53 115 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2617 379 2991 904 173 162 231 239 205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.64 0.31 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.4 58.6 25.8 22.2 66.9 69.8 66.5 66.4 59.3 Progression Factor 1.18 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.8 7.4 2.2 3.5 0.4 11.5 16.1 14.5 0.0 Delay (s)87.7 8.3 66.0 28.0 25.7 67.3 81.4 82.6 80.8 59.3 Level of Service F A E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)11.5 30.8 78.2 79.3 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 397 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 115.3 148.0 0.27 6.6 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 7.5 25.1 0.14 19.7 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 52.0 69.8 0.14 7.2 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 10.0 28.9 0.15 18.4 C Total III 87.0 184.8 271.8 0.70 9.2 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 30.1 61.1 0.26 15.2 D Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 15.4 34.3 0.15 15.5 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 7.0 24.8 0.14 20.2 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 27.8 45.4 0.14 10.9 E Total III 85.3 80.3 165.6 0.68 14.8 D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 398 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)36 20 27 Total Delay (hr)72 55 127 Stops / Veh 0.50 0.47 0.48 Stops (#)3604 4633 8237 Average Speed (mph)9 15 12 Total Travel Time (hr)99 98 196 Distance Traveled (mi)919 1501 2420 Fuel Consumed (gal)115 132 247 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.0 11.4 9.8 CO Emissions (kg)8.06 9.24 17.30 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.57 1.80 3.37 VOC Emissions (kg)1.87 2.14 4.01 Unserved Vehicles (#)87 0 87 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)112 121 233 Performance Index 82.5 67.6 150.1 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)33 Total Delay (hr)203 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)11736 Average Speed (mph)11 Total Travel Time (hr)303 Distance Traveled (mi)3465 Fuel Consumed (gal)367 Fuel Economy (mpg)9.5 CO Emissions (kg)25.63 NOx Emissions (kg)4.99 VOC Emissions (kg)5.94 Unserved Vehicles (#)128 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)284 Performance Index 235.2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 399 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430069 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.18 0.42 1.00 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 921 575 1410 1515 79 773 378 558 1270 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.54 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.08 0.93 0.21 0.54 0.75 0.14 0.27 1.05 0.77 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 50.6 56.7 26.2 0.0 66.0 44.1 45.4 58.1 38.7 29.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 53.1 22.1 0.2 1.4 31.4 0.4 1.7 51.4 4.5 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 103.8 78.8 26.4 1.4 97.4 44.5 47.2 109.5 43.1 29.6 Level of Service E F E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)102.7 30.9 52.4 64.8 Approach LOS F C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 400 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 655 2787 0 0 3033 963 389 829 382 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 57.4 61.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 58.0 68.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 18.2 66.1 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.4 26.3 94.1 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 29.0 82.4 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 21.7 27.7 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 90.9 0.6 52.6 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 401 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1857 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116422 Cap, veh/h 243 1905 355 582 2339 71 293 935 355 148 587 279 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5453 1016 3510 5111 156 3476 3574 1359 1740 2236 1064 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1141 616 245 292 36 127 401 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1656 1755 1710 1846 1738 1787 1359 1740 1764 1536 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 42.6 42.6 20.5 41.2 41.2 10.5 10.0 2.1 10.9 32.9 33.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 42.6 42.6 20.5 41.2 41.2 10.5 10.0 2.1 10.9 32.9 33.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 1681 578 582 1565 845 293 935 355 148 463 403 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.31 0.10 0.86 0.87 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 1681 578 625 1565 845 435 989 376 195 465 405 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.5 46.0 46.0 61.4 33.5 33.5 68.4 45.1 19.5 68.5 53.4 53.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 5.2 13.5 5.1 1.7 3.1 5.7 0.1 0.0 20.0 18.2 21.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 19.6 21.6 10.3 19.9 21.8 5.3 4.9 1.1 6.1 18.4 16.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 80.9 51.2 59.5 66.4 35.2 36.6 74.2 45.1 19.6 88.4 71.6 74.8 LnGrp LOS F D E E D D E D B F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2246 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 42.4 55.9 75.3 Approach LOS E D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.4 59.0 16.8 44.8 14.7 83.7 16.9 44.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 * 53 19.0 40.0 13.0 69.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 44.6 12.5 35.3 10.6 43.2 12.9 12.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 8.1 0.3 3.5 0.1 23.3 0.1 14.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 402 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800012806500039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 578 53 115 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2617 379 2991 904 173 162 231 239 205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.64 0.31 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.4 58.6 25.8 22.2 66.9 69.8 66.5 66.4 59.3 Progression Factor 1.18 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.8 7.4 2.2 3.5 0.4 11.5 16.1 14.5 0.0 Delay (s)87.7 8.3 66.0 28.0 25.7 67.3 81.4 82.6 80.8 59.3 Level of Service F A E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)11.5 30.8 78.2 79.3 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 403 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Leading Pedestrian Interval Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 14 11 12 12 11 12 15 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6247 3385 4964 1563 3351 3574 1353 1678 3336 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6247 3385 4964 1563 3351 3574 1353 1678 3336 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 197 1643 306 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 0 29 0 0 26 0 36 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1930 0 489 1705 23 245 292 10 127 717 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)29 6 6 29 6 84 84 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 2 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1% 6% 4% 2% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 54.5 28.5 70.5 70.5 16.0 42.9 42.9 15.1 42.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 54.5 28.5 70.5 70.5 16.0 42.9 42.9 15.1 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.18 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.26 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 2127 602 2187 688 335 958 362 158 875 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.31 c0.14 0.34 c0.07 0.08 0.08 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.91 0.81 0.78 0.03 0.73 0.30 0.03 0.80 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 72.1 50.3 63.2 38.1 25.4 69.9 46.7 43.2 71.0 55.4 Progression Factor 0.95 0.93 0.84 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 6.2 5.0 1.8 0.1 6.9 0.1 0.0 23.6 7.1 Delay (s)77.2 52.9 58.0 15.4 25.5 76.8 46.7 43.2 94.6 62.6 Level of Service E D E B C E D D F E Approach Delay (s)55.2 24.9 59.4 67.2 Approach LOS E C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 404 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Protected concurrent phasing Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1857 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 250 1813 338 622 2244 843 308 1006 655 148 608 289 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.44 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5452 1015 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1370 1740 2239 1066 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 400 353 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1654 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1370 1740 1764 1540 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 44.1 44.1 20.4 42.9 0.0 10.6 9.8 0.5 11.0 32.8 33.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 44.1 44.1 20.4 42.9 0.0 10.6 9.8 0.5 11.0 32.8 33.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 250 1601 550 622 2244 843 308 1006 655 148 479 418 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.76 0.00 0.80 0.29 0.05 0.86 0.84 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 292 1601 550 664 2244 843 408 1026 663 193 483 422 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 48.9 48.9 60.3 36.4 0.0 68.5 43.1 11.8 69.2 52.6 52.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 7.7 18.5 3.0 1.4 0.0 5.7 0.1 0.0 20.7 14.8 17.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 20.8 23.0 10.2 20.5 0.0 5.3 4.8 0.6 6.2 18.0 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.9 56.6 67.4 63.3 37.8 0.0 74.2 43.2 11.8 89.9 67.5 70.1 LnGrp LOS EEEED EDBFEE Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.3 43.5 54.5 71.8 Approach LOS E D D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.8 57.0 18.6 46.6 21.8 73.0 17.0 48.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 51.0 18.0 * 42 13.0 67.0 17.0 44.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.4 46.1 12.6 35.2 10.6 44.9 13.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 4.7 1.0 4.5 0.5 19.8 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.4 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 405 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 588 2760 0 0 1962 861 291 622 286 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 3668 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1787 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 12.5 20.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 12.5 20.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 588 2760 0 0 1962 861 291 622 286 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.56 0.88 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 588 2760 0 0 1962 861 421 899 414 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 52.7 56.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 5.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.7 7.7 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 5.8 10.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 53.3 61.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 26.0 59.4 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.4 29.0 81.4 28.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 105.4 24.0 * 76 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.3 19.6 47.8 22.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 36.5 3.9 23.9 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 406 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1857 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 244 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 250 1849 344 564 2194 690 291 1023 393 148 630 300 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.43 0.00 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5453 1016 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1372 1740 2242 1067 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 400 353 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1655 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1372 1740 1764 1545 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 42.0 42.0 20.0 42.0 0.0 10.2 9.4 2.0 10.6 31.1 31.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 42.0 42.0 20.0 42.0 0.0 10.2 9.4 2.0 10.6 31.1 31.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 250 1632 561 564 2194 690 291 1023 393 148 496 434 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.78 0.00 0.84 0.29 0.09 0.86 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 280 1632 561 595 2194 690 306 1023 393 177 502 440 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.54 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.3 46.1 46.1 60.4 36.2 0.0 66.6 40.9 18.3 66.5 49.3 49.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 6.6 16.3 6.8 1.5 0.0 17.0 0.1 0.0 24.9 12.1 14.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 19.7 21.8 10.2 20.0 0.0 5.6 4.6 1.0 6.1 16.8 15.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.2 52.7 62.4 67.2 37.7 0.0 83.6 41.0 18.4 91.5 61.4 63.6 LnGrp LOS E D E E D F D B F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 880 Approach Delay, s/veh 57.3 44.3 57.8 66.6 Approach LOS E D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.2 56.0 17.3 46.5 17.2 69.0 16.6 47.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 50.0 13.0 * 42 12.0 63.0 15.0 41.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 44.0 12.2 33.4 10.3 44.0 12.6 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 5.8 0.1 5.4 0.4 17.2 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.8 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 407 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6282 1745 5136 1553 1745 1640 1641 1693 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6282 1745 5136 1553 1745 1640 1641 1693 1456 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0700013107000039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1826 0 286 2363 575 53 110 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 80.7 13.0 86.7 86.7 14.8 14.8 21.5 21.5 21.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 80.7 13.0 86.7 86.7 14.8 14.8 21.5 21.5 21.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.54 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 150 3379 151 2968 897 172 161 235 242 208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.54 1.89 0.80 0.64 0.31 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 69.8 22.6 68.5 24.7 21.2 62.8 65.3 62.0 61.9 55.3 Progression Factor 0.69 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 426.2 2.3 3.5 0.4 9.1 14.4 13.3 0.0 Delay (s)49.0 3.8 494.7 27.1 24.7 63.2 74.4 76.4 75.2 55.3 Level of Service D A F C C E E E E E Approach Delay (s)5.6 66.4 71.9 73.6 Approach LOS AEEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 408 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 56.3 89.0 0.27 11.0 E NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.3 20.9 0.14 23.6 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 37.4 55.2 0.14 9.1 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 25.1 44.0 0.15 12.1 E Total III 87.0 122.1 209.1 0.70 12.0 E Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 40.9 71.9 0.26 12.9 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 18.2 37.1 0.15 14.3 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 9.5 27.3 0.14 18.4 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 25.8 43.4 0.14 11.4 E Total III 85.3 94.4 179.7 0.68 13.7 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 409 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 18 23 Total Delay (hr)58 44 102 Stops / Veh 0.48 0.39 0.43 Stops (#)3682 3391 7073 Average Speed (mph)11 15 13 Total Travel Time (hr)85 79 164 Distance Traveled (mi)940 1219 2159 Fuel Consumed (gal)106 104 210 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.9 11.7 10.3 CO Emissions (kg)7.40 7.30 14.70 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.44 1.42 2.86 VOC Emissions (kg)1.71 1.69 3.41 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 0 6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)162 155 317 Performance Index 67.9 53.7 121.6 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 Total Delay (hr)169 Stops / Veh 0.48 Stops (#)10782 Average Speed (mph)12 Total Travel Time (hr)266 Distance Traveled (mi)3324 Fuel Consumed (gal)329 Fuel Economy (mpg)10.1 CO Emissions (kg)23.03 NOx Emissions (kg)4.48 VOC Emissions (kg)5.34 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)362 Performance Index 198.9 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 410 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3336 3204 3455 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3336 3204 3455 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 00000020300135 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 595 0 275 435 1111 176 493 331 735 355 108 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 32.4 17.8 39.5 140.0 18.6 32.9 32.9 34.9 53.2 53.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 32.4 17.8 39.5 140.0 18.6 32.9 32.9 34.9 53.2 53.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 772 407 974 1787 239 848 414 835 1326 573 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.68 0.45 0.62 0.74 0.58 0.80 0.88 0.27 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 50.3 58.3 41.3 0.0 58.3 47.4 50.4 50.5 30.0 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 6.0 3.8 0.7 1.3 11.2 2.9 14.8 10.7 0.5 0.7 Delay (s)67.2 56.4 73.7 25.4 1.3 69.5 50.4 65.2 61.2 30.5 29.7 Level of Service E E E C A E D E E C C Approach Delay (s)57.6 18.0 59.8 47.3 Approach LOS E B E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 411 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1881 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2087 934 209 416 194 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 3668 1599 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1787 1599 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2087 934 209 416 194 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.80 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2087 934 528 1053 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 50.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 53.8 51.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 1.2 52.1 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.6 47.2 74.4 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 21.0 * 69 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 20.4 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.1 0.5 46.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 412 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1850 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021344 Cap, veh/h 210 2200 182 208 1918 627 318 1158 494 164 579 497 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.72 0.72 0.04 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6123 507 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1512 1757 1757 1507 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1428 521 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 475 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1772 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1512 1757 1757 1507 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 33.8 0.0 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 33.8 0.0 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 1745 637 208 1918 627 318 1158 494 164 579 497 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.82 0.40 0.36 0.84 0.45 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 263 1745 637 213 1918 627 537 1158 494 349 591 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.64 0.64 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 15.5 15.5 61.8 43.4 0.0 58.4 34.1 20.7 58.4 34.5 42.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 4.0 10.2 8.2 1.8 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.2 4.5 2.0 30.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 11.9 14.1 3.0 16.3 0.0 4.7 6.5 4.3 5.1 7.7 20.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.5 19.5 25.6 70.0 45.2 0.0 60.4 34.1 20.9 62.9 36.5 73.3 LnGrp LOS E B C E D E C C E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 47.6 39.1 60.7 Approach LOS C D D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 53.0 15.8 48.1 12.0 54.8 16.2 47.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 * 47 20.0 44.0 10.0 47.0 26.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 28.3 11.5 42.4 7.9 35.8 12.1 15.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 10.0 0.1 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 413 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000107022700082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 185 132 240 0 289 296 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 50.6 14.2 56.8 56.8 24.8 24.8 30.4 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 50.6 14.2 56.8 56.8 24.8 24.8 30.4 30.4 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.36 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 2316 175 2083 611 309 280 356 362 317 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 0.08 c0.31 0.08 c0.15 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.90 0.76 0.77 0.30 0.43 0.86 0.81 0.82 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 42.3 61.2 36.0 28.2 51.3 55.9 52.1 52.2 43.6 Progression Factor 0.48 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 4.2 15.9 2.8 1.3 0.3 21.1 12.5 12.7 0.0 Delay (s)30.7 18.2 77.1 38.8 29.5 51.6 77.0 64.6 64.9 43.6 Level of Service C B E D C D E E E D Approach Delay (s)18.5 39.9 71.4 61.5 Approach LOS B D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 414 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 55.3 88.0 0.27 11.1 E NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.1 20.7 0.14 23.8 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 36.7 54.5 0.14 9.2 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 25.1 44.0 0.15 12.1 E Total III 87.0 120.2 207.2 0.70 12.1 E Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 41.2 72.2 0.26 12.9 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 18.6 37.5 0.15 14.2 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 7.8 25.6 0.14 19.6 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 25.5 43.1 0.14 11.5 E Total III 85.3 93.1 178.4 0.68 13.8 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 415 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 19 23 Total Delay (hr)57 45 102 Stops / Veh 0.48 0.40 0.44 Stops (#)3657 3435 7092 Average Speed (mph)11 15 13 Total Travel Time (hr)84 80 164 Distance Traveled (mi)940 1219 2159 Fuel Consumed (gal)105 105 210 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.9 11.6 10.3 CO Emissions (kg)7.35 7.36 14.71 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.43 1.43 2.86 VOC Emissions (kg)1.70 1.71 3.41 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 0 6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)156 185 341 Performance Index 67.1 54.6 121.7 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 Total Delay (hr)171 Stops / Veh 0.48 Stops (#)10802 Average Speed (mph)12 Total Travel Time (hr)268 Distance Traveled (mi)3324 Fuel Consumed (gal)331 Fuel Economy (mpg)10.0 CO Emissions (kg)23.13 NOx Emissions (kg)4.50 VOC Emissions (kg)5.36 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)386 Performance Index 200.7 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 416 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000019900134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 335 735 355 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 781 402 979 1525 239 902 440 780 1321 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.73 0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.68 0.44 0.73 0.74 0.55 0.76 0.94 0.27 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 50.0 58.5 41.1 0.0 58.3 45.6 48.6 52.8 30.1 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.7 4.8 0.8 2.8 11.2 2.4 11.8 19.5 0.5 0.7 Delay (s)67.2 55.7 72.9 25.2 2.8 69.5 48.0 60.4 72.2 30.6 29.9 Level of Service E E E C A E D E E C C Approach Delay (s)57.0 18.8 56.7 53.4 Approach LOS E B E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 417 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 528 1053 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 50.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 53.8 51.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 0.3 52.1 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.6 47.2 74.4 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 21.0 * 69 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 20.4 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.1 0.5 43.8 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 418 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1850 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021344 Cap, veh/h 210 2200 182 208 1869 94 318 1158 495 164 579 497 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.72 0.72 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6123 507 3476 5006 251 3510 3539 1512 1757 1757 1507 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1428 521 157 983 526 260 462 177 138 260 475 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1772 1738 1713 1832 1755 1770 1512 1757 1757 1507 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 34.9 34.9 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 34.9 34.9 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 1745 637 208 1279 684 318 1158 495 164 579 497 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.40 0.36 0.84 0.45 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 263 1745 637 213 1279 684 537 1158 495 349 591 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 15.5 15.5 61.8 43.8 43.8 58.4 34.1 20.7 58.4 34.5 42.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 4.0 10.2 8.2 2.9 5.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 4.5 2.0 30.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 11.9 14.1 3.0 17.0 18.7 4.7 6.5 4.3 5.1 7.7 20.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.5 19.5 25.6 70.0 46.7 49.1 60.4 34.1 20.9 62.9 36.5 73.3 LnGrp LOS E B C E D D E C C E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1666 899 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 49.6 39.1 60.7 Approach LOS C D D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 53.0 15.8 48.1 12.0 54.8 16.2 47.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 * 47 20.0 44.0 10.0 47.0 26.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 28.3 11.5 42.4 7.9 36.9 12.1 15.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 9.2 0.1 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 419 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000110021800082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 182 132 249 0 289 296 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.36 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 2302 175 2072 608 314 284 355 361 315 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 0.08 c0.31 0.08 c0.16 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.90 0.76 0.77 0.30 0.42 0.88 0.81 0.82 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 42.6 61.2 36.2 28.3 50.9 55.9 52.2 52.3 43.7 Progression Factor 0.51 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 4.5 15.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 24.0 12.7 12.9 0.0 Delay (s)32.6 18.3 77.1 39.1 29.6 51.3 79.9 64.9 65.1 43.7 Level of Service C B E D C D E E E D Approach Delay (s)18.6 40.2 73.6 61.8 Approach LOS B D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 420 Arterial Level of Service 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 55.3 88.0 0.27 11.1 E NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.1 20.7 0.14 23.8 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 36.7 54.5 0.14 9.2 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 25.1 44.0 0.15 12.1 E Total III 87.0 120.2 207.2 0.70 12.1 E Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 41.2 72.2 0.26 12.9 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 18.6 37.5 0.15 14.2 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 7.8 25.6 0.14 19.6 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 25.5 43.1 0.14 11.5 E Total III 85.3 93.1 178.4 0.68 13.8 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 421 Measures of Effectiveness 11/13/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 19 23 Total Delay (hr)57 45 102 Stops / Veh 0.48 0.40 0.44 Stops (#)3657 3435 7092 Average Speed (mph)11 15 13 Total Travel Time (hr)84 80 164 Distance Traveled (mi)940 1219 2159 Fuel Consumed (gal)105 105 210 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.9 11.6 10.3 CO Emissions (kg)7.35 7.36 14.71 NOx Emissions (kg) 1.43 1.43 2.86 VOC Emissions (kg)1.70 1.71 3.41 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 0 6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)156 185 341 Performance Index 67.1 54.6 121.7 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)27 Total Delay (hr)171 Stops / Veh 0.48 Stops (#)10802 Average Speed (mph)12 Total Travel Time (hr)268 Distance Traveled (mi)3324 Fuel Consumed (gal)331 Fuel Economy (mpg)10.0 CO Emissions (kg)23.13 NOx Emissions (kg)4.50 VOC Emissions (kg)5.36 Unserved Vehicles (#)6 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)386 Performance Index 200.7 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 422 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000019900134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 335 735 355 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 781 402 979 1525 239 902 440 780 1321 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.73 0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.68 0.44 0.73 0.74 0.55 0.76 0.94 0.27 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 50.0 58.5 41.1 0.0 58.3 45.6 48.6 52.8 30.1 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.7 4.8 0.8 2.8 11.2 2.4 11.8 19.5 0.5 0.7 Delay (s)67.2 55.7 72.9 25.2 2.8 69.5 48.0 60.4 72.2 30.6 29.9 Level of Service E E E C A E D E E C C Approach Delay (s)57.0 18.8 56.7 53.4 Approach LOS E B E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 423 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 528 1053 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 50.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 53.8 51.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 0.3 52.1 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.6 47.2 74.4 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 21.0 * 69 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 20.4 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.1 0.5 43.8 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 424 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1850 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021344 Cap, veh/h 210 2200 182 208 1869 94 318 1158 495 164 579 497 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.72 0.72 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6123 507 3476 5006 251 3510 3539 1512 1757 1757 1507 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1428 521 157 983 526 260 462 177 138 260 475 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1772 1738 1713 1832 1755 1770 1512 1757 1757 1507 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 34.9 34.9 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 26.3 26.3 5.8 34.9 34.9 9.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 15.2 40.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 1745 637 208 1279 684 318 1158 495 164 579 497 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.40 0.36 0.84 0.45 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 263 1745 637 213 1279 684 537 1158 495 349 591 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 15.5 15.5 61.8 43.8 43.8 58.4 34.1 20.7 58.4 34.5 42.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 4.0 10.2 8.2 2.9 5.3 2.0 0.1 0.2 4.5 2.0 30.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 11.9 14.1 3.0 17.0 18.7 4.7 6.5 4.3 5.1 7.7 20.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.5 19.5 25.6 70.0 46.7 49.1 60.4 34.1 20.9 62.9 36.5 73.3 LnGrp LOS E B C E D D E C C E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1666 899 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 49.6 39.1 60.7 Approach LOS C D D E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 53.0 15.8 48.1 12.0 54.8 16.2 47.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 * 47 20.0 44.0 10.0 47.0 26.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 28.3 11.5 42.4 7.9 36.9 12.1 15.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 9.2 0.1 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 425 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/14/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000110021800082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 182 132 249 0 289 296 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.36 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 2302 175 2072 608 314 284 355 361 315 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 0.08 c0.31 0.08 c0.16 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.90 0.76 0.77 0.30 0.42 0.88 0.81 0.82 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 42.6 61.2 36.2 28.3 50.9 55.9 52.2 52.3 43.7 Progression Factor 0.51 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 4.5 15.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 24.0 12.7 12.9 0.0 Delay (s)32.6 18.3 77.1 39.1 29.6 51.3 79.9 64.9 65.1 43.7 Level of Service C B E D C D E E E D Approach Delay (s)18.6 40.2 73.6 61.8 Approach LOS B D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 426 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix D – Future Year Synchro Model Output for A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours  Arterial LOS  Synchro reports for system MOEs  Synchro reports for intersection LOS May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 427 Ap  A  Sy  Sy   ppend Outp Arterial leve ynchro repo ynchro repo dix D – put for l of service orts for syst orts for inte   – Futu r A.M. tem MOEs ersection lev ure Ye and P vel of servic Experts Connec ear Sy P.M. P ce cting Communities ynchro Peak H s  o Mod Hours del May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 428 Arterial Level of Service 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 127.1 159.8 0.27 6.1 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 9.1 26.7 0.14 18.5 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 71.0 88.8 0.14 5.6 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 85.9 104.8 0.15 5.1 F Total III 87.0 293.1 380.1 0.70 6.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 38.3 69.3 0.26 13.4 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 20.5 39.4 0.15 13.5 E Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 5.0 22.8 0.14 22.0 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 29.3 46.9 0.14 10.5 E Total III 85.3 93.1 178.4 0.68 13.8 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 429 Measures of Effectiveness 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)59 27 41 Total Delay (hr)143 88 231 Stops / Veh 0.61 0.42 0.50 Stops (#)5311 4909 10220 Average Speed (mph)6 13 9 Total Travel Time (hr)175 137 312 Distance Traveled (mi)1126 1716 2841 Fuel Consumed (gal)188 167 354 Fuel Economy (mpg)6.0 10.3 8.0 CO Emissions (kg)13.13 11.64 24.77 NOx Emissions (kg)2.55 2.27 4.82 VOC Emissions (kg)3.04 2.70 5.74 Unserved Vehicles (#)477 113 590 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)175 181 356 Performance Index 158.0 101.3 259.3 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)45 Total Delay (hr)330 Stops / Veh 0.53 Stops (#)14037 Average Speed (mph)9 Total Travel Time (hr)447 Distance Traveled (mi)4048 Fuel Consumed (gal)499 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.1 CO Emissions (kg)34.92 NOx Emissions (kg)6.79 VOC Emissions (kg)8.09 Unserved Vehicles (#)717 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)410 Performance Index 368.9 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 430 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0000002180076 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1198 0 577 378 1141 74 143 157 643 978 103 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 43.0 20.8 56.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 22.0 49.5 49.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 43.0 20.8 56.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 22.0 49.5 49.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.31 0.15 0.41 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)85 1026 480 1419 1776 107 813 397 516 1209 528 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.64 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.17 1.20 0.27 0.64 0.69 0.18 0.40 1.25 0.81 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 48.5 59.6 27.8 0.0 64.3 43.3 45.7 59.0 41.0 31.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 86.0 109.5 0.3 1.8 17.5 0.5 2.9 126.2 5.9 0.8 Delay (s)72.4 134.5 169.1 28.1 1.8 81.9 43.7 48.6 185.2 46.9 32.3 Level of Service E F F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)131.9 52.6 51.6 94.8 Approach LOS F D D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 83.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 431 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 650 2759 0 0 2738 869 302 643 296 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 650 2759 0 0 2738 869 302 643 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.71 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 650 2759 0 0 2738 869 390 833 384 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 58.6 60.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.5 8.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 11.6 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 8.7 12.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 61.1 69.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 26.8 67.2 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.0 34.0 86.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.0 29.0 * 81 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.6 20.8 43.7 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 52.0 7.5 33.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.4 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 432 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 262 2121 347 490 2279 717 352 965 368 156 892 411 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1364 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1364 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 59.5 60.0 20.9 55.2 0.0 16.0 13.3 3.3 12.2 18.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 59.5 60.0 20.9 55.2 0.0 16.0 13.3 3.3 12.2 18.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 262 1830 639 490 2279 717 352 965 368 156 892 411 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.87 0.00 1.05 0.38 0.14 0.87 0.54 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 262 1830 639 490 2279 717 352 965 368 187 942 434 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.0 48.7 48.9 67.4 39.8 0.0 70.9 46.9 23.3 70.9 51.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.5 16.4 30.2 16.5 2.1 0.0 61.6 0.1 0.1 26.2 1.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 29.1 33.0 11.3 26.5 0.0 10.7 6.6 1.6 7.0 9.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.5 65.1 79.1 83.9 41.9 0.0 132.4 47.0 23.4 97.1 52.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E F F D F D C F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 616 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.4 49.9 85.5 62.7 Approach LOS E D F E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.2 66.0 21.0 44.8 18.2 76.0 18.2 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 60.0 16.0 * 42 12.0 70.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.9 62.0 18.0 20.5 12.1 57.2 14.2 15.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 12.3 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.8 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 433 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 7:30 am 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 190 0 33 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2254 0 277 2442 775 76 191 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 50.3 42.8 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 50.3 42.8 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 1964 466 2763 835 246 236 249 258 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.36 0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.17 1.15 0.59 0.88 0.93 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 76.5 54.9 51.0 32.5 34.1 61.7 66.6 65.5 65.5 57.9 Progression Factor 0.50 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 99.0 68.6 1.4 4.6 17.9 0.3 17.1 16.0 15.4 0.0 Delay (s)137.0 83.1 52.4 37.1 52.0 61.9 83.7 81.5 81.0 58.0 Level of Service F F D D D E F F F E Approach Delay (s)86.8 42.2 78.2 78.0 Approach LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 61.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 434 Arterial Level of Service 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 127.1 159.8 0.27 6.1 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 9.0 26.6 0.14 18.6 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 71.0 88.8 0.14 5.6 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 85.9 104.8 0.15 5.1 F Total III 87.0 293.0 380.0 0.70 6.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 37.2 68.2 0.26 13.6 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 21.5 40.4 0.15 13.2 E Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 10.8 28.6 0.14 17.5 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 29.5 47.1 0.14 10.5 E Total III 85.3 99.0 184.3 0.68 13.3 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 435 Measures of Effectiveness 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)62 28 43 Total Delay (hr)150 90 240 Stops / Veh 0.61 0.44 0.51 Stops (#)5297 5065 10362 Average Speed (mph)6 12 9 Total Travel Time (hr)182 139 321 Distance Traveled (mi)1126 1716 2841 Fuel Consumed (gal)193 169 362 Fuel Economy (mpg)5.8 10.1 7.8 CO Emissions (kg)13.47 11.84 25.31 NOx Emissions (kg)2.62 2.30 4.92 VOC Emissions (kg)3.12 2.74 5.87 Unserved Vehicles (#)493 113 606 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)175 171 346 Performance Index 164.7 104.0 268.7 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)47 Total Delay (hr)346 Stops / Veh 0.54 Stops (#)14294 Average Speed (mph)9 Total Travel Time (hr)464 Distance Traveled (mi)4048 Fuel Consumed (gal)513 Fuel Economy (mpg)7.9 CO Emissions (kg)35.87 NOx Emissions (kg)6.98 VOC Emissions (kg)8.31 Unserved Vehicles (#)755 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)400 Performance Index 385.9 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 436 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3388 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3388 1776 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0000002190076 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1198 0 577 378 1141 74 143 156 643 978 103 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 43.0 20.8 56.7 140.0 8.7 33.2 33.2 21.0 49.5 49.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 43.0 20.8 56.7 140.0 8.7 33.2 33.2 21.0 49.5 49.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.31 0.15 0.41 1.00 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)85 1026 480 1372 1776 107 839 410 492 1209 528 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.64 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.17 1.20 0.28 0.64 0.69 0.17 0.38 1.31 0.81 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 48.5 59.6 27.9 0.0 64.3 42.5 44.8 59.5 41.0 31.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 86.0 109.5 0.3 1.8 17.5 0.4 2.7 152.2 5.9 0.8 Delay (s)72.4 134.5 169.1 28.2 1.8 81.9 42.9 47.5 211.7 46.9 32.3 Level of Service E F F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)131.9 52.6 50.7 104.3 Approach LOS F D D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 86.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 437 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 470 2760 0 0 2097 920 301 643 296 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 3668 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1787 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.1 22.6 0.0 0.0 71.5 0.0 18.4 24.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.1 22.6 0.0 0.0 71.5 0.0 18.4 24.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 2760 0 0 2097 920 301 643 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.71 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 470 2760 0 0 2097 920 385 821 378 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 58.8 61.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.7 9.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 8.8 12.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 97.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 61.6 70.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 29.7 67.8 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.4 26.0 94.4 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 21.0 * 89 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.6 22.1 73.5 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 52.1 0.0 15.2 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 438 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1856 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 258 2094 343 483 2250 707 348 995 381 156 543 310 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1368 1740 2077 1185 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1821 639 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 407 349 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1368 1740 1763 1498 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 60.0 60.0 21.2 56.5 0.0 16.0 13.3 3.3 12.3 35.4 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 60.0 60.0 21.2 56.5 0.0 16.0 13.3 3.3 12.3 35.4 35.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1807 630 483 2250 707 348 995 381 156 461 392 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.88 0.00 1.06 0.37 0.13 0.87 0.88 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1807 630 483 2250 707 348 995 381 185 463 394 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.43 0.43 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.1 49.9 49.9 68.6 41.1 0.0 71.9 46.4 23.1 71.8 56.6 56.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.0 19.6 33.7 19.5 2.4 0.0 66.0 0.1 0.1 27.1 20.1 23.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 29.7 33.6 11.6 27.1 0.0 10.8 6.6 1.6 7.1 19.9 17.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.1 69.5 83.6 88.0 43.6 0.0 137.9 46.5 23.2 99.0 76.7 80.7 LnGrp LOS FFFFD FDCFEF Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 74.6 52.0 87.8 81.7 Approach LOS E D F F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 66.0 21.0 46.8 16.2 76.0 18.3 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 60.0 16.0 * 42 12.0 70.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.2 62.0 18.0 37.8 12.2 58.5 14.3 15.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 69.0 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 439 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 189 0 33 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2254 0 277 2442 776 76 191 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 50.3 42.8 87.1 87.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 50.3 42.8 87.1 87.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.27 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 1964 466 2795 844 246 236 249 258 220 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.36 0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.38 1.15 0.59 0.87 0.92 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 77.0 54.9 51.0 31.7 33.2 61.7 66.6 65.5 65.5 57.9 Progression Factor 0.50 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 185.2 68.6 1.4 4.2 16.7 0.3 17.1 16.0 15.4 0.0 Delay (s)223.8 83.1 52.4 35.8 49.9 61.9 83.7 81.5 81.0 58.0 Level of Service F F D D D E F F F E Approach Delay (s)92.6 40.8 78.2 78.0 Approach LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 440 Arterial Level of Service 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 138.2 170.9 0.27 5.7 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 9.1 26.7 0.14 18.5 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 60.8 78.6 0.14 6.4 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 7.3 26.2 0.15 20.3 C Total III 87.0 215.4 302.4 0.70 8.3 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 38.3 69.3 0.26 13.4 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 20.4 39.3 0.15 13.5 E Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 9.7 27.5 0.14 18.2 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 30.2 47.8 0.14 10.3 E Total III 85.3 98.6 183.9 0.68 13.4 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 441 Measures of Effectiveness 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)43 34 38 Total Delay (hr)104 109 213 Stops / Veh 0.50 0.47 0.48 Stops (#)4323 5387 9710 Average Speed (mph)8 11 10 Total Travel Time (hr)136 158 294 Distance Traveled (mi)1126 1716 2841 Fuel Consumed (gal)151 186 337 Fuel Economy (mpg)7.4 9.2 8.4 CO Emissions (kg)10.58 13.00 23.58 NOx Emissions (kg)2.06 2.53 4.59 VOC Emissions (kg)2.45 3.01 5.47 Unserved Vehicles (#)186 200 386 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)178 175 353 Performance Index 115.6 124.2 239.8 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)43 Total Delay (hr)312 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)13653 Average Speed (mph)9 Total Travel Time (hr)429 Distance Traveled (mi)4048 Fuel Consumed (gal)483 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.4 CO Emissions (kg)33.76 NOx Emissions (kg)6.57 VOC Emissions (kg)7.83 Unserved Vehicles (#)492 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)407 Performance Index 349.6 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 442 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0000002180075 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1197 0 577 378 1141 74 143 157 643 978 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.40 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)85 1002 480 1347 1515 107 813 397 539 1234 539 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.75 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.20 1.20 0.28 0.75 0.69 0.18 0.40 1.19 0.79 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 49.0 59.6 28.6 0.0 64.3 43.3 45.7 58.5 40.1 30.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 97.6 109.5 0.3 3.5 17.5 0.5 2.9 104.1 5.3 0.8 Delay (s)72.4 146.6 169.1 28.9 3.5 81.9 43.7 48.6 162.6 45.3 31.6 Level of Service E F F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)143.6 53.7 51.6 85.8 Approach LOS F D D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 83.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 443 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.71 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 673 2759 0 0 2994 951 390 833 384 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 58.6 60.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.5 8.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 11.6 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 8.7 12.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 61.1 69.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 21.3 67.2 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.0 26.4 93.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.0 30.0 81.0 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.6 21.8 39.2 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 89.1 0.6 41.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.5 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 444 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1856 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116422 Cap, veh/h 237 2168 355 440 2353 59 370 946 360 156 514 293 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5144 130 3476 3574 1361 1740 2072 1182 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1318 715 370 369 51 136 408 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1711 1852 1738 1787 1361 1740 1763 1490 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 59.3 60.0 20.0 54.2 54.4 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 36.1 36.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 59.3 60.0 20.0 54.2 54.4 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 36.1 36.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 237 1870 653 440 1565 847 370 946 360 156 437 369 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.97 0.98 1.06 0.84 0.84 1.00 0.39 0.14 0.87 0.93 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 237 1870 653 440 1565 847 370 946 360 185 442 374 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.9 48.0 48.2 69.8 38.2 38.2 71.3 48.1 24.3 71.7 58.7 58.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.6 12.2 25.1 46.1 2.4 4.4 46.5 0.1 0.1 27.0 28.5 33.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 28.4 32.4 12.5 26.2 28.9 10.5 6.7 1.6 7.1 21.0 18.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 106.6 60.2 73.2 115.9 40.6 42.7 117.8 48.2 24.3 98.7 87.2 92.5 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C F F F Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2501 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 67.1 55.3 79.3 91.0 Approach LOS E E E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.4 68.0 21.0 44.6 15.0 79.4 18.3 47.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 11.0 73.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 62.0 19.0 38.6 12.2 56.4 14.3 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 16.0 0.0 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 445 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 190 0 33 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2257 0 277 2442 775 76 191 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.48 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 3010 174 2763 835 246 236 249 258 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.36 c0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.75 1.59 0.88 0.93 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 76.5 33.6 72.0 32.5 34.1 61.7 66.6 65.5 65.5 57.9 Progression Factor 0.75 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 101.8 0.7 291.8 4.6 17.9 0.3 17.1 16.0 15.4 0.0 Delay (s)159.3 6.1 363.8 37.1 52.0 61.9 83.7 81.5 81.0 58.0 Level of Service F A F D D E F F F E Approach Delay (s)16.4 65.6 78.2 78.0 Approach LOS BEEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 446 Arterial Level of Service 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 138.2 170.9 0.27 5.7 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 9.1 26.7 0.14 18.5 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 60.8 78.6 0.14 6.4 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 7.3 26.2 0.15 20.3 C Total III 87.0 215.4 302.4 0.70 8.3 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 38.3 69.3 0.26 13.4 E Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 20.4 39.3 0.15 13.5 E Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 9.7 27.5 0.14 18.2 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 30.2 47.8 0.14 10.3 E Total III 85.3 98.6 183.9 0.68 13.4 E May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 447 Measures of Effectiveness 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)43 34 38 Total Delay (hr)104 109 213 Stops / Veh 0.50 0.47 0.48 Stops (#)4323 5387 9710 Average Speed (mph)8 11 10 Total Travel Time (hr)136 158 294 Distance Traveled (mi)1126 1716 2841 Fuel Consumed (gal)151 186 337 Fuel Economy (mpg)7.4 9.2 8.4 CO Emissions (kg)10.58 13.00 23.58 NOx Emissions (kg)2.06 2.53 4.59 VOC Emissions (kg)2.45 3.01 5.47 Unserved Vehicles (#)186 200 386 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)178 175 353 Performance Index 115.6 124.2 239.8 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)43 Total Delay (hr)312 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)13653 Average Speed (mph)9 Total Travel Time (hr)429 Distance Traveled (mi)4048 Fuel Consumed (gal)483 Fuel Economy (mpg)8.4 CO Emissions (kg)33.76 NOx Emissions (kg)6.57 VOC Emissions (kg)7.83 Unserved Vehicles (#)492 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)407 Performance Index 349.6 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 448 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0000002180075 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1197 0 577 378 1141 74 143 157 643 978 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.40 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)85 1002 480 1347 1515 107 813 397 539 1234 539 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.75 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.20 1.20 0.28 0.75 0.69 0.18 0.40 1.19 0.79 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 49.0 59.6 28.6 0.0 64.3 43.3 45.7 58.5 40.1 30.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 97.6 109.5 0.3 3.5 17.5 0.5 2.9 104.1 5.3 0.8 Delay (s)72.4 146.6 169.1 28.9 3.5 81.9 43.7 48.6 162.6 45.3 31.6 Level of Service E F F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)143.6 53.7 51.6 85.8 Approach LOS F D D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 83.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 449 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.71 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 673 2759 0 0 2994 951 390 833 384 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 58.6 60.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.5 8.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 11.6 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 8.7 12.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 61.1 69.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 21.3 67.2 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.0 26.4 93.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.0 30.0 81.0 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.6 21.8 39.2 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 89.1 0.6 41.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.5 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 450 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1856 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116422 Cap, veh/h 237 2168 355 440 2353 59 370 946 360 156 514 293 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5144 130 3476 3574 1361 1740 2072 1182 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1318 715 370 369 51 136 408 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1711 1852 1738 1787 1361 1740 1763 1490 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 59.3 60.0 20.0 54.2 54.4 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 36.1 36.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 59.3 60.0 20.0 54.2 54.4 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 36.1 36.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 237 1870 653 440 1565 847 370 946 360 156 437 369 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.97 0.98 1.06 0.84 0.84 1.00 0.39 0.14 0.87 0.93 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 237 1870 653 440 1565 847 370 946 360 185 442 374 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.9 48.0 48.2 69.8 38.2 38.2 71.3 48.1 24.3 71.7 58.7 58.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.6 12.2 25.1 46.1 2.4 4.4 46.5 0.1 0.1 27.0 28.5 33.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 28.4 32.4 12.5 26.2 28.9 10.5 6.7 1.6 7.1 21.0 18.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 106.6 60.2 73.2 115.9 40.6 42.7 117.8 48.2 24.3 98.7 87.2 92.5 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C F F F Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2501 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 67.1 55.3 79.3 91.0 Approach LOS E E E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.4 68.0 21.0 44.6 15.0 79.4 18.3 47.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 11.0 73.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 62.0 19.0 38.6 12.2 56.4 14.3 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 16.0 0.0 13.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 451 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 190 0 33 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2257 0 277 2442 775 76 191 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.48 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 3010 174 2763 835 246 236 249 258 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.36 c0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.75 1.59 0.88 0.93 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 76.5 33.6 72.0 32.5 34.1 61.7 66.6 65.5 65.5 57.9 Progression Factor 0.75 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 101.8 0.7 291.8 4.6 17.9 0.3 17.1 16.0 15.4 0.0 Delay (s)159.3 6.1 363.8 37.1 52.0 61.9 83.7 81.5 81.0 58.0 Level of Service F A F D D E F F F E Approach Delay (s)16.4 65.6 78.2 78.0 Approach LOS BEEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 452 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/8/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Leading Pedestrian Interval Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 14 11 12 12 11 12 15 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 6263 3385 4964 1563 3351 3574 1353 1678 3311 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 6263 3385 4964 1563 3351 3574 1353 1678 3311 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 0 29 0 0 35 0 51 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2441 0 468 1983 21 370 369 16 136 705 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)29 6 6 29 6 84 84 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 2 Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1% 6% 4% 2% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 57.0 19.0 66.0 66.0 23.0 49.5 49.5 15.5 42.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 57.0 19.0 66.0 66.0 23.0 49.5 49.5 15.5 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.36 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.26 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 2231 401 2047 644 481 1105 418 162 869 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.39 c0.14 0.40 c0.11 0.10 0.08 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.04 1.09 1.17 0.97 0.03 0.77 0.33 0.04 0.84 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 75.0 51.5 70.5 46.0 28.0 65.9 42.6 38.6 71.0 55.3 Progression Factor 0.95 0.92 0.65 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 63.1 48.5 89.0 8.8 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.0 28.8 6.9 Delay (s)134.1 95.8 134.7 29.7 28.0 72.5 42.6 38.6 99.9 62.1 Level of Service F F F C C E D D F E Approach Delay (s)99.0 49.3 56.4 67.9 Approach LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 72.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 453 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/8/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Protected concurrent phasing Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1856 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 258 2094 343 483 2250 852 348 995 590 156 543 310 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.44 0.00 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1368 1740 2077 1185 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1821 639 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 407 349 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1368 1740 1763 1498 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 60.0 60.0 21.2 56.5 0.0 16.0 13.3 0.7 12.3 35.4 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 60.0 60.0 21.2 56.5 0.0 16.0 13.3 0.7 12.3 35.4 35.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1807 630 483 2250 852 348 995 590 156 461 392 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.88 0.00 1.06 0.37 0.09 0.87 0.88 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1807 630 483 2250 852 348 995 590 185 463 394 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.43 0.43 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.1 49.9 49.9 68.6 41.1 0.0 71.9 46.4 15.2 71.8 56.6 56.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.0 19.6 33.7 19.5 2.4 0.0 66.0 0.1 0.0 27.1 20.1 23.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 29.7 33.6 11.6 27.1 0.0 10.8 6.6 1.0 7.1 19.9 17.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.1 69.5 83.6 88.0 43.6 0.0 137.9 46.5 15.2 99.0 76.7 80.7 LnGrp LOS FFFFD FDBFEF Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 74.6 52.0 87.3 81.7 Approach LOS E D F F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 66.0 21.0 46.8 16.2 76.0 18.3 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 60.0 16.0 * 42 12.0 70.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.2 62.0 18.0 37.8 12.2 58.5 14.3 15.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 68.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 454 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/8/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B 150s Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6250 1745 5136 1553 1745 1674 1641 1705 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6250 1745 5136 1553 1745 1674 1641 1705 1456 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 195 0 36 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2252 0 277 2442 770 76 188 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 43.3 42.3 79.6 79.6 21.2 21.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 43.3 42.3 79.6 79.6 21.2 21.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.29 0.28 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 1804 492 2725 824 246 236 253 263 225 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.36 0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.29 1.25 0.56 0.90 0.93 0.31 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 72.0 53.4 46.0 31.5 32.8 57.8 62.3 61.1 61.0 54.0 Progression Factor 0.49 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 144.6 113.1 0.9 5.1 19.0 0.3 15.8 14.4 13.3 0.0 Delay (s)179.7 127.5 46.8 36.6 51.8 58.1 78.1 75.5 74.3 54.0 Level of Service F F D D D E E E E D Approach Delay (s)131.1 41.4 73.0 72.0 Approach LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 76.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 455 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 12/8/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B 150s Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1845 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 436 2732 0 0 2095 919 305 651 300 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 3668 1568 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1787 1568 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 66.1 0.0 16.9 22.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 66.1 0.0 16.9 22.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 436 2732 0 0 2095 919 305 651 300 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.70 0.88 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 2732 0 0 2095 919 417 890 410 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 54.0 56.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 52.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.5 6.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.6 11.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 8.0 11.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 114.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 55.5 62.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 27.1 60.6 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 110.4 23.0 87.4 30.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 105.4 18.0 * 82 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.5 20.0 68.1 24.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 49.2 0.0 13.8 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 456 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/8/2014 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 1B 150s Cycle Length Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1856 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116422 Cap, veh/h 230 2013 330 446 2163 680 349 1053 405 157 579 330 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5577 913 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1376 1740 2082 1188 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1821 639 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 406 350 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1678 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1376 1740 1763 1507 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 54.0 54.0 19.0 54.5 0.0 15.0 12.1 3.0 11.5 32.3 32.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 54.0 54.0 19.0 54.5 0.0 15.0 12.1 3.0 11.5 32.3 32.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 230 1737 606 446 2163 680 349 1053 405 157 490 419 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 1.05 1.06 1.05 0.92 0.00 1.06 0.35 0.13 0.86 0.83 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 230 1737 606 446 2163 680 349 1053 405 186 495 423 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.39 0.39 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.6 47.8 47.8 65.3 40.8 0.0 67.3 41.5 20.9 67.1 50.6 50.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 40.0 32.2 46.2 40.6 3.3 0.0 65.4 0.1 0.1 25.8 13.8 16.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 29.0 32.7 11.7 26.4 0.0 10.3 6.0 1.5 6.7 17.6 15.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.6 80.0 94.0 105.9 44.1 0.0 132.7 41.6 20.9 92.9 64.5 67.4 LnGrp LOS FFFFD FDCFEE Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 85.8 55.9 82.9 70.0 Approach LOS F E F E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 60.0 20.0 46.6 14.4 69.0 17.5 49.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 54.0 15.0 * 42 10.0 63.0 16.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 56.0 17.0 34.7 11.6 56.5 13.5 14.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 6.4 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 72.6 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 457 Arterial Level of Service 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 85.7 118.4 0.27 8.3 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.6 21.2 0.14 23.3 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 44.6 62.4 0.14 8.0 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 164.8 183.7 0.15 2.9 F Total III 87.0 298.7 385.7 0.70 6.5 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 289.4 320.4 0.26 2.9 F Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 14.4 33.3 0.15 16.0 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 9.2 27.0 0.14 18.6 C N. Main St.III 35 17.6 25.3 42.9 0.14 11.5 E Total III 85.3 338.3 423.6 0.68 5.8 F May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 458 Measures of Effectiveness 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)63 79 72 Total Delay (hr)146 254 400 Stops / Veh 0.55 0.39 0.46 Stops (#)4607 4569 9176 Average Speed (mph)6 5 6 Total Travel Time (hr)176 300 477 Distance Traveled (mi)1054 1636 2690 Fuel Consumed (gal)182 283 465 Fuel Economy (mpg)5.8 5.8 5.8 CO Emissions (kg)12.73 19.76 32.49 NOx Emissions (kg)2.48 3.84 6.32 VOC Emissions (kg)2.95 4.58 7.53 Unserved Vehicles (#)465 933 1398 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)240 134 374 Performance Index 159.2 266.4 425.5 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)69 Total Delay (hr)518 Stops / Veh 0.51 Stops (#)13740 Average Speed (mph)6 Total Travel Time (hr)635 Distance Traveled (mi)4012 Fuel Consumed (gal)633 Fuel Economy (mpg)6.3 CO Emissions (kg)44.23 NOx Emissions (kg)8.61 VOC Emissions (kg)10.25 Unserved Vehicles (#)1574 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)431 Performance Index 555.9 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 459 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 00000027100111 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 863 0 693 589 1212 206 461 314 673 672 127 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 36.0 26.0 51.4 140.0 20.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 36.0 26.0 51.4 140.0 20.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.26 0.19 0.37 1.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 842 595 1312 1787 257 850 415 550 997 430 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.16 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.68 c0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.65 1.03 1.16 0.45 0.68 0.80 0.54 0.76 1.22 0.67 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 52.0 57.0 33.6 0.0 58.1 46.9 49.8 58.5 44.2 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 37.6 88.3 0.5 1.7 16.3 2.5 12.1 116.2 3.6 1.7 Delay (s)71.4 89.6 132.7 24.5 1.7 74.4 49.4 61.8 174.7 47.9 40.7 Level of Service E F F C A E D E F D D Approach Delay (s)88.0 43.5 59.3 100.7 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 460 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 514 1026 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 51.2 48.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 7.1 4.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 54.2 49.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 13.6 51.4 Approach LOS B B D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 118.5 49.1 69.4 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 26.0 * 64 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 20.7 32.1 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 41.0 4.8 30.1 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 461 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 184 2291 277 345 2316 758 295 894 377 172 897 426 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.26 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5877 712 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1492 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1730 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1492 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 38.3 38.3 11.2 43.4 0.0 10.5 15.6 10.7 10.8 12.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 38.3 38.3 11.2 43.4 0.0 10.5 15.6 10.7 10.8 12.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 1894 674 345 2316 758 295 894 377 172 897 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.84 0.00 0.96 0.54 0.50 0.86 0.45 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 1894 674 345 2316 758 295 1055 445 215 1141 541 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.6 43.6 43.6 58.1 31.6 0.0 59.7 42.4 23.8 58.1 40.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.1 3.3 8.8 2.3 0.4 0.0 40.0 0.2 0.4 20.1 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 17.7 20.1 5.5 20.5 0.0 6.7 7.7 5.1 6.2 6.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.7 46.9 52.4 60.4 32.0 0.0 99.7 42.6 24.2 78.2 42.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D D E C F D C E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2236 958 554 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.6 35.8 55.8 51.6 Approach LOS D D E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 57.0 16.0 38.8 11.0 65.0 16.8 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 51 11.0 * 43 7.0 59.0 16.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 40.3 12.5 14.9 8.1 45.4 12.8 17.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.3 0.0 6.6 0.0 13.0 0.1 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 462 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 No Build Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)08000117080000116 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2137 0 228 2183 217 180 419 0 522 534 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 1637 86 1372 401 461 418 468 480 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.34 c0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.26 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.41 1.31 2.65 1.59 0.54 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 65.6 52.0 66.5 51.3 44.0 42.2 51.5 50.0 50.0 38.4 Progression Factor 0.59 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 139.9 775.2 269.5 5.2 0.2 44.5 77.0 75.5 0.1 Delay (s)39.3 165.2 841.7 320.8 49.2 42.4 96.0 127.0 125.5 38.6 Level of Service D F F F D D F F F D Approach Delay (s)162.0 331.0 81.8 111.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 211.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 463 Arterial Level of Service 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 85.7 118.4 0.27 8.3 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 6.5 24.1 0.14 20.5 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 37.0 54.8 0.14 9.1 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 165.7 184.6 0.15 2.9 F Total III 87.0 294.9 381.9 0.70 6.6 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 289.4 320.4 0.26 2.9 F Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 13.2 32.1 0.15 16.6 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 17.7 35.5 0.14 14.1 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 38.9 56.5 0.14 8.7 F Total III 85.3 359.2 444.5 0.68 5.5 F May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 464 Measures of Effectiveness 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)69 80 75 Total Delay (hr)158 258 417 Stops / Veh 0.57 0.39 0.47 Stops (#)4770 4554 9324 Average Speed (mph)6 5 5 Total Travel Time (hr)188 305 494 Distance Traveled (mi)1054 1636 2690 Fuel Consumed (gal)192 286 478 Fuel Economy (mpg)5.5 5.7 5.6 CO Emissions (kg)13.43 19.99 33.42 NOx Emissions (kg)2.61 3.89 6.50 VOC Emissions (kg)3.11 4.63 7.74 Unserved Vehicles (#)554 933 1487 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)208 100 308 Performance Index 171.5 271.1 442.6 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)72 Total Delay (hr)536 Stops / Veh 0.52 Stops (#)13956 Average Speed (mph)6 Total Travel Time (hr)653 Distance Traveled (mi)4012 Fuel Consumed (gal)648 Fuel Economy (mpg)6.2 CO Emissions (kg)45.27 NOx Emissions (kg)8.81 VOC Emissions (kg)10.49 Unserved Vehicles (#)1664 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)365 Performance Index 574.7 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 465 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3455 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3455 1787 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 00000028100111 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 863 0 693 589 1212 206 461 304 673 672 127 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.1 36.0 26.0 32.9 140.0 20.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 29.1 36.0 26.0 32.9 140.0 20.0 33.0 33.0 23.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.26 0.19 0.23 1.00 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 842 595 811 1787 257 850 415 550 997 430 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.68 0.17 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.24 1.03 1.16 0.73 0.68 0.80 0.54 0.73 1.22 0.67 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 46.2 52.0 57.0 49.4 0.0 58.1 46.9 49.4 58.5 44.2 39.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 37.6 84.4 2.5 1.2 16.3 2.5 10.9 116.2 3.6 1.7 Delay (s)46.3 89.6 121.7 38.7 1.2 74.4 49.4 60.3 174.7 47.9 40.7 Level of Service D F F D A E D E F D D Approach Delay (s)85.8 43.5 58.6 100.7 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 466 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1881 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220021121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 503 2909 0 0 2123 950 248 496 231 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 3668 1599 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1787 1599 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2909 0 0 2123 950 248 496 231 V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 503 2909 0 0 2123 950 514 1026 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 48.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 71.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.1 4.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 123.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 54.2 49.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 3.7 51.4 Approach LOS D A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 118.5 41.1 77.4 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 18.0 * 72 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 20.0 2.0 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 41.0 0.0 63.5 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 467 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1847 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021344 Cap, veh/h 172 2140 259 323 2164 708 276 1048 445 170 539 460 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5876 712 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1505 1757 1754 1499 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1729 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1505 1757 1754 1499 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 31.9 31.9 12.0 49.0 0.0 11.0 15.7 10.7 11.5 29.3 43.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 31.9 31.9 12.0 49.0 0.0 11.0 15.7 10.7 11.5 29.3 43.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1770 630 323 2164 708 276 1048 445 170 539 460 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.89 0.00 1.02 0.46 0.42 0.86 0.76 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 1770 630 323 2164 708 276 1048 445 201 539 460 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.8 16.4 16.4 63.1 37.6 0.0 64.5 40.2 22.7 62.3 43.8 48.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 45.0 5.1 12.9 5.2 0.6 0.0 60.1 0.1 0.2 24.5 8.6 75.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 14.7 17.0 6.0 23.2 0.0 7.6 7.7 5.1 6.8 15.4 27.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 107.7 21.5 29.3 68.3 38.2 0.0 124.6 40.3 22.9 86.8 52.3 123.8 LnGrp LOS F C C E D F D C F D F Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2236 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 42.3 61.7 91.4 Approach LOS C D E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 57.0 16.0 48.0 11.0 65.0 17.5 46.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 51 11.0 * 43 7.0 59.0 16.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 33.9 13.0 45.0 8.5 51.0 13.5 17.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.9 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 468 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 12/3/2014 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 1B Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)08000117080000116 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2137 0 228 2183 217 180 419 0 522 534 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 1637 86 1372 401 461 418 468 480 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.34 c0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.26 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.41 1.31 2.65 1.59 0.54 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 65.6 52.0 66.5 51.3 44.0 42.2 51.5 50.0 50.0 38.4 Progression Factor 0.61 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 139.9 775.2 269.5 5.2 0.2 44.5 77.0 75.5 0.1 Delay (s)40.5 166.8 841.7 320.8 49.2 42.4 96.0 127.0 125.5 38.6 Level of Service D F F F D D F F F D Approach Delay (s)163.6 331.0 81.8 111.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 212.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 469 Arterial Level of Service 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 72.1 104.8 0.27 9.4 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.7 21.3 0.14 23.2 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 42.1 59.9 0.14 8.4 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 165.2 184.1 0.15 2.9 F Total III 87.0 283.1 370.1 0.70 6.8 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 289.4 320.4 0.26 2.9 F Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 15.5 34.4 0.15 15.5 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 10.7 28.5 0.14 17.6 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 26.0 43.6 0.14 11.3 E Total III 85.3 341.6 426.9 0.68 5.8 F May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 470 Measures of Effectiveness 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)62 84 75 Total Delay (hr)142 272 414 Stops / Veh 0.55 0.43 0.48 Stops (#)4582 4941 9523 Average Speed (mph)6 5 5 Total Travel Time (hr)172 319 491 Distance Traveled (mi)1054 1636 2690 Fuel Consumed (gal)179 299 478 Fuel Economy (mpg)5.9 5.5 5.6 CO Emissions (kg)12.50 20.91 33.41 NOx Emissions (kg)2.43 4.07 6.50 VOC Emissions (kg)2.90 4.85 7.74 Unserved Vehicles (#)445 1012 1457 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)245 118 363 Performance Index 154.8 286.1 441.0 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)72 Total Delay (hr)536 Stops / Veh 0.53 Stops (#)14214 Average Speed (mph)6 Total Travel Time (hr)653 Distance Traveled (mi)4012 Fuel Consumed (gal)649 Fuel Economy (mpg)6.2 CO Emissions (kg)45.40 NOx Emissions (kg)8.83 VOC Emissions (kg)10.52 Unserved Vehicles (#)1633 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)420 Performance Index 575.3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 471 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 00000023700103 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 864 0 693 589 1212 206 461 348 673 672 135 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.16 0.35 1.00 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 889 503 1219 1525 256 902 440 550 1049 453 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.79 0.20 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 1.38 0.48 0.79 0.80 0.51 0.79 1.22 0.64 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 50.5 59.0 35.3 0.0 58.2 45.1 49.1 58.5 42.4 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 23.8 179.5 0.7 3.4 16.6 2.1 13.5 116.2 3.0 1.7 Delay (s)71.4 74.2 225.3 25.1 3.4 74.7 47.2 62.6 174.7 45.4 39.3 Level of Service E E F C A E D E F D D Approach Delay (s)74.0 70.2 58.9 99.4 Approach LOS E E E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 472 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 514 1026 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 48.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.1 4.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 54.2 49.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 0.4 51.4 Approach LOS B A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 118.5 49.1 69.4 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 26.0 * 64 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 20.7 2.0 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 41.0 4.8 54.9 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 473 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1847 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021344 Cap, veh/h 172 2225 269 323 2183 108 276 998 423 170 514 438 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.87 0.87 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5876 712 3476 5010 248 3510 3539 1501 1757 1754 1496 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1321 710 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1729 1738 1713 1833 1755 1770 1501 1757 1754 1496 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 37.3 37.3 11.9 30.4 30.9 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 29.9 41.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 37.3 37.3 11.9 30.4 30.9 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 29.9 41.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1839 655 323 1492 799 276 998 423 170 514 438 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.89 1.02 0.49 0.45 0.87 0.79 1.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 1839 655 323 1492 799 276 998 423 188 514 438 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.1 30.9 30.9 56.6 7.0 7.1 64.5 41.9 23.9 62.3 45.6 49.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 45.0 3.9 10.3 5.2 0.8 1.6 60.1 0.1 0.3 27.9 10.9 97.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 17.2 19.5 5.9 13.0 14.5 7.6 7.9 5.2 6.9 16.0 28.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 110.1 34.8 41.2 61.8 7.9 8.6 124.6 42.0 24.2 90.2 56.5 146.7 LnGrp LOS F C D E A A F D C F E F Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2332 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 15.1 62.8 104.4 Approach LOS D B E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 46.0 11.0 67.0 17.5 44.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 7.0 61.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 39.3 13.0 43.0 8.5 32.9 13.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 474 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)08000117080000116 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2137 0 228 2183 217 180 419 0 522 534 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 1637 86 1372 401 461 418 468 480 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.34 c0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.26 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.41 1.31 2.65 1.59 0.54 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 65.6 52.0 66.5 51.3 44.0 42.2 51.5 50.0 50.0 38.4 Progression Factor 0.59 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 140.1 775.2 269.5 5.2 0.2 44.5 77.0 75.5 0.1 Delay (s)39.4 165.8 841.7 320.8 49.2 42.4 96.0 127.0 125.5 38.6 Level of Service D F F F D D F F F D Approach Delay (s)162.6 331.0 81.8 111.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 212.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 475 Arterial Level of Service 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: EB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS N. Main St.III 35 32.7 72.1 104.8 0.27 9.4 F NB I-680 Off Ramp III 35 17.6 3.7 21.3 0.14 23.2 C Oak Rd III 35 17.8 42.1 59.9 0.14 8.4 F Jones Rd.III 35 18.9 165.2 184.1 0.15 2.9 F Total III 87.0 283.1 370.1 0.70 6.8 F Arterial Level of Service: WB Treat Blvd Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Jones Rd.III 35 31.0 289.4 320.4 0.26 2.9 F Oak Rd.III 35 18.9 15.5 34.4 0.15 15.5 D Buskirk Ave III 35 17.8 10.7 28.5 0.14 17.6 D N. Main St.III 35 17.6 26.0 43.6 0.14 11.3 E Total III 85.3 341.6 426.9 0.68 5.8 F May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 476 Measures of Effectiveness 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Treat Blvd Direction EB WB All Total Delay / Veh (s/v)62 84 75 Total Delay (hr)142 272 414 Stops / Veh 0.55 0.43 0.48 Stops (#)4582 4941 9523 Average Speed (mph)6 5 5 Total Travel Time (hr)172 319 491 Distance Traveled (mi)1054 1636 2690 Fuel Consumed (gal)179 299 478 Fuel Economy (mpg)5.9 5.5 5.6 CO Emissions (kg)12.50 20.91 33.41 NOx Emissions (kg)2.43 4.07 6.50 VOC Emissions (kg)2.90 4.85 7.74 Unserved Vehicles (#)445 1012 1457 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)245 118 363 Performance Index 154.8 286.1 441.0 Network Totals Number of Intersections 5 Total Delay / Veh (s/v)72 Total Delay (hr)536 Stops / Veh 0.53 Stops (#)14214 Average Speed (mph)6 Total Travel Time (hr)653 Distance Traveled (mi)4012 Fuel Consumed (gal)649 Fuel Economy (mpg)6.2 CO Emissions (kg)45.40 NOx Emissions (kg)8.83 VOC Emissions (kg)10.52 Unserved Vehicles (#)1633 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#)420 Performance Index 575.3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 477 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 00000023700103 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 864 0 693 589 1212 206 461 348 673 672 135 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.16 0.35 1.00 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 889 503 1219 1525 256 902 440 550 1049 453 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.79 0.20 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 1.38 0.48 0.79 0.80 0.51 0.79 1.22 0.64 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 50.5 59.0 35.3 0.0 58.2 45.1 49.1 58.5 42.4 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 23.8 179.5 0.7 3.4 16.6 2.1 13.5 116.2 3.0 1.7 Delay (s)71.4 74.2 225.3 25.1 3.4 74.7 47.2 62.6 174.7 45.4 39.3 Level of Service E E F C A E D E F D D Approach Delay (s)74.0 70.2 58.9 99.4 Approach LOS E E E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 478 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 514 1026 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 48.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.1 4.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 54.2 49.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 0.4 51.4 Approach LOS B A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 118.5 49.1 69.4 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 26.0 * 64 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 20.7 2.0 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 41.0 4.8 54.9 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 479 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1847 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221120 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021344 Cap, veh/h 172 2225 269 323 2183 108 276 998 423 170 514 438 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.87 0.87 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5876 712 3476 5010 248 3510 3539 1501 1757 1754 1496 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1321 710 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1729 1738 1713 1833 1755 1770 1501 1757 1754 1496 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 37.3 37.3 11.9 30.4 30.9 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 29.9 41.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 37.3 37.3 11.9 30.4 30.9 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 29.9 41.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 1839 655 323 1492 799 276 998 423 170 514 438 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.89 1.02 0.49 0.45 0.87 0.79 1.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 1839 655 323 1492 799 276 998 423 188 514 438 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.1 30.9 30.9 56.6 7.0 7.1 64.5 41.9 23.9 62.3 45.6 49.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 45.0 3.9 10.3 5.2 0.8 1.6 60.1 0.1 0.3 27.9 10.9 97.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 17.2 19.5 5.9 13.0 14.5 7.6 7.9 5.2 6.9 16.0 28.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 110.1 34.8 41.2 61.8 7.9 8.6 124.6 42.0 24.2 90.2 56.5 146.7 LnGrp LOS F C D E A A F D C F E F Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2332 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 15.1 62.8 104.4 Approach LOS D B E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 46.0 11.0 67.0 17.5 44.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 7.0 61.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 39.3 13.0 43.0 8.5 32.9 13.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 45.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 480 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 11/19/2014 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)08000117080000116 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2137 0 228 2183 217 180 419 0 522 534 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 1637 86 1372 401 461 418 468 480 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.34 c0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.26 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.41 1.31 2.65 1.59 0.54 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 65.6 52.0 66.5 51.3 44.0 42.2 51.5 50.0 50.0 38.4 Progression Factor 0.59 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 140.1 775.2 269.5 5.2 0.2 44.5 77.0 75.5 0.1 Delay (s)39.4 165.8 841.7 320.8 49.2 42.4 96.0 127.0 125.5 38.6 Level of Service D F F F D D F F F D Approach Delay (s)162.6 331.0 81.8 111.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 212.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 481 Experts Connecting Communities  Appendix E – Focused Analysis for Concept 4 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 482 Experts Connecting Communities Introduction With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has decided to complete the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide safe and convenient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing especially on the I-680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This project includes the following intersections: • Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street • Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I-680 northbound ramps • Treat Boulevard and Oak Road • Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail The field observations on this corridor indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve pedestrians and cyclists. The performance of the four study intersections was evaluated for AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) traffic conditions and future year (2040) traffic conditions. Three initial study concept (Concept 1B, Concept 2, and Concept 3) geometric improvements as well as traffic signal timing improvements were evaluated to determine the performance of the network. Once the initial alternatives were evaluated by the stakeholders, a final concept (Concept 4) was developed. This report presents a traffic impact evaluation for the Concept 4 pedestrian and bicycle related improvements to the transportation environment along Treat Boulevard. This final design is a modified version of Concept 3 and is split into Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 represents the near-term improvements while Phase 2 represents the long-term improvement options. Phase 2 includes the elimination of free right turns at Treat Boulevard/Oak Road, which is expected to eliminate the weaving behavior along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue in the westbound direction. Current Year Analysis (2014) For the current year (2014 volumes), overall network performance is not largely impacted as compared to the existing condition. Individual intersection level of service (LOS) was analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the concept alternatives. A queuing analysis was also included for traffic movements of concern and Table 1 presents the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 1, intersection delay is high in general under existing conditions. The Phase 1 improvements result in some delay increase at Main Street and Oak Road. LOS May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 483 Experts Connecting Communities generally remains the same, except at Oak Road, which deteriorates, and Jones Road during the morning peak period, which improves to a LOS C. The queuing analysis shows little to no impact at Treat Boulevard/Main Street and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road. However, queuing is expected to increase for the westbound right turn at Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue during the a.m. peak hour. For the proposed alternatives the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. Optimization of the corridor is expected to result in improved performance of the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection but decreased efficiency of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection. It also results in lower expected queuing for the westbound right turn movement at Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue during the p.m. peak hour. Table 1: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014) Intersection Peak Hour Existing Phase 1 Improvements Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E WBLT 356 60.1 E WBLT 356 WBRT 0 WBRT 0 P.M. 42.9 D WBLT 174 42.2 D WBLT 151 WBRT 890 WBRT 888 Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.3 C WBRT 126 30.3 C WBRT 418 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 P.M. 17.5 B WBRT 169 17.4 B WBRT 108 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D SBRT 140 49.3 D SBRT 134 WBRT 0 WBRT 0 P.M. 19.3 B SBRT 382 34.1 C SBRT 356 WBRT 16 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D No movement of interest 29.9 C No movement of interest P.M. 49.8 D 37.9 D Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length Future Year Analysis (2040) Individual intersection delay and LOS were analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the concept alternatives for the future year (2040). A queuing analysis was also completed for movements of concern. Table 2, on the next page, presents the findings for Phase 1 and Phase 2. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 484 Experts Connecting Communities Phase 2 eliminates the free right turns at Treat Boulevard/Oak Road. Three mitigation scenarios, with geometric and/or timing modifications, were analyzed for Phase 2. Mitigation 1 consists of timing adjustments to the signal, overlapping the southbound right turn (SBRT) movement with the eastbound left turn (EBLT) movement to allow better traffic flow for the SBRT movement. Mitigation 2 consists of geometric modification to the southbound approach, providing for one southbound left turn (SBLT) lane, one southbound through (SBTH) lane, and two SBRT lanes. This option requires the removal of the west crosswalk. Mitigation 3 requires timing signal operation and geometric modifications, consisting of modification of the southbound approach to include one SBLT lane, two SBTH lanes, and one SBRT lane. The signal would also operate with a SBRT/EBLT overlap in this scenario. In general, the removal of the free right turns (Phase 2) has a negative impact on delay and queuing at Oak Road during the morning and evening peak periods when compared to the Phase 1 improvements. Mitigation 1, with signal timing adjustments, results in a queue length increase for the SBRT movement during the a.m. peak hour and the SBTH movement during the a.m. (694ft) and p.m. (445ft) peak hours as compared to Phase 1. The 694ft queue during the morning corresponds to an average delay less than the cycle length, meaning that, on average, vehicles are able to travel through the intersection on the first green indication that they receive. As this is an average, some vehicles may have to wait for the second green they receive. Mitigation 2, with geometric modifications to provide two SBRT lanes, the improvement is expected to result in queue length decrease for the SBRT movement during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, the queuing for the SBTH is expected to increase during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As with Mitigation 1, the long SBTH queue during the morning corresponds to an average delay less than the cycle length. On average vehicles are able to travel through the intersection on the first green indication but some vehicles may have to wait for the second green. Compared to Mitigation 1, Mitigation 2 results in less queueing for the SBRT movement. The tradeoff for the geometric improvement for the queue length reduction is the need to eliminate the west leg crosswalk. The geometric modification includes offsetting the curb and gutter at the north eastern corner of the intersection inwards and cutting back the median nose on the east leg to accommodate convenient southbound left-turn movements. Mitigation 3, with geometric modifications and timing adjustments, is expected to result in queue length increase for the SBRT movement during the a.m. peak hour and a small increase in queue length for the SBTH movement for the p.m. peak hour. This scenario results in better intersection delay and queue lengths than Mitigation 1 and Mitigation 2. For the future year alternatives the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. This optimization results in higher delays for side street and left turn movements, as indicated by the high delay at Treat Boulevard/Jones Road during the p.m. peak hour. Although performance degrades slightly with the free right turn removal at Oak Road, the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 485 Experts Connecting Communities high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps are mitigated. Removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment reduces the potential negative impact of the improvements at the corridor level. Table 2: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year (2040) Intersection Peak Hour Phase 1 Improvements Free RT Removal at Oak Road Mitigation 1, (Mitigation 2), and [Mitigation 3] Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Control Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of Interest Queue Length (ft) Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 83.3 F WBLT 455 Not Applicable WBRT 0 P.M. 75.9 E WBLT 506 WBRT 562 Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.5 C WBRT 310 NBRT 0 P.M. 13.8 B WBRT 135 NBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 61.3 E SBRT 0 67.5 (67.6) [61.9] E SBRT 211 (113) [211] SBTH 273 SBTH 694 (694) [276] WBRT 25 WBRT n/a WBTH 188 WB TH/RT 193 (193) [193] P.M. 30.9 C SBRT 498 36.7 (29.3) [30.5] D SBRT 314 (188) [314] SBTH 198 SBTH 445 (445) [217] WBRT 0 WBRT n/a WBTH 64 WB TH/RT 67 (67) [67] Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 49.6 D No movement of interest Not Applicable P.M. 212.1 F Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length Mitigation 1 – Overlap signal operation for SBRT with EBLT (Mitigation 2) – Reconfigure SB approach to have double SBRT, requires removal of west crosswalk [Mitigation 3] - Reconfigure SB approach to have double SBTH and a SBRT with overlap operation May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 486 Experts Connecting Communities Conclusion Implementation of Concept 4 is expected to result in some increased delay and queuing for motorists at specific intersections on Treat Boulevard. As expected, Phase 2 (the elimination of free right-turn movements at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection) for the future year is expected to result in increased delay and queuing than Phase 1. The three mitigation measures presented is expected to reduce the impact of the Phase 2 improvements. Specific signal timing and geometric modifications may result in optimal performance for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles simultaneously. Implementing the Phase 2 improvements is expected to achieve the goal of eliminating the potentially dangerous weaving along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk. When compared to the benefits for other transportation modes, the increased delay for motorists is relatively small. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 487 Experts Connecting Communities Appendix A – Current Year Synchro Reports May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 488 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3332 3236 3505 1776 1736 3539 1729 3286 3421 1494 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430071 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 41.7 24.9 61.3 140.0 6.4 27.6 27.6 23.8 49.0 49.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.44 1.00 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 992 575 1534 1776 79 697 340 558 1197 522 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.46 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.00 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.75 0.15 0.30 1.05 0.81 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 49.1 56.7 24.2 0.0 66.0 46.5 47.9 58.1 41.3 31.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 28.8 22.1 0.2 0.9 31.4 0.5 2.2 51.4 6.1 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 78.0 78.8 24.4 0.9 97.4 47.0 50.2 109.5 47.4 31.6 Level of Service E E E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)77.7 30.2 55.0 67.5 Approach LOS E C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 489 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 15.9 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2798 0 0 3049 968 287 613 282 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 2798 0 0 3049 968 386 823 379 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 57.5 61.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 7.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 58.2 68.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 18.0 66.4 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.0 26.3 94.7 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 116.0 29.0 83.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 21.7 27.5 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 91.6 0.6 53.3 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 490 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 244 2133 397 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.47 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5456 1016 3510 5136 1615 3476 3574 1348 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1449 500 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1659 1755 1712 1615 1738 1787 1348 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 39.3 39.3 20.5 39.1 0.0 10.4 10.1 3.1 10.8 19.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1882 649 542 2437 766 294 867 327 148 861 397 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.70 0.00 0.83 0.34 0.11 0.86 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 1882 649 680 2437 766 441 955 360 198 899 414 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.5 39.7 39.7 62.2 30.9 0.0 67.5 46.8 44.1 67.5 50.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 2.6 7.3 7.1 1.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.1 19.0 2.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 17.9 19.4 10.5 18.7 0.0 5.2 5.0 1.2 6.0 9.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 42.4 47.0 69.3 31.9 0.0 72.7 46.8 44.2 86.5 52.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E C E D D F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 636 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.8 40.2 57.7 59.3 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.1 74.9 16.6 41.4 14.6 87.4 16.8 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 55.0 19.0 38.0 13.0 71.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 41.3 12.4 21.0 10.4 41.1 12.8 12.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 13.7 0.3 7.5 0.2 29.8 0.1 9.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 46.8 HCM 2010 LOS D May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 491 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6278 1745 5136 1544 1745 1638 1641 1693 1450 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800013506400039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 571 53 116 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 67.1 34.8 93.6 93.6 15.6 15.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2632 379 3004 903 170 159 230 238 203 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.63 0.31 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.0 58.6 25.5 21.9 67.2 70.1 66.6 66.5 59.3 Progression Factor 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.0 7.4 2.2 3.4 0.4 13.2 16.9 14.8 0.0 Delay (s)66.1 34.5 66.0 27.7 25.2 67.6 83.3 83.4 81.2 59.4 Level of Service E C E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)35.8 30.4 79.8 79.8 Approach LOS D C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 492 Queues AM Base 2014 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 1007 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.04 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.62 0.14 0.57 1.09 0.77 0.23 Control Delay 76.0 87.0 80.4 25.7 0.9 91.7 45.2 11.9 100.4 45.0 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.0 87.0 80.4 25.7 0.9 91.7 45.2 11.9 100.4 45.0 10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 ~514 250 92 0 53 42 31 ~208 422 20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 #512 #356 131 0 #116 70 127 #295 510 69 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 179 968 577 1535 1776 99 758 608 539 1256 617 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 1.04 0.93 0.20 0.46 0.60 0.14 0.57 1.09 0.77 0.23 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 493 Queues AM Base 2014 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1134 1508 555 164 545 1049 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.40 0.51 0.61 0.56 0.84 0.65 Control Delay 81.0 7.4 10.4 11.5 66.6 75.3 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.0 7.9 10.5 11.8 66.6 75.3 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 195 111 95 158 292 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 281 246 130 126 222 334 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 616 2845 2976 910 351 777 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1132 424 68 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.66 0.59 0.66 0.47 0.70 0.65 Intersection Summary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 494 Queues AM Base 2014 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1949 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.82 0.88 0.74 0.07 0.74 0.34 0.09 0.80 0.60 0.46 Control Delay 89.3 44.0 88.0 13.1 0.5 84.1 51.2 0.5 104.3 57.6 20.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.3 44.0 88.0 13.3 0.5 84.1 51.2 0.5 104.3 57.6 20.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 531 225 506 3 130 135 0 131 252 70 Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 586 287 62 m0 168 170 0 #203 295 140 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 285 2389 613 2303 756 397 893 410 178 845 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 94 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.07 0.62 0.33 0.09 0.71 0.60 0.46 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 495 Queues AM Base 2014 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 7:30 am 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1833 286 2363 706 53 180 184 188 45 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.15 Control Delay 71.1 36.1 71.8 29.9 17.3 69.7 67.7 90.0 88.3 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.1 36.1 71.8 29.9 17.3 69.7 67.7 90.0 88.3 1.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 233 284 670 268 53 115 198 203 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m55 345 352 847 459 87 172 257 261 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 178 2640 379 3005 1038 381 413 369 380 410 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.69 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.14 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.11 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 496 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 12 16 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3335 3204 3574 1787 1805 3610 1761 3351 3490 1505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000024400130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 290 735 355 113 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 33.1 18.2 40.6 140.0 18.6 27.9 27.9 38.8 52.1 52.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.24 0.13 0.29 1.00 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 788 416 1036 1787 239 719 350 928 1298 560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.16 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.42 0.62 0.74 0.69 0.83 0.79 0.27 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 49.7 58.0 40.2 0.0 58.3 52.0 53.7 46.9 30.7 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.38 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.5 3.9 0.7 1.5 11.2 5.3 19.7 4.7 0.5 0.8 Delay (s)67.2 55.1 83.7 38.9 1.5 69.5 57.2 73.5 51.5 31.2 30.6 Level of Service E E F D AEEEDCC Approach Delay (s)56.5 22.8 66.2 42.3 Approach LOS E C E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 497 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.81 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 2998 0 0 3074 995 208 416 193 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.80 0.69 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 630 2998 0 0 3074 995 524 1045 486 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 50.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 54.0 51.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.4 0.3 52.3 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 122.0 24.7 97.2 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.0 22.0 70.0 34.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 20.5 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 78.8 0.2 64.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 498 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1976 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 217 2622 217 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.86 0.86 0.12 0.85 0.00 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6125 507 3476 5136 1680 3510 3539 1491 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1427 522 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1774 1738 1712 1680 1755 1770 1491 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 11.8 11.8 5.0 10.8 0.0 8.3 12.9 11.6 8.9 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 217 2080 760 213 2189 716 326 887 374 166 876 416 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.69 0.69 0.74 0.66 0.00 0.80 0.52 0.47 0.83 0.30 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 2080 760 302 2189 716 611 1108 467 397 1268 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.3 5.6 5.6 49.6 5.7 0.0 51.1 37.1 36.6 51.1 34.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 1.7 4.5 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.0 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.2 6.3 2.4 4.8 0.0 4.1 6.3 4.8 4.5 3.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 7.3 10.1 51.2 6.6 0.0 52.8 37.3 37.0 55.2 35.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D A D D D E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 11.0 41.7 42.3 Approach LOS B B D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 55.2 14.7 34.0 11.3 55.0 14.9 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 49.0 20.0 42.0 10.0 49.0 26.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 13.8 10.3 9.0 7.2 12.8 10.9 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 35.0 0.3 6.7 0.1 36.0 0.1 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 2010 LOS B May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 499 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 7/30/2014 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6407 1728 5136 1500 1745 1581 1641 1671 1457 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000120014200083 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 172 132 325 0 289 296 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.7 45.7 13.6 53.6 53.6 31.4 31.4 29.3 29.3 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 2091 167 1966 574 391 354 343 349 304 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 c0.08 0.31 0.08 c0.21 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.00 0.80 0.82 0.30 0.34 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 65.4 47.0 61.8 38.8 30.1 45.6 53.0 53.1 53.2 44.4 Progression Factor 1.47 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 15.3 21.2 3.9 1.3 0.2 27.4 16.3 16.5 0.0 Delay (s)96.8 42.7 83.1 42.6 31.4 45.8 80.5 69.4 69.7 44.5 Level of Service F D F D C D F E E D Approach Delay (s)44.0 43.7 72.8 65.7 Approach LOS D D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 500 Queues PM Base 2014 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 607 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.42 0.62 0.74 0.68 0.90 0.79 0.27 0.35 Control Delay 79.8 54.8 86.5 38.9 7.0 75.9 57.4 41.9 36.2 34.1 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.8 54.8 86.5 38.9 7.0 75.9 57.4 41.9 36.2 34.1 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 265 126 138 128 156 221 224 197 118 21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 317 174 114 890 222 273 #395 #409 190 102 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 199 902 572 1178 1787 309 722 596 927 1300 690 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.67 0.48 0.37 0.62 0.57 0.68 0.90 0.79 0.27 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 501 Queues PM Base 2014 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 1112 1488 665 167 285 890 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.36 0.51 0.68 0.75 0.61 0.54 Control Delay 56.2 6.2 13.3 12.0 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.2 6.4 13.3 12.4 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 261 166 158 133 149 131 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m270 m244 181 169 218 170 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 710 3066 2911 981 428 888 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1144 0 61 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.58 0.51 0.72 0.39 0.32 0.54 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 502 Queues PM Base 2014 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 1949 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.74 0.10 0.71 0.45 0.32 0.73 0.26 0.78 Control Delay 71.8 40.4 91.4 29.3 5.1 71.4 42.3 6.6 80.5 38.1 38.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.8 40.4 91.4 29.3 5.1 71.4 42.3 6.6 80.5 38.1 38.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 462 77 182 3 120 180 0 123 94 268 Queue Length 95th (ft) 107 540 m99 275 m16 163 236 57 181 127 382 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 257 2524 243 1936 707 483 1021 557 314 1060 624 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.77 0.65 0.74 0.10 0.54 0.45 0.32 0.44 0.25 0.76 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 503 Queues PM Base 2014 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 Base Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2085 133 1604 292 132 467 289 296 105 v/c Ratio 0.32 1.00 0.79 0.80 0.42 0.34 0.94 0.84 0.85 0.26 Control Delay 97.9 46.6 92.2 43.9 14.6 46.9 60.1 73.9 74.3 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 97.9 46.6 92.2 43.9 14.6 46.9 60.1 73.9 74.3 5.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 ~645 119 506 62 98 267 266 273 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m36 #756 #214 #693 162 150 #403 215 221 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 241 2093 186 1996 700 440 535 421 429 467 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 1.00 0.72 0.80 0.42 0.30 0.87 0.69 0.69 0.22 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 504 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)27 646 149 514 290 792 56 103 328 532 885 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3333 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 818 189 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0000002430069 Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 993 0 535 302 825 59 108 102 585 973 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 38.7 24.9 58.3 140.0 6.4 30.6 30.6 23.8 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.18 0.42 1.00 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)63 921 575 1410 1515 79 773 378 558 1270 555 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 c0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.54 0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 1.08 0.93 0.21 0.54 0.75 0.14 0.27 1.05 0.77 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 66.2 50.6 56.7 26.2 0.0 66.0 44.1 45.4 58.1 38.7 29.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 53.1 22.1 0.2 1.4 31.4 0.4 1.7 51.4 4.5 0.5 Delay (s)70.5 103.8 78.8 26.4 1.4 97.4 44.5 47.2 109.5 43.1 29.6 Level of Service E F E C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)102.7 30.9 52.4 64.8 Approach LOS F C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 505 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 975 0 0 1402 516 143 474 913 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1134 0 0 1508 0 164 545 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 25.7 0.0 13.6 22.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2787 0 0 3033 963 288 614 283 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.57 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 655 2787 0 0 3033 963 389 829 382 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 57.4 61.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 7.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 6.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 58.0 68.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A B E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1586 1508 709 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.8 18.3 66.1 Approach LOS C B E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.4 26.3 94.1 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.4 29.0 82.4 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 21.7 27.7 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 90.9 0.6 52.6 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.3 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 506 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)173 1446 269 430 1500 46 211 251 31 108 433 207 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1866 1900 1900 1881 1827 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 1643 306 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 243 1929 359 588 2381 720 294 906 344 148 900 415 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.46 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5454 1016 3510 5136 1553 3476 3574 1355 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 1450 499 489 1705 0 245 292 36 127 509 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1656 1755 1712 1553 1738 1787 1355 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 41.8 41.8 20.2 40.0 0.0 10.4 10.0 2.1 10.8 18.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 41.8 41.8 20.2 40.0 0.0 10.4 10.0 2.1 10.8 18.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 1702 586 588 2381 720 294 906 344 148 900 415 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.72 0.00 0.83 0.32 0.10 0.86 0.57 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 299 1702 586 632 2381 720 441 1002 380 197 945 435 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.84 0.84 0.84 0.55 0.55 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.6 44.8 44.8 60.4 32.3 0.0 67.6 45.5 19.7 67.6 48.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 4.8 12.5 4.6 1.0 0.0 5.3 0.1 0.0 19.1 2.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 19.3 21.2 10.2 19.0 0.0 5.2 4.9 1.1 6.0 9.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.6 49.6 57.3 65.0 33.3 0.0 72.9 45.5 19.7 86.7 50.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D E E C E D B F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2146 2194 573 636 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.1 40.4 55.6 57.9 Approach LOS D D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 59.0 16.7 43.1 14.6 85.6 16.8 43.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 * 53 19.0 40.0 13.0 69.0 17.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.2 43.8 12.4 20.8 10.5 42.0 12.8 12.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 8.9 0.3 8.1 0.1 24.2 0.1 10.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 507 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)64 1380 141 240 1985 593 44 43 106 234 78 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6280 1745 5136 1552 1745 1639 1641 1693 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 1663 170 286 2363 706 53 52 128 279 93 45 RTOR Reduction (vph)0800012806500039 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1825 0 286 2363 578 53 115 0 184 188 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 66.7 34.8 93.2 93.2 15.9 15.9 22.6 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.42 0.22 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 2617 379 2991 904 173 162 231 239 205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.29 c0.16 c0.46 0.03 c0.07 c0.11 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.37 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.64 0.31 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 73.7 38.4 58.6 25.8 22.2 66.9 69.8 66.5 66.4 59.3 Progression Factor 1.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 7.4 2.2 3.5 0.4 11.5 16.1 14.5 0.0 Delay (s)88.7 8.4 66.0 28.0 25.7 67.3 81.4 82.6 80.8 59.3 Level of Service F A E C C E F F F E Approach Delay (s)11.6 30.8 78.2 79.3 Approach LOS B C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 508 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 1007 535 302 825 59 108 345 585 973 142 v/c Ratio 0.39 1.12 0.93 0.21 0.54 0.62 0.13 0.53 1.09 0.73 0.22 Control Delay 76.0 115.3 80.4 27.8 1.4 91.7 42.7 10.2 99.2 41.2 9.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.0 115.3 80.4 27.8 1.4 91.7 42.7 10.2 99.2 41.2 9.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 ~551 250 96 0 53 41 24 ~177 407 19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 #548 #356 137 0 #116 68 114 #295 492 67 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 179 897 577 1411 1515 99 834 645 539 1329 648 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 1.12 0.93 0.21 0.54 0.60 0.13 0.53 1.09 0.73 0.22 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 509 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1134 1508 555 164 545 1049 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.40 0.53 0.63 0.56 0.84 0.65 Control Delay 81.0 7.5 5.1 7.2 66.5 75.2 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.0 8.0 5.3 8.0 66.5 75.2 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 197 43 26 158 292 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 281 250 187 418 222 333 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 616 2834 2862 882 353 781 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1125 509 114 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.66 0.64 0.72 0.46 0.70 0.65 Intersection Summary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 510 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 1949 489 1705 52 245 292 36 127 509 244 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.88 0.80 0.76 0.08 0.74 0.32 0.08 0.80 0.57 0.45 Control Delay 100.7 49.6 45.1 13.6 0.8 84.1 49.5 0.4 104.3 55.5 19.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 100.7 49.6 45.1 13.8 0.8 84.1 49.5 0.4 104.3 55.5 19.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 109 551 260 557 5 130 133 0 131 247 67 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 592 296 56 m0 168 166 0 #203 290 134 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 287 2211 613 2241 676 397 938 439 178 887 547 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 77 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00060000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.08 0.62 0.31 0.08 0.71 0.57 0.45 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 511 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 1833 286 2363 706 53 180 184 188 45 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.31 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.15 Control Delay 93.0 10.1 71.8 30.1 18.2 69.5 65.2 89.4 87.9 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.0 10.1 71.8 30.1 18.2 69.5 65.2 89.4 87.9 1.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 66 284 670 283 53 113 198 203 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m52 425 352 850 481 87 171 256 261 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 178 2625 379 2992 1031 403 434 410 423 445 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.70 0.75 0.79 0.68 0.13 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.10 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 512 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)74 481 89 234 370 944 153 429 465 684 330 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3336 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 512 95 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 00000019900134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 596 0 275 435 1111 176 493 335 735 355 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 32.8 17.6 39.7 140.0 18.6 35.0 35.0 32.6 53.0 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.28 1.00 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 781 402 979 1525 239 902 440 780 1321 570 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.14 c0.22 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.73 0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.76 0.68 0.44 0.73 0.74 0.55 0.76 0.94 0.27 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 62.5 50.0 58.5 41.1 0.0 58.3 45.6 48.6 52.8 30.1 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 5.7 4.8 0.8 2.8 11.2 2.4 11.8 19.5 0.5 0.7 Delay (s)67.2 55.7 74.0 25.4 2.8 69.5 48.0 60.4 72.2 30.6 29.9 Level of Service E E E C A E D E E C C Approach Delay (s)57.0 19.0 56.7 53.4 Approach LOS E B E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 513 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)508 1045 0 0 1414 632 160 274 854 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 540 1112 0 0 1488 0 167 285 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 209 416 194 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.68 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 2984 0 0 2999 971 528 1053 490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 50.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 53.8 51.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1652 1488 452 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.2 0.3 52.1 Approach LOS C A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 121.6 47.2 74.4 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 21.0 * 69 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 20.4 2.0 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 35.1 0.5 43.8 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 514 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)145 1620 134 152 1394 70 239 425 163 120 226 413 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 1800 149 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 219 2476 205 216 2157 678 325 915 386 166 903 429 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.28 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.26 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 6124 507 3476 5136 1615 3510 3539 1494 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 1428 521 157 1437 0 260 462 177 138 260 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1619 1774 1738 1712 1615 1755 1770 1494 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 25.9 25.9 5.2 28.8 0.0 8.4 12.9 9.1 9.0 7.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 25.9 25.9 5.2 28.8 0.0 8.4 12.9 9.1 9.0 7.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 1964 717 216 2157 678 325 915 386 166 903 429 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.67 0.00 0.80 0.51 0.46 0.83 0.29 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 296 1964 717 239 2157 678 604 1157 488 393 1314 623 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.90 0.90 0.90 0.64 0.64 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.3 22.0 22.0 54.7 34.6 0.0 51.7 36.8 22.6 51.7 34.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 2.2 5.7 5.0 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.1 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 11.8 13.7 2.7 13.9 0.0 4.2 6.4 4.2 4.6 3.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.9 24.1 27.7 59.8 35.6 0.0 53.4 36.9 22.9 55.8 35.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D D C E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2110 1594 899 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.6 38.0 38.9 42.2 Approach LOS CDDD Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 53.0 14.8 35.3 11.4 54.8 15.0 35.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 * 47 20.0 44.0 10.0 47.0 26.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 27.9 10.4 9.0 7.3 30.8 11.0 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 17.8 0.3 6.7 0.1 13.9 0.1 6.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 515 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47 1774 82 122 1476 269 112 28 369 299 46 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6408 1728 5136 1508 1745 1582 1641 1671 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 1993 92 133 1604 292 132 33 434 507 78 105 RTOR Reduction (vph)04000110021800082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2081 0 133 1604 182 132 249 0 289 296 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 50.3 14.2 56.5 56.5 25.2 25.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.36 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 2302 175 2072 608 314 284 355 361 315 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.32 0.08 c0.31 0.08 c0.16 0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.90 0.76 0.77 0.30 0.42 0.88 0.81 0.82 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 63.2 42.6 61.2 36.2 28.3 50.9 55.9 52.2 52.3 43.7 Progression Factor 0.50 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 4.5 15.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 24.0 12.7 12.9 0.0 Delay (s)31.9 17.7 77.1 39.1 29.6 51.3 79.9 64.9 65.1 43.7 Level of Service C B E D C D E E E D Approach Delay (s)18.1 40.2 73.6 61.8 Approach LOS B D E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 516 Queues 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 607 275 435 1111 176 493 534 735 355 243 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.68 0.44 0.73 0.74 0.55 0.84 0.94 0.27 0.35 Control Delay 79.8 55.3 77.4 25.7 11.1 75.9 48.3 37.2 53.4 33.1 8.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.8 55.3 77.4 25.7 11.1 75.9 48.3 37.2 53.4 33.1 8.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 265 125 117 421 156 206 250 197 118 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 321 151 140 888 222 255 377 #436 182 90 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 199 916 457 1046 1525 309 902 639 779 1321 704 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.66 0.60 0.42 0.73 0.57 0.55 0.84 0.94 0.27 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 517 Queues 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 1112 1488 665 167 285 890 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.36 0.49 0.65 0.75 0.61 0.54 Control Delay 81.1 3.1 6.8 6.2 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.1 3.3 6.8 6.8 77.9 62.7 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~250 98 92 58 149 131 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#336 m133 130 108 218 170 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 330 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 534 3055 3056 1026 431 893 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 956 0 107 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.01 0.53 0.49 0.72 0.39 0.32 0.54 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 518 Queues 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 1949 157 1437 72 260 462 177 138 260 475 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.80 0.66 0.77 0.11 0.71 0.43 0.31 0.73 0.24 0.74 Control Delay 75.3 37.4 38.1 17.4 0.4 71.4 40.8 6.3 80.5 36.8 34.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.3 37.4 38.1 17.4 0.4 71.4 40.8 6.3 80.5 36.8 34.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 385 73 61 0 120 182 0 123 95 253 Queue Length 95th (ft) 117 418 m78 170 m0 163 231 55 181 124 356 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 259 2428 239 1870 631 483 1066 575 314 1107 657 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.80 0.66 0.77 0.11 0.54 0.43 0.31 0.44 0.23 0.72 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 519 Queues 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 Existing PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 2085 133 1604 292 132 467 289 296 105 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.40 0.42 0.93 0.82 0.82 0.25 Control Delay 32.7 24.7 86.7 41.2 16.1 52.5 48.8 69.7 70.0 3.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.7 24.7 86.7 41.2 16.1 52.5 48.8 69.7 70.0 3.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 516 119 475 65 107 198 266 272 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m28 #832 #214 #788 187 147 276 206 211 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 241 2303 194 2102 723 461 614 468 477 517 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.91 0.69 0.76 0.40 0.29 0.76 0.62 0.62 0.20 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 520 Experts Connecting Communities Appendix B – Future Year Synchro Reports May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 521 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 1 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40 789 167 554 363 1095 70 136 356 585 890 163 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1678 3342 3236 3388 1515 1736 3539 1730 3286 3421 1496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 999 211 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0000002180075 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1197 0 577 378 1141 74 143 157 643 978 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)27 5 5 27 8 4 4 8 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 42.0 20.8 55.7 140.0 8.7 32.2 32.2 23.0 50.5 50.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.40 1.00 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)85 1002 480 1347 1515 107 813 397 539 1234 539 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.36 c0.18 0.11 0.04 0.04 c0.20 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.75 0.09 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 1.20 1.20 0.28 0.75 0.69 0.18 0.40 1.19 0.79 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 65.1 49.0 59.6 28.6 0.0 64.3 43.3 45.7 58.5 40.1 30.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 97.6 109.5 0.3 3.5 17.5 0.5 2.9 104.1 5.3 0.8 Delay (s)72.4 146.6 169.1 28.9 3.5 81.9 43.7 48.6 162.6 45.3 31.6 Level of Service E F F C A F D D F D C Approach Delay (s)143.6 53.7 51.6 85.8 Approach LOS F D D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 83.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 522 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 1 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)389 1189 0 0 1767 531 187 500 1171 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1918 0 0 1881 1918 1759 1881 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %330013812 Cap, veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3741 0 0 5305 1631 1675 3574 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 1383 0 0 1900 0 215 575 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1823 0 0 1712 1631 1675 1787 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.8 22.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 18.3 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 2759 0 0 2994 951 302 643 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.71 0.89 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 673 2759 0 0 2994 951 390 833 384 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 58.6 60.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.5 8.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 11.6 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 8.7 12.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 61.1 69.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A C E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1900 790 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 21.5 67.2 Approach LOS C C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 120.0 26.4 93.6 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 115.0 30.0 81.0 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.6 21.8 39.2 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 89.1 0.6 41.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.5 HCM 2010 LOS C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 523 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1881 1827 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222014116423 Cap, veh/h 240 2192 359 445 2376 718 374 920 349 156 847 390 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5579 914 3510 5136 1553 3476 3574 1357 1740 3539 1631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1983 0 370 369 51 136 480 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1680 1755 1712 1553 1738 1787 1357 1740 1770 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 58.3 58.9 20.0 53.3 0.0 16.8 13.5 3.4 12.2 18.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 58.3 58.9 20.0 53.3 0.0 16.8 13.5 3.4 12.2 18.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 1891 660 445 2376 718 374 920 349 156 847 390 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.96 0.97 1.05 0.83 0.00 0.99 0.40 0.15 0.87 0.57 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 1891 660 445 2376 718 374 920 349 187 897 413 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.0 46.8 47.0 68.9 37.1 0.0 70.3 48.5 24.5 70.9 52.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.2 10.5 22.8 42.0 1.5 0.0 43.1 0.1 0.1 26.2 2.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 27.6 31.5 12.2 25.5 0.0 10.3 6.7 1.7 7.0 9.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 103.2 57.3 69.7 110.9 38.6 0.0 113.4 48.6 24.5 97.1 55.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E E F D F D C F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2451 790 616 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.1 52.4 77.4 64.3 Approach LOS E D E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.2 68.0 21.0 42.8 15.0 81.2 18.2 45.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 11.0 73.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 60.9 18.8 20.8 12.1 55.3 14.2 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.5 0.0 17.0 0.0 9.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 524 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 1 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)137 1664 218 233 2051 811 63 80 106 236 106 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3224 6248 1745 5136 1552 1745 1673 1641 1705 1454 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 2005 263 277 2442 965 76 96 128 281 126 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 190 0 33 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2257 0 277 2442 775 76 191 0 200 207 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 18 18 10 20 13 13 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)5% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 77.1 16.0 86.1 86.1 22.6 22.6 24.3 24.3 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.48 0.10 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 3010 174 2763 835 246 236 249 258 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.36 c0.16 0.48 0.04 c0.11 c0.12 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.50 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.75 1.59 0.88 0.93 0.31 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 76.5 33.6 72.0 32.5 34.1 61.7 66.6 65.5 65.5 57.9 Progression Factor 0.75 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 101.8 0.7 291.8 4.6 17.9 0.3 17.1 16.0 15.4 0.0 Delay (s)159.3 6.1 363.8 37.1 52.0 61.9 83.7 81.5 81.0 58.0 Level of Service F A F D D E F F F E Approach Delay (s)16.4 65.6 78.2 78.0 Approach LOS BEEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 525 Queues Phase 1 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 1210 577 378 1141 74 143 375 643 978 179 v/c Ratio 0.53 1.19 1.25 0.28 0.75 0.69 0.17 0.60 1.19 0.78 0.29 Control Delay 82.7 138.2 176.9 30.2 3.5 95.4 43.3 16.4 137.1 44.7 12.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 82.7 138.2 176.9 30.2 3.5 95.4 43.3 16.4 137.1 44.7 12.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 ~694 ~337 125 0 67 55 68 ~278 415 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 #669 #455 170 0 #142 86 178 #400 502 95 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 306 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 119 1015 462 1347 1515 111 834 624 539 1254 622 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 1.19 1.25 0.28 0.75 0.67 0.17 0.60 1.19 0.78 0.29 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 526 Queues Phase 1 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 1383 1900 571 215 575 1346 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.49 0.68 0.66 0.70 0.85 0.83 Control Delay 80.0 9.1 5.6 6.0 72.6 74.4 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Total Delay 80.0 9.8 6.2 7.1 72.6 74.4 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 276 138 37 212 308 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 279 333 m379 m310 286 352 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)258 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 637 2802 2812 867 357 790 1616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 997 456 116 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 173 000074 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.77 0.81 0.76 0.60 0.73 0.87 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 527 Queues Phase 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2460 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 v/c Ratio 0.94 1.01 1.01 0.88 0.07 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.84 0.54 0.16 Control Delay 121.0 60.8 75.3 18.9 1.3 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 54.8 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 121.0 63.1 75.3 19.5 1.3 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 54.8 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 124 ~751 ~259 202 0 ~214 171 0 141 231 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#186 #801 m#324 188 m3 #300 212 0 #225 273 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 236 2446 465 2264 683 356 926 436 178 884 1701 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 20 0 73 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 10 0000003 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 1.01 1.01 0.91 0.07 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.76 0.54 0.16 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 528 Queues Phase 1 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 2268 277 2442 965 76 224 200 207 65 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.75 1.59 0.88 0.94 0.31 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.20 Control Delay 151.3 7.3 334.2 38.3 37.9 63.0 79.3 87.7 86.8 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 151.3 7.3 334.2 38.3 37.9 63.0 79.3 87.7 86.8 1.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~107 71 ~411 801 643 73 193 216 224 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#114 196 #552 #1013 #965 110 248 272 281 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 141 3022 174 2763 1024 403 416 410 426 455 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.75 1.59 0.88 0.94 0.19 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.14 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 529 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 1 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81 614 223 589 501 1030 179 401 509 626 625 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 12 10 11 11 12 12 16 11 11 11 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1745 3276 3204 3455 1525 1805 3610 1762 3351 3490 1508 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 653 237 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 00000023700103 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 864 0 693 589 1212 206 461 348 673 672 135 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)36 7 7 36 17 4 4 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 9 6 Permitted Phases Free 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 38.0 22.0 49.4 140.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 23.0 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.16 0.35 1.00 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 889 503 1219 1525 256 902 440 550 1049 453 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.26 c0.22 0.17 0.11 0.13 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.79 0.20 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 1.38 0.48 0.79 0.80 0.51 0.79 1.22 0.64 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 50.5 59.0 35.3 0.0 58.2 45.1 49.1 58.5 42.4 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 23.8 179.5 0.7 3.4 16.6 2.1 13.5 116.2 3.0 1.7 Delay (s)71.4 74.2 225.2 25.4 3.4 74.7 47.2 62.6 174.7 45.4 39.3 Level of Service E E F C A E D E F D D Approach Delay (s)74.0 70.2 58.9 99.4 Approach LOS E E E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 530 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 1 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)523 1155 0 0 1924 657 201 260 847 0 0 0 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1956 0 0 1881 1956 1881 1881 1956 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Adj No. of Lanes 220031121 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %310011111 Cap, veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3408 3815 0 0 5305 1663 1792 3574 1663 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 556 1229 0 0 2025 0 209 271 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 1859 0 0 1712 1663 1792 1787 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 8.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 248 496 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.84 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 727 2909 0 0 2713 879 514 1026 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 48.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.1 4.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.5 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 54.2 49.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1785 2025 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 0.6 51.4 Approach LOS B A D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 118.5 49.1 69.4 21.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.4 26.0 * 64 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 20.7 2.0 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 41.0 4.8 54.9 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 531 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1881 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 0 Adj No. of Lanes 240231221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211110021342 Cap, veh/h 183 2365 286 343 2378 748 293 857 360 171 862 409 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.20 0.93 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5877 712 3476 5136 1615 3510 3539 1488 1757 3471 1647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1935 0 282 487 189 147 407 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1730 1738 1712 1615 1755 1770 1488 1757 1736 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 32.9 32.9 11.1 14.9 0.0 10.5 15.9 11.0 10.9 13.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 32.9 32.9 11.1 14.9 0.0 10.5 15.9 11.0 10.9 13.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 183 1955 696 343 2378 748 293 857 360 171 862 409 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.88 0.81 0.00 0.96 0.57 0.52 0.86 0.47 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 183 1955 696 343 2378 748 293 1021 429 200 1080 513 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 25.9 25.9 52.1 3.2 0.0 60.2 43.9 25.0 58.6 42.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.4 2.8 7.5 2.5 0.3 0.0 41.9 0.2 0.4 23.8 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 15.0 17.1 5.4 5.8 0.0 6.8 7.8 5.2 6.4 6.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.1 28.7 33.4 54.6 3.5 0.0 102.1 44.1 25.4 82.4 43.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F C C D A F D C F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2236 958 554 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.4 10.3 57.5 53.9 Approach LOS C B E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 37.7 11.0 67.0 16.8 36.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 7.0 61.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 34.9 12.5 15.1 8.1 16.9 12.9 17.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 39.6 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 532 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Phase 1 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)50 1774 135 210 2008 307 153 32 392 505 118 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3385 6369 1728 5136 1503 1745 1584 1641 1681 1460 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.59 0.59 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 56 1993 152 228 2183 334 180 38 461 856 200 220 RTOR Reduction (vph)08000117080000116 Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2137 0 228 2183 217 180 419 0 522 534 104 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 23 23 13 19 17 17 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 1 Heavy Vehicles (%)0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 36.0 7.0 37.4 37.4 37.0 37.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 1637 86 1372 401 461 418 468 480 417 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.34 c0.13 c0.43 0.10 c0.26 c0.32 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.41 1.31 2.65 1.59 0.54 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 65.6 52.0 66.5 51.3 44.0 42.2 51.5 50.0 50.0 38.4 Progression Factor 0.59 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 140.1 775.2 269.5 5.2 0.2 44.5 77.0 75.5 0.1 Delay (s)39.4 165.8 841.7 320.8 49.2 42.4 96.0 127.0 125.5 38.6 Level of Service D F F F D D F F F D Approach Delay (s)162.6 331.0 81.8 111.1 Approach LOS FFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 212.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 533 Queues Phase 1 1: N. Main St. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 890 693 589 1212 206 461 585 673 672 238 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 1.38 0.48 0.79 0.80 0.51 0.86 1.22 0.64 0.43 Control Delay 84.8 72.1 215.5 26.3 14.7 80.8 47.5 36.7 149.2 46.4 17.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 84.8 72.1 215.5 26.3 14.7 80.8 47.5 36.7 149.2 46.4 17.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 77 410 ~426 177 877 182 191 257 ~300 283 62 Queue Length 95th (ft) 135 #552 #506 163 562 260 238 #406 #422 359 146 Internal Link Dist (ft)1359 309 1086 1080 Turn Bay Length (ft)68 243 225 102 196 90 Base Capacity (vph) 162 915 503 1218 1525 296 902 677 550 1049 556 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.97 1.38 0.48 0.79 0.70 0.51 0.86 1.22 0.64 0.43 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 534 Queues Phase 1 2: NB I-680 Off Ramp/Buskirk Ave & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 556 1229 2025 692 209 271 882 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.41 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.49 0.53 Control Delay 50.9 3.7 10.0 7.6 76.9 56.3 1.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.9 4.2 10.2 7.9 76.9 56.3 1.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 212 111 191 113 186 120 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m211 m130 m276 m135 260 155 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)255 655 1047 Turn Bay Length (ft) 220 267 437 Base Capacity (vph) 655 2964 2759 944 431 893 1652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1147 159 40 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.68 0.78 0.77 0.48 0.30 0.53 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 535 Queues Phase 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 2064 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.85 0.84 0.90 0.13 0.97 0.50 0.34 0.85 0.40 0.87 Control Delay 118.9 42.1 34.1 12.3 0.0 109.4 44.8 6.9 100.4 41.1 50.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 118.9 42.1 34.1 12.3 0.0 109.4 44.8 6.9 100.4 41.1 50.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 78 474 150 141 0 134 198 0 133 156 337 Queue Length 95th (ft) #152 431 m112 m64 m0 #228 255 60 #237 198 #498 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 600 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 171 2417 359 2162 717 290 979 551 181 1016 589 Starvation Cap Reductn 00030000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.85 0.84 0.90 0.13 0.97 0.50 0.34 0.81 0.40 0.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 536 Queues Phase 1 4: Jones Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/15/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 2145 228 2183 334 180 499 522 534 220 v/c Ratio 0.34 1.30 2.65 1.56 0.64 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.41 Control Delay 41.7 165.2 798.8 289.4 29.7 45.3 80.7 122.5 121.1 13.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.7 165.2 798.8 289.4 29.7 45.3 80.7 122.5 121.1 13.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 ~699 ~349 ~1053 145 135 ~378 ~571 ~584 39 Queue Length 95th (ft) m28 #765 #521 #1146 258 195 #553 389 395 27 Internal Link Dist (ft)700 1282 449 751 Turn Bay Length (ft) 341 175 295 228 Base Capacity (vph) 169 1645 86 1401 525 461 498 468 480 533 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 1.30 2.65 1.56 0.64 0.39 1.00 1.12 1.11 0.41 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 537 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221111 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116423 Cap, veh/h 258 2162 354 439 2315 58 369 953 363 156 466 489 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5144 130 3476 3574 1362 1740 1863 1466 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1318 715 370 369 51 136 480 276 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1711 1852 1738 1787 1362 1740 1863 1466 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 59.6 60.3 20.0 55.1 55.3 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 40.0 25.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 59.6 60.3 20.0 55.1 55.3 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 40.0 25.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1865 651 439 1540 833 369 953 363 156 466 489 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.98 0.98 1.07 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.39 0.14 0.87 1.03 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1865 651 439 1540 833 369 953 363 185 466 489 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.2 48.3 48.5 70.0 39.4 39.4 71.5 48.0 24.2 71.9 60.0 44.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.2 12.7 25.7 47.1 2.7 5.0 47.3 0.1 0.1 27.2 49.8 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 28.7 32.5 12.6 26.6 29.4 10.6 6.7 1.6 7.1 27.0 10.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.3 60.9 74.2 117.1 42.1 44.4 118.8 48.1 24.3 99.1 109.8 48.7 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C F F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2501 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.6 56.8 79.7 89.3 Approach LOS E E E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 68.0 21.0 45.0 16.0 78.0 18.4 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 12.0 72.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 62.3 19.0 42.0 12.2 57.3 14.3 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 12.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.5 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 538 Queues Phase 2 Mit 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2460 468 2033 370 369 51 136 480 276 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.92 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.84 1.03 0.44 Control Delay 108.1 60.8 75.3 21.4 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 107.4 28.3 Queue Delay 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.1 63.1 75.3 22.4 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 107.4 28.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 ~751 ~259 295 ~214 171 0 141 ~536 146 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#173 #801 m#324 193 #300 212 0 #225 #694 211 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 257 2446 465 2221 356 926 436 178 465 622 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 20 0 56 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 26 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.94 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.76 1.03 0.44 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 539 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 2 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116423 Cap, veh/h 258 2162 354 439 2315 58 369 953 363 156 466 645 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5578 914 3510 5144 130 3476 3574 1362 1740 1863 2581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1318 715 370 369 51 136 480 276 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1679 1755 1711 1852 1738 1787 1362 1740 1863 1290 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 59.6 60.3 20.0 55.1 55.3 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 40.0 14.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 59.6 60.3 20.0 55.1 55.3 17.0 13.5 3.4 12.3 40.0 14.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1865 651 439 1540 833 369 953 363 156 466 645 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.98 0.98 1.07 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.39 0.14 0.87 1.03 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1865 651 439 1540 833 369 953 363 185 466 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.2 48.3 48.5 70.0 39.4 39.4 71.5 48.0 24.2 71.9 60.0 50.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.2 12.7 25.7 47.1 2.7 5.0 47.3 0.1 0.1 27.2 49.8 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 28.7 32.5 12.6 26.6 29.4 10.6 6.7 1.6 7.1 27.0 5.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.3 60.9 74.2 117.1 42.1 44.4 118.8 48.1 24.3 99.1 109.8 52.0 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C F F D Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2501 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.6 56.8 79.7 90.3 Approach LOS E E E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 68.0 21.0 45.0 16.0 78.0 18.4 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 12.0 72.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 62.3 19.0 42.0 12.2 57.3 14.3 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 12.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 67.6 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 540 Queues Phase 2 Mit 2 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2460 468 2033 370 369 51 136 480 276 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.92 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.84 1.03 0.33 Control Delay 108.1 60.8 75.3 21.4 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 107.4 29.0 Queue Delay 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.1 63.1 75.3 22.4 125.4 50.9 0.5 108.1 107.4 29.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 123 ~751 ~259 295 ~214 171 0 141 ~536 76 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#173 #801 m#324 193 #300 212 0 #225 #694 113 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 257 2446 465 2221 356 926 436 178 465 831 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 20 0 56 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 26 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 1.01 0.94 1.04 0.40 0.12 0.76 1.03 0.33 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 541 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 3 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)195 1859 306 412 1745 44 318 317 44 116 408 235 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1865 1900 1900 1880 1900 1881 1881 1792 1827 1863 1918 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 222 2112 348 468 1983 50 370 369 51 136 480 276 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222011116423 Cap, veh/h 260 2181 357 443 2336 59 373 931 354 156 861 479 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5579 914 3510 5144 130 3476 3574 1359 1740 3539 1462 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 222 1820 640 468 1318 715 370 369 51 136 480 276 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1604 1680 1755 1711 1852 1738 1787 1359 1740 1770 1462 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 58.7 59.4 20.0 54.2 54.4 16.9 13.5 3.4 12.2 18.8 25.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 58.7 59.4 20.0 54.2 54.4 16.9 13.5 3.4 12.2 18.8 25.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 260 1882 657 443 1554 841 373 931 354 156 861 479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.97 0.97 1.06 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.40 0.14 0.87 0.56 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 1882 657 443 1554 841 373 931 354 187 893 492 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.4 47.3 47.5 69.3 38.4 38.5 70.7 48.3 24.4 71.2 52.5 45.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 11.2 23.7 43.8 2.6 4.7 44.6 0.1 0.1 26.6 2.1 4.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 27.9 31.9 12.3 26.2 28.9 10.4 6.7 1.7 7.0 9.5 10.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.5 58.5 71.2 113.1 41.0 43.2 115.3 48.4 24.4 97.8 54.6 49.4 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 2682 2501 790 892 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.1 55.1 78.2 59.6 Approach LOS EEEE Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.4 68.0 21.0 43.6 16.0 79.4 18.2 46.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 62 17.0 40.0 12.0 72.0 17.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 61.4 18.9 27.1 12.1 56.4 14.2 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.4 0.0 15.0 0.0 12.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 542 Queues Phase 2 Mit 3 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 AM 7:30 am 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 2460 468 2033 370 369 51 136 480 276 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.89 1.01 0.85 1.04 0.50 0.14 0.84 0.69 0.49 Control Delay 89.1 40.5 75.3 15.6 125.4 58.3 0.8 108.1 64.6 30.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 89.1 41.0 75.3 15.9 125.4 58.3 0.8 108.1 64.6 30.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 122 593 ~259 99 ~214 184 0 141 248 152 Queue Length 95th (ft) m158 #692 m#324 193 #300 215 0 #225 276 211 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 320 2775 465 2391 356 893 424 178 884 567 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 79 0 71 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 26 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.91 1.01 0.88 1.04 0.41 0.12 0.76 0.54 0.49 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 543 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221111 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021342 Cap, veh/h 210 2239 271 325 2144 106 278 983 417 170 527 552 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.19 0.86 0.86 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5876 712 3476 5010 248 3510 3539 1500 1757 1827 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1321 710 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1729 1738 1713 1833 1755 1770 1500 1757 1827 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 36.8 36.9 11.8 33.8 34.4 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 28.4 31.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 36.8 36.9 11.8 33.8 34.4 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 28.4 31.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 1851 659 325 1466 784 278 983 417 170 527 552 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.90 0.90 1.02 0.50 0.45 0.86 0.77 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 297 1851 659 325 1466 784 278 983 417 189 539 562 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.9 30.3 30.3 56.1 8.2 8.2 64.0 42.1 24.0 61.9 45.3 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 3.8 9.9 4.8 1.0 1.9 58.1 0.1 0.3 27.5 9.5 23.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 17.0 19.3 5.9 15.0 16.3 7.6 7.9 5.2 6.9 15.8 17.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.3 34.1 40.3 60.8 9.1 10.1 122.2 42.2 24.3 89.4 54.9 47.3 LnGrp LOS E C D E A B F D C F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2332 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 16.1 62.2 56.0 Approach LOS D B E E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 45.1 12.5 65.5 17.5 43.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 12.0 56.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 38.9 13.0 33.7 8.3 36.4 13.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.6 0.0 5.1 0.2 18.7 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 544 Queues Phase 2 Mit 1 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 2064 301 2031 282 487 189 147 407 511 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.85 0.84 1.01 0.97 0.50 0.34 0.85 0.76 0.72 Control Delay 75.3 42.4 33.2 24.1 109.4 44.8 6.9 100.4 55.6 25.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.3 42.4 33.2 24.1 109.4 44.8 6.9 100.4 55.6 25.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 460 150 ~742 134 198 0 133 338 231 Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 435 m112 m67 #228 255 60 #237 445 314 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 294 2417 359 2001 290 979 551 181 535 718 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.85 0.84 1.01 0.97 0.50 0.34 0.81 0.76 0.71 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 545 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 2 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021342 Cap, veh/h 177 2286 277 332 2243 111 283 936 396 170 500 753 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.78 0.78 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5877 712 3476 5011 248 3510 3539 1496 1757 1827 2752 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1321 710 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1730 1738 1713 1833 1755 1770 1496 1757 1827 1376 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 25.4 25.4 11.6 24.1 24.5 10.9 16.0 11.0 11.2 28.4 18.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 25.4 25.4 11.6 24.1 24.5 10.9 16.0 11.0 11.2 28.4 18.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 177 1890 673 332 1533 821 283 936 396 170 500 753 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.91 0.86 0.87 1.00 0.52 0.48 0.86 0.81 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 177 1890 673 332 1533 821 283 987 417 193 550 828 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 12.1 12.1 54.6 5.2 5.2 62.6 42.7 24.4 60.6 46.3 31.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 38.4 3.4 8.9 3.7 0.7 1.2 52.0 0.2 0.3 26.1 12.3 4.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 11.5 13.4 5.7 10.4 11.3 7.3 7.9 5.2 6.7 16.1 7.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.2 15.4 21.0 58.2 5.9 6.5 114.6 42.9 24.7 86.7 58.5 35.2 LnGrp LOS F B C E A A F D C F E D Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2332 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 12.8 60.4 51.2 Approach LOS C B E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 42.3 11.0 67.0 17.2 41.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 7.0 61.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.6 27.4 12.9 30.4 8.3 26.5 13.2 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 24.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 32.1 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 546 Queues Phase 2 Mit 2 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 2 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 2064 301 2031 282 487 189 147 407 511 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.93 0.51 0.35 0.85 0.79 0.53 Control Delay 103.7 39.9 37.4 12.7 99.2 45.5 7.0 100.4 58.5 27.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 103.7 39.9 37.4 12.7 99.2 45.5 7.0 100.4 58.5 27.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 78 461 150 175 134 198 0 133 338 136 Queue Length 95th (ft) #152 415 m112 m67 #228 255 60 #237 445 188 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 187 2462 359 2160 303 960 544 181 535 996 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.93 0.51 0.35 0.81 0.76 0.51 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 547 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Phase 2 Mit 3 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)144 1657 201 292 1877 93 259 448 174 128 354 445 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1883 1900 1881 1882 1900 1900 1863 1881 1845 1827 1937 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1841 223 301 1935 96 282 487 189 147 407 511 Adj No. of Lanes 240230221121 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %211111021342 Cap, veh/h 208 2239 271 325 2147 106 278 983 417 170 1001 551 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.76 0.76 0.19 0.86 0.86 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 5876 712 3476 5010 248 3510 3539 1500 1757 3471 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1522 542 301 1321 710 282 487 189 147 407 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1620 1729 1738 1713 1833 1755 1770 1500 1757 1736 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 27.8 27.8 11.8 33.6 34.2 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 13.1 31.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 27.8 27.8 11.8 33.6 34.2 11.0 16.0 11.0 11.5 13.1 31.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 1851 659 325 1468 785 278 983 417 170 1001 551 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.90 0.90 1.02 0.50 0.45 0.86 0.41 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 297 1851 659 325 1468 785 278 983 417 189 1023 562 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.2 13.5 13.5 56.1 8.1 8.1 64.0 42.1 24.0 61.9 39.9 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 3.8 9.9 4.8 1.0 1.9 58.1 0.1 0.3 27.5 1.0 23.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 12.6 14.6 5.9 14.7 16.4 7.6 7.9 5.2 6.9 6.5 17.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 17.3 23.5 60.8 9.1 10.0 122.3 42.2 24.3 89.4 40.9 47.5 LnGrp LOS E B C E A A F D C F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 2224 2332 958 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 16.0 62.2 50.8 Approach LOS C B E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 59.0 16.0 45.1 12.4 65.6 17.5 43.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 * 5 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 53 11.0 * 41 12.0 56.0 15.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 29.8 13.0 33.7 8.3 36.2 13.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 21.9 0.0 5.0 0.2 18.9 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 548 Queues Phase 2 Mit 3 3: Oak Rd/Oak Rd. & Treat Blvd 6/19/2015 2040 PM 4:30 pm 5/12/2014 ALT 4 Phase 2 Mitigation 3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 2064 301 2031 282 487 189 147 407 511 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.72 0.84 0.90 0.66 0.66 0.41 0.85 0.64 0.91 Control Delay 67.1 33.3 33.2 13.9 66.0 54.8 8.1 100.4 57.0 44.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 67.1 33.3 33.2 13.9 66.0 54.8 8.1 100.4 57.0 44.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 388 150 175 127 216 0 133 181 259 Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 434 m112 m67 174 257 61 #237 217 314 Internal Link Dist (ft)655 700 1075 548 Turn Bay Length (ft) 164 235 264 202 125 Base Capacity (vph) 335 2847 359 2263 427 960 544 181 1016 568 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.72 0.84 0.90 0.66 0.51 0.35 0.81 0.40 0.90 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 549 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT report from the Director of Environmental Health and the Director of Conservation & Development regarding media coverage asserting that loads of material that may not have been adequately screened for radioactivity were trucked from Hunters Point Naval Shipyard site to multiple different landfills in the state, including Keller Canyon Landfill. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of this report is not expected to impact the General Fund. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Department of Conservation & Development are providing this report due to concerns resulting from recent media coverage alleging that potentially radioactive material was sent to landfills in the state not suitable for disposal of such material, including Keller Canyon Landfill. Attached is an article that was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday, April 22, 2018 (Exhibit A) asserting that loads of material may not have been adequately screened for radioactivity prior to being transported from the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard to various landfills. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-674-7825 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marilyn Underwood, CCEH D.7 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Investigation on Waste Allegedly Sent to Keller Canyon Landfill May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 550 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Staff work to investigate these allegations and assess any threats to public health and safety is ongoing and will continue past the publishing deadline for the May 1, 2018 Board agenda. Staff from the two Departments will provide a verbal report to the Board on May 1 with addition detail on the status of the investigation as of that time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If recommendation is not approved, this report regarding recent media assertions would not be accepted. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Laura Wright, Environmental Affairs Manager, City of Pittsburg; Joe Sbranti, Pittsburg City Manager; Wolfgang Roskey, resident of Pittsburg; Nancy Parent, resident of Pittsburg; Lisa Della Rocca, resident of Pittsburg; Frank Aiello, Citizen United; Luis Arroyo, Citizens United; Jesus Hernandez; Citizens United; A.J. Fardella, Oak Hills Community Group; Russel Row, resident of Pittsburg, Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg.  The following did not wish to speak but left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached): Isvan G. Tolnay, resident of Pittsburg; Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg; Jen Borcic, resident of Pittsburg.  Rick King, General Manager of Keller Canyon Landfill provided a powerpoint presentation (attached).  Dr. Marilyn C. Underwood, Director of Environmental Health, presented an oral report. She said that regulatory agencies have found that a contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to clean up Hunter’s Point shipyard in San Francisco misrepresented radiologic sampling data that was taken from soil at the shipyard. To date, these misrepresentations are tied to potentially contaminated soil and material being left on the site instead of being removed. The studies that have so far been published (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency) reveal that data were falsified to allow potentially contaminated soil to remain in place at Hunter’s Point shipyard.  Dr. Underwood said that at this point there is no evidence that radiological material was sent to Keller Canyon Landfill. She noted the investigation is ongoing.  Dr. Underwood made the following recommendations: 1) Formally request the Department of the Navy to make itself available for meetings with the community and all stakeholders as soon as possible to provide information on the soil date falsification incident and what further investigation(s) are ongoing; 2) Formally request the Navy to investigate whether the soil data falsification incident affected Keller Canyon Landfill, including whether any contaminated soil was transported from Hunter’s Point shipyard to Keller Canyon Landfill; 3) Formally request the Navy to conduct a surface survey of Keller Canyon Landfill to determine if is there is any radiological hazard at the landfill. Rick King, General Manager of Keller Canyon Landfill, provided the Board with a detailed explanation of how material was received from the site, the reporting responsibility of the source of the material, and procedures in place to inspect incoming material. He noted that immediately upon hearing of the false data issue, he suspended receipt of any material from Hunter’s Point shipyard. He provided a PowerPoint presentation for reference (attached). Having discussed the matter at length, and receiving public comment, the Board gave the following direction:  1.      Implement all the recommendations put forth by Dr. Underwood; 2.      Dr. Underwood will return to the Board in 30 days with a written report and any updated information;  3.      Staff will seek answers on the notification process from the state and federal agencies to find out why the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 551 County, the City of Pittsburg, and Keller Canyon Landfill were not notified of the investigation into the soil data falsification; 4.      Staff will examine its notification protocols and work with Keller Canyon landfill to ensure timely communication with the District Supervisor and the Board; 5.      Staff will compose letters for the Chair of the Board to sign that will the assistance of state and federal legislative representatives in obtaining swift and appropriate help from the Navy and other applicable agencies with expertise in radiological matters; 6.      Staff will seek information from consultant TetraTech regarding the incident; 7.      Staff will research what, if any, mechanism is in place to hold the contractor hired by the Navy financially responsible for any third-party investigative and/or testing to be conducted at Keller Canyon Landfill; 8.      Staff will provide further information for the Board on the history of alerts from the radiologic sensors located at Keller Canyon Landfill, and how those incidents are documented; 9.      Staff will immediately look into the hiring of an expert consultant to assist the County on next steps and appropriate actions to be taken going forward with respect to this incident; 10.   Staff will prepare a report addressing the effects of designating the City of Pittsburg as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for the Keller Canyon Landfill site. Dr. Underwood and John Kopchik will be in attendance at an emergency meeting of the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Committee at 7 p.m. this evening. Supervisor Glover said more community meetings will be arranged and the public notified as soon as is possible.   AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Newspaper Article MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received Letter from City of Pittsburg Powerpoint Presentation-Keller Canyon Report from Environmental Health Services May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 552 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 1/9 5 By J.K. Dineen April 21, 2018 Updated: April 22, 2018 6:00am Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say The scandal involving cheating in the $1 billion cleanup at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard has until now focused on allegations of what was left behind at the site: radioactive dirt dumped into trenches to save the time and expense of testing and disposing of it properly. But former shipyard employees and environmentalists say that toxic waste removed from the site is of just as great a concern. Soil with potentially dangerous levels of radioactive waste, they contend, was trucked to IMAGE 1 OF 6 The San Francisco Shipyard development is under way at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 2016. Photo: Leah Millis / The Chronicle 2016 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 553 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 2/9 SF city panel OKs redesign of giant Hunters Point Shipyard Editorial: SF deserves answers about falsified cleanup at Hunters SF shipyard activists frustrated by naval officials on alleged HUNTERS POINT conventional landfills across California — the sort of dumps that typically fill up with tree branches, construction debris and old dishwashers, not radiological waste from a former nuclear test lab that handled uranium and plutonium. The shipyard, home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from 1946 to 1969, is now the site of the San Francisco Shipyard development project, regarded as perhaps the most important development site in the city. It is to contain more than 10,500 housing units, 300 acres of open space, millions of square feet of retail, schools, a hotel and artists studios. Before developer FivePoint starting building condominiums in 2013, former shipyard employees say that Tetra Tech, the company that was paid between $350 million and $450 million to lead the cleanup of the site,relaxed the standards for what was allowed to leave the property starting in 2011. The portal monitors — radiation detection scanners used to prevent trucks containing dangerous materials from exiting — were reset to be less sensitive. An area with scaffolding that allowed inspectors to get on top of the trucks to inspect shipments was taken down. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 554 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 3/9 And whereas previously trucks that set off an alert from the portal monitor more than twice would be made to dump their soil loads back on a tarp to be retested and cleaned of dangerous materials, the new policy just required an employee to walk around the truck with a handheld monitor. Those monitors rarely detected anything because the truck bed made it tough to get readings, according to workers. Former shipyard employee Susan Andrews, who operated portal monitors in 2010 and 2011, said Tetra Tech management went to extreme lengths to ensure trucks were allowed to exit, no matter how many times they set off the radiation detector. “Before 2011 that dirt was never to leave until the radiation detected was found, contained and put in a secure lockup box,” she said. “In 2011, they changed the way they did business.” May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 555 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 4/9 Andrews said she saw trucks leaving the yard at night after the portal where they exited was supposed to be closed for the day — something she witnessed in January and February of 2012 from her condominium on Cleo Rand Lane, right above the shipyard entrance. She was one of nine former Tetra Tech employees to raise concerns with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She said she was laid off a short time later. “I would be out with my dog about an hour after everyone had gone home, and I’d see these trucks full of dirt — 10 or 15 of them — going right by my condo,” she said. “It was crazy. Where on the site the dirt was coming from or where it was going I don’t know. But nothing should have been leaving after the portal monitor was shut down” for the night. A recent review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies found that as much as 97 percent of Tetra Tech’s cleanup data for two parcels at the shipyard was found to be suspect and should be retested, according to John Chesnutt, manager of the EPA’s local Superfund Division. A spokesman for Tetra Tech did not return a call seeking comment. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 556 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 5/9 While the Navy has acknowledged the problems with the Tetra Tech work, it continues to insist that the materials were removed from the site properly and safely. Derek Robinson, who is leading the cleanup for the Navy, said soil is stockpiled on-site and sampled to “to select the appropriate landfill for disposal.” Soil that meets both radiological and chemical cleanup requirements is put back into trenches on the site, places where structures may later be built. Soil that doesn’t meet those standards is separated and either sent to a landfill that accepts specific types of contamination in the soil or to a low-level radioactive waste site. Some batches of dirt hauled off Hunters Point were tested and deemed too “hot” for conventional dumps, meaning they contained unacceptably high levels of radionuclides like cesium 137 and strontium 90 — both can cause cancer. That dirt, at least 4,300 cubic yards, was transported in watertight steel bins to Clive, Utah, one of four disposal sites in the United States licensed to accept low-level radioactive waste. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 557 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 6/9 The rest of the waste, the vast majority, about 7,800 truckloads carrying 156,000 cubic yards, was marked “nonhazardous” and went to conventional dumps. It was hauled to Kirby Canyon in Morgan Hill, near San Jose. It was transported to Keller Canyon in Pittsburg. It went to a dump in Buttonwillow, near Bakersfield, and to facilities in Vacaville and Brisbane owned by Recology, which collects San Francisco’s household trash. Most landfills also have portal monitors, although environmental experts say they are used sporadically and do not test for radiation. If soil contaminated with radioactive material left the shipyard site without being properly vetted, it is possible it landed in one of these landfills. The timing of the changes Andrews observed at the portal is consistent with testimony from other whistle-blowers, who say the entire culture of the cleanup changed in early 2011 when Tetra Tech’s contract was restructured from “time and material” to a “firm fixed-price model.” Suddenly, the contractor had a financial incentive to complete the cleanup as quickly as possible because it was working for a specific dollar amount. Shortly after that contract change, worker and whistle- blower Bert Bowers, who was in charge of monitoring compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, said he started to see violations of industry standards — equipment left where it shouldn’t be and employees working without proper oversight. He complained and was later fired. “The incentive was there to cut corners and get bonuses, and I started to see the effect,” he said. “The standards started to become compromised.” May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 558 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 7/9 Anthony Smith, who worked as laborer and technician at the shipyard during that time, said he and his colleagues spent months taking soil from areas known to be clean — like the foundation of an old movie theater — and passing it off as coming from sections of the site known to be highly toxic. “It came down from the higher-ups — ‘We’re gonna make this clean today. Go get a sample from the normal place, go get a clean sample,’” Smith said. Lindsey Dillon, a professor of sociology at UC Santa Cruz who is writing a book about the cleanup and redevelopment of the shipyard, said it’s ironic that the champions of the redevelopment project cast it as “the heroic story of cleaning up a toxic military base” while the waste taken off the property is “creating a new geography of toxic exposure.” Conventional landfills tend to be located in communities lacking economic or politic clout. “It’s a systemic issue, because these landfill sites are located in particularly vulnerable areas,” said Dillon. Don Wadsworth, a health physicist who specializes in radiation safety and radioactive waste management services, said the classified nature of Hunters Point’s history makes it hard to know what is buried on the property. But the federal government allocated plenty of money to do the job correctly. “The problem you have is that Tetra Tech was on a program of deceiving the client and the regulators about the conditions on the site and the conditions of the materials leaving the site,” said Wadsworth. “In this case, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 559 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 8/9 the safety guard rails were not only ignored, they were ripped up and thrown away.” Daniel Hirsch, retired director of the Environmental and Nuclear Policy Program at UC Santa Cruz, said the “release criteria” governing waste materials the Navy set at the shipyard were far lower than they should have been. And it is problematic that those standards may have been violated. Hirsch said he has spent two years trying to find out what happened to the materials removed from the shipyard. “The Navy have resisted and resisted and resisted,” he said. “My impression is that they knew this was a potential problem and didn’t want it exposed.” Landfills sell material as well as accept it so it’s tough to say where all material from the shipyard wound up. Hunters Point soil could have ended up in rural roads, parks or building sites, Hirsch said. It could have been used as “cover” at landfills and ended up blown into nearby neighborhoods. It could contaminate water tables and irrigation used for crops. In addition, waste and unwanted furnishings and metals such as pipes salvaged from razed buildings on the site could be recycled. Contaminated office furniture, fencing, metals and concrete from buildings all could have ended up in places where they could do harm to an unsuspecting public. “I predict those communities will be up in arms, and they should be,” Hirsch said. “They have converted one Superfund site into perhaps many.” Several of the waste removal and recycling companies that received soil and debris from the shipyard did not returnMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 560 4/23/2018 Toxic soil went from SF’s Hunters Point to state landfills, ex-workers say - San Francisco Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Toxic-soil-went-from-SF-s-Hunters-Point-to-12854269.php 9/9 calls. Recology, which owns facilities in Vacaville and Brisbane, said it would review all shipments from Hunters Point. Spokesman Eric Potashner said his facilities require customers to sign a guarantee that the soil doesn’t contain contaminants that are not accepted, which would include anything radioactive. “We have a robust sampling and acceptance criteria for all waste that comes into the site,” he said. Andrews, who is from West Virigina, said Tetra Tech should be responsible for conducting tests at the landfills where the shipyard soil ended up. She said that her co- workers went along with the program because the Hunters Point jobs were the most lucrative in the country for workers in the hazardous waste remediation field. They paid $42 an hour plus $1,500 a week in expenses. Most of the workers were from Southern states where that kind of money goes a long way. “I was told to shut my mouth, that I didn’t live there, had hit the lottery, that I should shut up and save my money. The more they said that, the madder I got,” she said. “I did care, and I decided that the people of San Francisco were worth more than my salary.” J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 561 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 562 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 563 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 564 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 565 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 566 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 567 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 568 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 569 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 570 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 571 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 572 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 573 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 574 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 575 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 576 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 577 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 578 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 579 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes580 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes581 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes582 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes583 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes584 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes585 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes586 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes587 Good morning Chair Mitchoff and Board, I am here to summarize what I learned last week by reading and talking with many people familiar with the cleanup activities that have been occurring at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. My findings and recommendations for next steps are before you today because of concerns resulting from a San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article published on April 22nd in which there was an assertion that a Navy consultant’s deliberate falsification of sampling data may have compromised adequacy of screening used to determine if soil should be accepted at Keller Canyon Landfill as well as several other landfills in California. First, this is a serious implication, and so we immediatel y began researching this claim. And it is a complicated issue. Radiologic contamination is even more complex than chemical contamination. Applicable state and federal regulatory agencies have found that there had been deliberate acts on the part of the Navy’s selected consultant to misrepresent the radiological sampling data. To date these misrepresentations are tied to potentially contaminated soil/material being left on site instead of removing it. I want to repeat this, the reports released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the USEPA reveal the falsification of data to allow soil to remain in place at the Hunters Point Naval Station. At this point, we have no evidence that radiological material was sent to Keller Canyon; however there continue to be investigations by federal and state officials of the consultant’s work. If some of the material that was sent to Keller Canyon, it was the same misrepresentations of the Navy consultant that allowed the material to be get to the landfill, and it almost no risk as it is either buried or dispersed and diluted in the roadway material. It is disappointing that the county nor Keller Canyon Landfill were contacted by any of the state or federal agencies about the possibility of Hunters Point waste being incorrectly sent to Keller Canyon. As you are aware, Keller Canyon Landfill is a Class II landfill which primarily receives domestic garbage from Transfer Stations located in/near Martinez, North Richmond, City of Brentwood and Pittsburg. The landfill is not open to the public. In addition to domestic garbage Keller Canyon Landfill may accept Class II wastes, such as treated wood, soils with low levels of petroleum, and wastewater sludge. Approximately 10% of the material they receive is not domestic garbage (municipal solid waste). In order to be allowed to send Class II waste to the landfill, the responsible party must create an account with the landfill, attesting to the material that they will be sending, and providing specific information about the waste such as its characteristics and sampling data. Keller Canyon is the most modern built landfill in the State with lining, a leachate and gas collection system and emissions and groundwater monitoring systems. It is not a landfill for the disposal of material deemed to be radioactive or hazardous. There is a radiation monitoring system that is on at all times when the facility is open. Each truck moves through the radiation monitoring system as it approaches the scales to weigh the load. The radiation monitor has been triggered in the past when higher levels of radioactive material were traced to a diaper of a child who had received a chemotherapy drug, in another instance the radiation monitor was activated with what ended up being a towel that a chemotherapy patient threw up in, and lastly another occasion when a driver of the truck set it off. The May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 588 truck driver had undergone a diagnostic procedure the day before that involved a radioactive tracer. However, the radiation monitor would not necessarily have been activated by low level radioactive waste that was buried in soil as the soil provides a shielding effect. Keller Canyon has nearly 223 thousand tons of material on-site that came from Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. This material was deemed eligible for ac ceptance pursuant to the company’s review and approval of 13 separate “special waste applications” for this waste, each one having its own data that was provided and certification stating it was not hazardous. Keller Canyon has never been notified that any of that data was falsified. Along with my staff, we have found the following:  The Shipyard which was closed in 1974 is being cleaned for chemical and radioactive material. The radioactive material is found at the shipyard because of the radium paint which glows in the dark and was used for ship deck markings and luminescent dials, gauges and signs; there was an animal testing lab; and from sandblasting ships that been part of the weapons testing in the South Pacific.  The sewer line and storm drain system have been the focus of much of the radioactive investigation. Trenches have been dug over miles of the site to remove the pipes and the test the soil around it.  The Navy identified in 2012 that there was some suspect soil data, and an investigation done by the consultant and provided to the Navy in 2014 supported this finding.  An October 2016 report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that as far back as 2011, the Navy consultant had misrepresented samples used to determine the need for soil re moval.  A December 2017 letter to the Navy from the USEPA commenting on a 2017 report from the Navy found the, ”data analyzed demonstrate a widespread pattern of practices that appear to show deliberate falsification.” The Navy is apparently in the process of designing a radiological assessment to follow-up on these falsifications.  In 2015, 10 truck loads of material from Hunters Point was sent to Keller Canyon. A Navy engineer noticed that a trucking company was removing material from an area that had not yet been released. They contacted the California Department of Public Health who in turn contacted the landfill and indicated to them that the material had not yet been released for disposal. The landfill sent 20 truckloads back, gathering any material around where they had disposed of it. A subsequent investigation found that the material did contain several items that had low-level radioactivity which were removed from the material once it was back at Hunters Point. This is an example of when the system worked, the responsible party and the oversight agencies caught the mistake and took action to correct it. Our outstanding question is whether catching the mistake did not happen on other occurrences. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 589 All of the studies and findings that I have reviewed and discussions I have had with state and federal point to contamination being left onsite as the concern. However, it is not clear how much effort has focused on understanding what was sent off-site, and in particular sent to Keller Canyon Landfill. and was that done correctly. So that leads us to recommend the following to the board.  Formally ask the Navy to make itself available for meetings with interested community and stakeholders to better understand what might have occurred;  Formally ask the Navy to investigate over a longer time period the quality of the data that was used to send the loads to Keller. Review the material that was provided to Republic Services to assert it could be disposed of safely at the landfill.  Formally ask the Navy to conduct a surface survey of the site to see if there is any radiological hazard. Ask that this be done expediently to address our concerns, for instance within two months. Ask that the state Department of Public Health radiological experts, City of Pittsburgh , Re public Services, a community representative and the county be part of the planning of this effort. Doing this correctly is important as there is naturally occurring radioactive material and what will be done if a false positive occurs, how to interpret what is found. All of these issues take a knowledgeable person and a good plan. There is no acute health risk, so taking the time to do this correctly is important. I have talked with the California Department of Public Health and they too agree that the Navy should be asked to take the lead on the investigation. They offered to assist with the request of the Navy, and they offered their assistance with the planning of the investigation.  Direct staff to return in 30 days with a follow-up status report for information and recommendations. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 590 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, San Ramon Valley area. [Project No.0662-6R4010] DCD-CP# 17-49 (District III), and FIND, on the basis of the whole record, including the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and any comments received and staff responses thereto, that there is no substantial evidence the Project may have significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the lead agency, Contra Costa County (County). ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the Project. SPECIFY that the Contra Costa County Public Works Director is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matt Kawashima, 925 313-2161 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd , Deputy cc: Ave Brown, Environmental Services, Matt Kawashima - Environmental Svs C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project (Project) and take related actions under CEQA, San Ramon Valley area. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 591 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) of proceedings upon which the Board’s decision is based, and that the record of proceedings is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and, AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of $2,280.75 for California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees, a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination, and a $25 fee to Department of Conservation and Development for processing. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated Project cost: $3,300,000. 40% Tri-Valley Transportation Council Funds, 30% Measure J Funds, and 30% South County Area of Benefit Funds. BACKGROUND: The Project will widen the existing roadway along four segments of Camino Tassajara from near Penny Lane to Windemere Parkway to provide two 12-foot travel lanes with up to 8-foot paved shoulders. The total length of roadway where the road will be widened and shoulders will be added is approximately 5,400 feet. The approximate roadway widening limits for each segment of Camino Tassajara are provided as follows: Segment 1 extends from 240 feet north of Penny Lane to 150 feet south of Johnston Road (approximately 1,500 feet long); Segment 2 extends from 1,300 feet north of Highland Road to (approximately 1,300 feet long); Segment 3 extends from 700 feet south of the bridge over Tassajara Creek to 2,050 feet south of the bridge over Tassajara Creek (approximately 1,350 feet long); Segment 4 extends from 1,600 feet north of Windemere Parkway to 350 feet north of Windemere Parkway (approximately 1,250 feet long). In addition, the Project will also apply a slurry seal along the entire roadway section from Lusitano Street to Windemere Parkway, which includes the four segments to be widened. The purpose of this Project is to provide shoulders and connect the existing bike lanes resulting in a contiguous Class II bike lane along the entire County maintained portion of Camino Tassajara between Ballfields and Windemere Parkway. The Project goal is to bring the roadway along these segments up to current County standards, and provide drivers with a consistent roadway section and a wider area for recovery should they veer out of the travel lane. The Project will also contribute to the completion of the bikeway network proposed in the 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design, construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS CEQA document Letter from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 592 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 593 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 594 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Notice of Intent Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 595 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Notice of Intent Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 2: Project Vicinity Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 596 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 597 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 598 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 1 of 70 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Matt Kawashima, Environmental Analyst II, (925) 313-2161 Contra Costa County Public Works Department 4. Project Location: The Project is located within the San Ramon Valley, an unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County approximately 6 miles east of the City of San Ramon along Camino Tassajara from Lusitano Street to Windemere Parkway as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: AL (Agricultural Lands) 7. Zoning: A-2 (General Agriculture) and A-80 (Exclusive Agriculture) 8. Project Description: The Project will widen the existing roadway along four segments of Camino Tassajara from near Penny Lane to Windemere Parkway to provide two 12-foot travel lanes with up to 8-foot shoulders as described below and shown on Figures 4 through 7. The total length of roadway where the road will be widened and shoulders will be added is approximately 5,400 feet. The approximate roadway widening limits for each segment of Camino Tassajara are provided below. 1. Segment 1 extends from 240 feet north of Penny Lane to 150 feet south of Johnston Road (approximately 1,500 feet long). 2. Segment 2 extends from 1,300 feet north of Highland Road to (approximately 1,300 feet long). 3. Segment 3 extends from 700 feet south of the bridge over Tassajara Creek to 2,050 feet south of the bridge over Tassajara Creek (approximately 1,350 feet long). 4. Segment 4 extends from 1,600 feet north of Windemere Parkway to 350 feet north of Windemere Parkway (approximately 1,250 feet long). The Project will also apply a slurry seal along the entire roadway section from Lusitan o Street to Windemere Parkway, which includes the four segments to be widened (Project). May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 599 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 2 of 70 The Project will provide consistent shoulders and will connect to the existing bike lanes resulting in a contiguous Class II bike lane along the entire County maintained portion of Camino Tassajara between Ballfields and Windemere Parkway. The Project will bring the roadway along these segments up to current County standards, and provide drivers with a consistent roadway section and a wider area for recovery should they veer out of the travel lane,. The Project will also contribute to the completion of the bikeway network proposed in the 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2009). To accommodate the widened roadway, excavation, grading, and/or embankment fill will be necessary on one or both sides of the roadway. The existing vertical alignment of the roadway will be retained. Slight localized variations in the horizontal alignment will result from and correspond to the road and shoulder widening. Existing striping will be removed and the roadway will be restriped. Roadway signage will be relocated and/or added as needed. Roadside obstacles, including utility poles, fences, drainage features, roadway signs, and/or mailboxes, will be relocated as necessa ry to accommodate the new roadway width. Additionally, roadside trees may need to be removed and modifications to roadside drainages will be necessary to accommodate the widening. This may include the replacement, extension, or relocation of culverts, the relocation or regrading of drainage ditches, and/or the modification of storm drain inlets. Real Property transactions may be necessary to accommodate the Project including temporary construction easements and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition from properties fronting Camino Tassajara. Standard lane closures and traffic control will be utilized during construction. No traffic detours are required. Project construction is anticipated to begin in April 2019 and conclude in October 2019. Construction would occur over approximately 45 working days for each segment while application of slurry seal and striping along the entire roadway would occur over approximately 10 days. The roadway widening limits and any associated work will occur within the Area of Potential Impact shown on Figures 4 through 7. The Area of Potential Impact represents the maximum limit of work. As design of the Project is finalized, the actual area of impact will be reduced. The analysis in this document is based on the Area of Potential Impact and therefore represents a conservative analysis of potential impacts. Where applicable, the term “Project Site” will be used below to define the actual area of impact, any associated disturbance and staging areas as identified in the final plans. The Project Site will be located within the Area of Potential Impact shown on Figures 4 through 7. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Camino Tassajara is a two-lane arterial road with a 45 mile per hour speed limit along most of its length. The general Project area is rural in setting; with cattle grazing and equestrian facilities as common land uses. Camino Tassajara is located on the floor of the Camino Tassajara Valley. Topography within the vicinity of the Project Site is characterized by steeply to gently rolling hills to the east and west. Tassajara Creek meanders approximately parallel to the roadway crossing from the east side to the west south of Highland Road. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement): N/A May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 600 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 601 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 4 of 70 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 602 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 5 of 70 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? According to the Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 (General Plan), the County has two main scenic resources in addition to many localized scenic features: (1) scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings; and (2) the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system. Throughout much of the County, there are significant topographic variations in the landscape. The largest and most prominent of these are the hills that form the backdrop for much of the developed portions of the area. Views of these major ridgelines help to reinforce the rural feeling of the County’s rapidly growing communities. These major ridges provide an important balance to current and planned development (Contra Costa County 2005g). Environmental Setting Camino Tassajara is a two-lane arterial that runs from Danville through the Tassajara Valley to Dublin through single-family developments and rural residential areas. The general Project area is characterized by horse ranches, orchards, and pastureland flanked by grassy hills dotted with oak. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. A scenic ridgeline identified on Figure 9-1 of the General Plan is located to the west of all Project segments and is visible in some part from all Project segments. However the Project is a simple shoulder-widening project that will not block or change views in any direction. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project is not located within a state scenic highway (Caltrans 2011). The Project Site is identified as a scenic route on Figure 5-4 of the General Plan. No historic buildings, rock outcroppings or other potentially scenic resources would be impacted by the Project. Some tree removal may be necessary but would be limited to small trees in or adjacent to the road right-of-way and does not include large trees or groups of trees that would make a noticeable difference to the scenic quality of the route. Further, the Project will facilitate access to the route for bicyclists. Therefore, the Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 603 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 6 of 70 c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The Project will cause very little visual change to the existing roadway and surrounding area because of the limited scope and nature of the Project. The Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening and associated work including relocation of existing utility support poles, restriping, and re-grading of existing ditches. Once the Project is complete the roadway will not look substantially different from the existing condition. The Project will not remove elements that define the area, or introduce buildings, structures or other features that would not be compatible with the character of the area. Some tree and vegetation removal may be necessary; however, it will be minimal and would not affect the overall appearance or character of the area. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Project will not create a new permanent source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. No reflective surfaces or lights would be installed by the Project. Construction is expected to take place during the daylight hours. If unforeseen circumstances necessitate night work, it would be temporary and require approval by the Resident Engineer who will be available to address any concerns. Therefore Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 604 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 7 of 70 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Regulatory Setting Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Maintained by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the FMMP rates agricultural land in the state according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is called Prime Farmland, which has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Unique Farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. Williamson Act The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment California DOC’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is an approach for rating the relative quality May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 605 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 8 of 70 of land resources based upon specific measurable features. When used for California Environmental Quality Act impact analysis, the LESA model provides “an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095). Environmental Setting The four segments are zoned General Agriculture (A-2) and/or Exclusive Agriculture (A-80) (Figure 8). According to the FMMP, portions of the four segments overlap with Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, and Unique Farmland (Figure 9). All four segments are located within an area identified as an “Important Agricultural Area” in the Conservation Element of the County General Plan (AWE 2017). The following analysis is based on the Farmland Conversion Impact Analysis (Farmland Report) prepared for the Project by Area West Environmental, Inc. (AWE 2017) a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The Project may require minimal takes of farmland adjacent to the road shoulder to accommodate the shoulder widening. The Farmland Report prepared for the Project was conducted prior to final design and was based on the estimated Area of Potential Impact. Therefore the analysis is conservative in nature and actual Project impacts are expected to be less than those analyzed in the Farmland Report. The Farmland Report used the LESA model, which takes into consideration several conditions to determine impacts. All segments score below the significance threshold for agricultural land conversion when evaluated using the LESA model using the maximum impact area. Further, given the very small impact areas and proximity o f the impact (sliver takes along the road right of way), the viability of the farmland will not be affected nor will the conversion affect the viability of the agricultural use in the area. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? The General Plan Conservation Element contains many goals and policies intended to protect agricultural land. These goals and policies primarily address conversion of agricultural land through urban development. Additional policies stress the economic importance of agriculture, strengthen the availability of agriculture support services and infrastructure, and facilitate cooperation between farmers and their urban neighbors. A review of General Plan policies pertaining to agriculture and the Contra Costa County zoning code for Land Use Districts A-2 and A-80 did not reveal inconsistencies with the provisions of these land use designations and districts that would result from implementation of the Project (Municode 2017, Contra Costa County 2005f). A parcel along the eastern roadside along Segment 2 is under a Williamson Act contract (APN 205-090- 010). Additionally, parcels along both the western and eastern roadside at Segment 3 are under a Williamson Act contract (APN 223-030-006, 205-050-009). As such, the Project may require right of way acquisition of a small area adjacent to the roadway that is currently under Williamson Act. When considering road alignment alternatives (to widen on one side of the existing road or another) every attempt will be made to avoid Williamson Act parcels where it doesn’t result in a sub-standard road alignment. If necessary, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (CCCPWD) would purchase necessary right of way in fee-title, which is not expected to affect the Williamson Act contract on the remainder of the parcel. Purchase of the right of way would not be influenced by the price of the land but May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 606 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 9 of 70 by necessity. There are no alternative sites that could be developed to provide the same public improvement without resulting in greater impacts to farmland and the environment. As such, the Project may require minimal takes of one or more parcels under a Williamson Act Contract. Howeve r, as required by Government Code Section 51291(b), if acquisition of land under a Williamson Act contract is necessary, the Director of the California Department of Conservation and the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development will be notified of the proposed acquisition, and will be provided with a subsequent notification within 10 working days upon completion of the acquisition. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AGR-1 will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. IMPACT AGR-1 Development of the Project may require right-of-way acquisition of a small roadside area that is currently under Williamson Act. MITIGATION MEASURE AGR-1: If right of way takes of land under a Williamson Act Contract is necessary, prior to construction the CCCPWD or its designated representative will notify the Director of the California Department of Conservation and the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development of the prop erty acquisition and will provide a subsequent notification within 10 working days upon completion of the acquisition. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? The zoning in the Area of Potential Impact is specific to agriculture A-2 (General Agriculture) and A-80 (Exclusive Agriculture), there is no forestland, or land zoned for timberland production in the Project vicinity. These conditions preclude impacts to forestland or timberland. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because forest land is not present within or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project is located along an existing roadway, will not increase the capacity of the roadway, facilitate growth, or encourage development of other land uses that could indirectly result in the conversion of Farmland. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 607 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 10 of 70 III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Regulatory Setting The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants known as criteria air pollutants. They are: particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter or PM10 and PM2.5), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Of the six pollutants, particle pollution and ground - level ozone are the most widespread health threats (USEPA 2017). The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state ozone and particulate matter standards for air quality. In addition, the SFBAAB is designated as nonattainment for the national 8 -hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards (BAAQMD 2017b). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional, government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties. In addition to criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD enforces the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) that regulates the Naturally-Occurring Asbestos (NOA) emissions from grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations at sites which contain ultramafic rock. According to the 2000 map “A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos”, the Project is not in an area likely to contain ultramafic rocks (CDC 2000). The BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates plans to establish rules and regulations for various emissions sources. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance and in 2011 updated its CEQA Guidelines. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the 2010 thresholds. Subsequent proceedings may ultimately reinstate the 2010 thresholds. As such, the 2010 thresholds are not formally in place and have been pulled from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines which were updated to omit the thresholds to reflect the 2012 ruling. BAAQMD’s Justification Report, found in Appendix D of BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Guidelines, explains the agency’s reasoning and provides substantial May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 608 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 11 of 70 evidence for developing and adopting their 2017 thresholds (BAAQMD 2017a). As such, BAAQMD’s thresholds are supported by substantial evidence and are used to evaluate the significance of air quality impacts associated with the Project. The following analysis is based on the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Construction Emissions Assessment and Air Quality Memo prepared for the Project by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE 2017). a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The air quality plan applicable to the proposed project is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which was adopted April 19, 2017. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. If it can be concluded with substantial evidence that a project would be consistent with the above criteria, then the BAAQMD considers it to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the region. An evaluation of the consistency of the Project with the Clean Air Plan is provided below. Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. As indicated in the analysis that follows below, the Project will not cause significant air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impacts and will not increase exposure of the population to air pollutants. The Project will not hinder the region from attainment of the goals outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the project supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan. Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: stationary sources measures, mobile source measures, transportation control measures, land use and local impact measures, and climate measures. The control strategies applicable to the project are the Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures. Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies transportation and mobile source control measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to reduce ozone precursor emissions from stationary, area, mobile, and transportation sources. The transportation control measures are applicable to the Project and are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion. The Project is a road widening project that would widen the existing shoulder to current County standards. The Project will not add lanes that would increase the capacity of the roadway for motorized vehicles and therefore will not result in a long-term increase in emissions. In addition, the Project will provide sufficient space for a signed and striped Class II bicycle lane, which would support the ability of individuals to use alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the Clean Air Plan. Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, implementation of the Project will not disrupt or hinder implementation of applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including stationary sources measures, mobile source measures, transportation control measures, land use and local impact measures, and climate measures. Therefore, the Project will not hinder or disrupt implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 609 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 12 of 70 As discussed above, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan and this impact will be less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? The Bay Area is under nonattainment status for State 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. In addition, the Bay Area was designated as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is also considered a nonattainment area for PM2.5 at the state level and an attainment area at the federal level. As discussed above in (a), the Project will not result in long-term operational impacts. However, during construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities particularly during site preparation. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly- emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Each segment would include utility relocation, clearing and grubbing, grading and excavation, saw cutting, compacting, paving, slurry seal application, and striping. In addition to dust- related PM10 emissions, construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. Construction emissions for the project were calculated using the Road Construction Emissions Model v. 8.1.0, developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1. Construction is anticipated to begin in April 2019 and conclude in October 2019 with each segment occurring over approximately 45 days. A summary of average daily constructions emissions is shown in Table 1. The analysis evaluated potential impacts from the following construction scenarios:  Scenario A: No Segment Construction Overlap  Scenario B: Two Segment Construction Overlap  Scenario C: Three Segment Construction Overlap  Scenario D: All Segment Construction Overlap Table 1: Summary of Average Daily Construction Emissions By Segment Segment Emissions (lb/day) ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Segment 1 1.6 15.1 1.0 0.8 Segment 2 1.6 15.4 1.0 0.9 Segment 3 2.4 23.1 1.4 1.2 Segment 4 2.1 20.4 1.2 1.1 Slurry Seal/Striping 35.6 3.6 0.2 0.2 BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Source: Nichols Consulting Engineers, 2017 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 610 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 13 of 70 Exceed Thresholds of Significance?  Scenario A: No Segment Construction Overlap: No  Scenario B: Two Segment Construction Overlap: No  Scenario C: Three Segment Construction Overlap: Yes, NOx emissions (58.9 lbs/day)  Scenario D: All Segment Construction Overlap: Yes, NOx emissions (74.4 lbs/day) Under all Scenarios the average daily construction emissions of PM2.5 would not exceed the applicable thresholds adopted by BAAQMD during the construction period. However, the BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10) that are recommended for all projects. With the implementation of standard construction measures fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be implemented under all construction scenarios to further reduce fugitive dust emissions. Scenarios C and D would result in NOx emissions that exceed the applicable threshold of 54 pounds per day. It is anticipated that construction will not occur under Scenarios C and D however, if one of these option is chosen, Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would be implemented under construction scenarios C or D to reduce NOx emissions to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT AIR-1 Construction activities could result in fugitive dust emissions during Project construction. MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-1: Consistent with the Construction Mitigation Measures required by the BAAQMD, the construction contractor shall comply with the following: 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and contact information for the designated on-site construction manager available to receive and respond to dust complaints. This person shall report all complaints to Contra Costa County and take immediate corrective action as soon as practical but not more than 48 hours after the complaint is received. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 611 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 14 of 70 IMPACT AIR-2 Construction of three or four segments simultaneously (Scenario C and D) will result in NOx emissions that exceed the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance. MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-2: Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall provide a written calculation to the County, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average of at least 28 percent of NOX and 45 percent of diesel PM reduction as compared to California Air Resources Board (CARB) statewide fleet average emissions. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products (e.g., CARB approved High Performance Renewable Diesel), alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The Construction Emissions Mitigation Tool development by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) may be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the approving agency as described above. Localized CO Impacts. The BAAQMD has established a screening methodology that provides a conservative indication of whether implementation of a proposed project will result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The proposed project would be expected to alleviate congestion on roadways and not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, nor would it increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below-grade roadway). The Project would not conflict with the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Program for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans (CCTA 2015). Therefore, the Project will not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed state or federal standards. Further, the proposed Project will bring the current roadway up to current County standards and provide paved shoulders with sufficient width for a Class II bicycle lane. The Project will help alleviate congestion by providing opportunities for alternative forms of transportation and creating a safer roadway segment. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. According to the BAAQMD, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact and no single project is sufficient in size itself to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. In developing the thresholds of significance for May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 612 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 15 of 70 air pollutants used in the analysis above, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2012) indicate that if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, it’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if a project’s daily average or annual emissions of operational - related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the BAAQMD, the proposed Project will result in a cumulatively significant impact. As stated previously the Project will not result in operational impacts. Further, the Project will likely reduce operational emissions with new bicycle lanes and improved traffic flow. As such, the Project will not exceed established thresholds for regional emissions or make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and potentially AIR-2 would be implemented to reduce construction impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers, and other high-risk receptors. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter (DPM) are children, with lung tissue that is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to DPM. Health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as construction diesel emissions are a function of both concentration and duration of exposur e. Construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of days or perhaps weeks throughout the construction period. Additionally, construction-related sources are mobile and transient in nature and the emissions occur with the project site with concentration dispersing rapidly with distance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and potentially AIR-2 would help to reduce construction pollutant concentrations. The closest sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity are residences located adjacent to the roadway segments. Residents could be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. The BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for potential effects of DPM applies to the hypothetical exposure of a person continuously for 70 years. The duration of the construction period is expected to be a total of 6 months which is relatively short when compared to the 70-year risk exposure period. Additionally, the 6 month period would cover each of the four roadway segments included as part of the Project. Therefore, emission concentrations at any one receptor location would have a much shorter duration. Due to the short duration of the construction period and the dispersion of project construction emissions, health risk impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant. Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and potentially AIR-2, which is consistent with BAAQMD guidelines, health risks from construction emissions of DPM would be further reduced. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The operational aspects of the Project will not generate any objectionable odors. Construction equipment exhaust and asphalt paving operations may create objectionable odors in the vicinity of homes. However, these will be limited and temporary in nature and avoided with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and potentially AIR-2. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 613 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 16 of 70 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Regulatory Setting In 1973, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed by Congress to protect ecosystems supporting special-status species to be administered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The California Endangered Species Act was passed as a parallel act to be administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Special-status plant and wildlife species are defined as those species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed for listing or are designated as Fully Protected species under one or more of the following regulatory status:  Federal Endangered Species Act, as amended (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 17); May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 614 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 17 of 70  California Endangered Species Act (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5);  California Fish and Game Code (Section 1901, 2062, 2067, 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515);  Species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines such as those identified in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977); and  Other species that are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing, or rejection for state or federal status such as Species of Special Concern (SSC) designated by the CDFW as well as locally rare species defined by CEQA Guidelines 15125(c) and 15380, which may include species that are designated as sensitive, declining, rare, locally endemic or as having limited or restricted distribution by various federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and watchlists such as those identified in the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database; as well as birds and raptors protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) (Executive Order 13186) and bald and golden eagles protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Environmental Setting The following analysis was based on the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the Project in 2017 by Contra Costa County Public Works Department with the assistance of Area West Environmental Inc. (CCCPWD 2017). Area West conducted a biological resources assessment of the Project, which included a review of literature and databases, reconnaissance-level field surveys, a delineation of potentially jurisdictional areas. Because the exact alignments were not available at the time of the biological assessment, a conservative maximum area of effect identified as the Area of Potential Impact was used to analysis potential impacts. The Biological Study Area (BSA) represents the Area of Potential Impact and a 250-foot buffer. Vegetation communities or land cover types at the Project consist of the following: annual grassland, cropland, developed, orchard, ornamental, riparian, riverine, ruderal, and roadside ditch. These communities are described below and summarized in Table 2.  Annual Grassland. The areas classified as annual grassland consist primarily of non-native annual grasses with a small forb component. Annual grassland occurs throughout the BSA for all four segments, with the majority used for livestock grazing. Where annual grassland abuts private property, it had been mowed prior to the site visit. Vegetation in this habitat is mostly herbaceous with a few valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees scattered throughout the annual grassland. This habitat is dominated by upland plant species, including soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), wild oat (Avena fatua), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and Crane’s bill geranium (Geranium molle).  Cropland. Cropland is present along the sides of Camino Tassajara Road in Segment 1 on the eastern side of the BSA. These areas were recently tilled and consisted mostly of bare ground, with upland annual grasses and forbs along margins. The cropland is likely used for hay or other forage production.  Developed. The developed vegetation community includes private residential homes, paved roadways, and shoulders. Roads consist of unvegetated sections of Camino Tassajara Road an d associated shoulders. The private residential homes are scattered along the side of the road throughout the BSA. Vegetation, when present, is sparse and consists primarily of scattered upland annual grasses and forbs. Vegetation within the developed habitat is regularly mowed and/or sprayed with herbicide.  Orchard. Orchard is present along the sides of Camino Tassajara Road in Segment 2 and Segment 3 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 615 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 18 of 70 on the eastern side of the BSA. Orchard habitat consists of flood-irrigated nut and olive orchards. The understory of orchard habitat was mostly barren or comprised of sparse weedy annuals. Two types of orchards were observed, one consisting of English walnut (Juglans regia) and the other consisting of olive (Olea europea).  Ornamental. Ornamental vegetation includes landscaped areas adjacent to private residential homes, and other developed properties. A majority of the ornamental vegetation is irrigated. Some native species associated with other habitats, such as riparian or oak woodland, are present wit hin this vegetation community. Ornamental vegetation consists primarily of fir (Abies spp.), coast redwood (Sequoia semipervirens), oleander (Nerium oleander), and blue grass (Poa spp.).  Riparian. The riparian vegetation community is present within the BSAs for segments 2, 3 and 4, outside of the Project Site. These habitats are associated with Tassajara Creek (described below). Within the BSA, the riparian over story is dominated by California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak, and willow (Salix sp.), with an understory consistent with adjacent annual grassland, as well as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis).  Riverine. Tassajara Creek is a perennial stream within the BSAs for segments 2, 3 and 4, outside of the Project Site, that runs roughly parallel to the Project segments.  Ruderal. Ruderal vegetation is present along roadsides and adjacent to developed areas throughout the BSA. Ruderal areas are frequently disturbed by routine maintenance that regularly rem ove and/or disturb vegetation, resulting in bare ground or weedy annual grasses and forbs. Within the BSA, these areas include horse paddocks and a baseball diamond. Vegetation in the ruderal areas is mostly herbaceous with a few valley oak, coast live oak, and coyote brush scattered throughout the BSA. The herbaceous layer of plants is dominant and consists of soft chess brome, yellow star thistle, wild oats, red-stem filaree, and Crane’s bill geranium.  Roadside Ditch. There are eight roadside ditches in the BSA. These roadside ditches were formed as the result of excavation conducted in uplands, and the hydrology of the features was designed to collect and convey stormwater from Camino Tassajara Road through a system of above ground and subsurface drainages to Tassajara Creek. All eight roadside ditches are stormwater control features that were excavated in uplands and that drain uplands. Table 2: Vegetation Communities Within the Biological Study Area Vegetation Community Segment 1 (acres) Segment 2 (acres) Segment 3 (acres) Segment 4 (acres) Annual Grassland 10.927 11.409 7.337 10.388 Cropland 4.492 0 0 0 Developed 5.757 3.870 4.559 13.626 Orchard 0 7.876 10.819 0 Ornamental 1.522 0 0.310 2.819 Riparian 0 1.600 0.113 0.877 Riverine 0 0.246 0 0.104 Ruderal 5.727 0.256 4.469 5.800 Roadside Ditch 0.095 0.103 0.085 0.034 Total 28.520 25.360 27.761 34.643 Source: Contra Costa County, 2017 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 616 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 19 of 70 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? There is potential for several special-status plant and animal species and their associated habitats to be present in the BSA. As shown in Table 3, using the maximum Area of Potential Impact, the Project will result in permanent impacts to approximately 17.903 acres and temporary impacts to approximately 0.893 acres. However, actual impacts will be much less as the exact alignments are defined. In any case, the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species, because project-related impacts will be avoided, minimized, or appropriately mitigated. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to all special status species and their habitat. Impacts to specific species and associated habitat are discussed individually. Although two segments are located on the edge of critical habitat for red-legged frog, the Project Site consists of mainly gravel road shoulder. Further, during similar County projects along Camino Tassajara, no evidence of California red-legged frog presence in road shoulder was found. As such, it is highly unlikely that California red-legged frog is using these areas. The term “Project Site” will be used below to define the area of work, any associated disturbance and staging areas as identified in the final plans. The Project Site will be located within the Area of Potential Impact shown on Figures 4 through 7. Table 3: Summary of Maximum Potential Temporary and Permanent Effects by Habitat Habitat Community Permanent Impact (acres) Temporary Impact (acres) Total Impact (acres) Annual Grassland 2.899 0.455 3.354 Cropland 0.261 0 0.261 Developed 9.767 0.246 10.013 Orchard 1.734 0 1.734 Ornamental 0.481 0 0.481 Riparian 0 0 0 Riverine 0 0 0 Roadside Ditch 0.280 0.022 0.302 Ruderal 2.481 0.170 2.651 Total 17.903 0.893 18.796 Source: Contra Costa County, 2017 IMPACT BIO IV(a)-1 Potential habitat for the special-status wildlife species is present within the Biological Study Area (BSA) and surrounding area. In addition, the BSA is located within California red-legged frog Critical Habitat Unit CCS-2B. Therefore, impacts to special status species and their habitats could occur as a result of Project implementation. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to all special status species and their habitat. Impacts to specific species and associated mitigation measures are discussed individually. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1a: Before any Project work occurs, including installation of exclusion fencing, grading and equipment staging, all construction personnel will participate in an environmental awareness training given by a qualified biologist regarding special-status species and sensitive habitats present in the Biological Study Area (BSA). If new construction personnel are added to the Project, they must receive the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 617 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 20 of 70 mandatory training before starting work. As part of the training, an environmental awareness handout will be provided to all personnel that describes and illustrates sensitive resources (i.e., special-status plant populations and special-status wildlife habitat) to be avoided during Project construction and lists applicable permit conditions required to protect these resources. New construction personnel will receive the training from a qualified biologist or from staff deemed adequate to give the training by the qualified biologist. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1b: Before any Project equipment staging or ground-disturbing activity occurs, the County will ensure that appropriately sized temporary wildlife barrier fencing, buffer fencing, and/or silt fencing will be installed between the Project Site and adjacent habitats and any environmentally sensitive habitat areas (i.e., special-status plants, special-status wildlife habitat, active bird nests), as appropriate. Wildlife barrier fencing will be a minimum of 4 feet tall and made of suitable wildlife exclusion material (such as ERTECH E-Fence). As appropriate, the lower portion of barrier fence will be buried such that 6 inches of the fence is below ground and at least 48 inches is above ground. Wildlife exclusion fencing will contain wildlife funnels that allow animals to leave the Project Site but not to enter it. Temporary silt fencing installed for erosion control will be 24 inches tall. Fencing will be installed in a manner that is consistent with applicable water quality requirements contained within the Project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or Water Pollutio n Control Program (WPCP). Construction personnel and construction activity will avoid areas outside the fencing. The exact location of the fencing will be determined by the resident engineer coordinating with a qualified biologist, with the goal of protecting sensitive biological habitat and water quality. Installation of fencing will occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist. The fencing will be checked regularly and maintained until all construction is complete. No grading, clearing, storage of equipment or machinery, or other disturbance or activity may occur until the County has inspected and approved all temporary construction fencing. The fencing and a note reflecting this condition will be shown on the final construction documents. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1c: A representative from the County will make weekly monitoring visits to construction areas occurring in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, (i.e., waters of the U.S. and State, special - status plants, special-status wildlife habitat). The County will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor maintains the construction barrier fencing protecting sensitive biological resources. Additionally, the County will retain a qualified biologist on-call to assist the County and the construction crew in complying with all Project implementation restrictions and guidelines. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1d: All temporarily disturbed areas will be returned to pre-Project conditions upon completion of Project construction. These areas will be properly protected from washout and erosion using appropriate erosion control devices. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1e: The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during construction to protect water quality within the watershed: 1) Final construction plans will depict the designated construction footprint as well as habitat to May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 618 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 21 of 70 be avoided. 2) Before October 15 and/or immediately after construction is complete, stabilize exposed surfaces. 3) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre-Project conditions. 4) All exposed soils will be stabilized with an erosion control tackifier and will be seeded with a native seed mix with a sterilized nurse crop to reduce the effects of erosion. 5) Avoid construction within ponded or saturated areas to the maximum extent possible. 6) Staging areas will be contained within silt fencing or lined and bermed areas such that no leaks, runoff, or construction liquids could enter any drainage facilities. 7) No refueling, storage, servicing, or maintenance of equipment will take place within 50 feet of Tassajara Creek, its tributaries, or other adjacent wetland features. 8) All machinery used during construction of the Project will be properly maintained and cleaned to prevent spills and leaks that could contaminate soil or water. 9) Any spills or leaks from construction equipment (i.e., fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and grease) will be cleaned up in accordance with applicable local, state, and/or federal regulations. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1f: The County will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements associated with construction activity as required under Section 402 of the C lean Water Act. As part of this requirement, the County will require the contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the project qualifies for an erosivity waiver, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) will be prepared. In either case, the document will include erosion control measures and construction-waste containment measures to ensure that waters of the U.S. and State are protected during and after Project construction. The SWPPP or WPCP will include measure to minimize offsite stormwater runoff. Components of the SWPP or WPCP will include but not be limited to: 1) A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed, and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas. 2) A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices used during construction, and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff. 3) Specifications and designs for the appropriate BMPs for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase. 4) A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance, and identifies the party responsible for monitoring. 5) A site map that locates all water quality control measures and restricted areas to be left undisturbed. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-1g: To prevent the accidental introduction of new invasive species into the Project Site during construction, the County will require that the Project contractor implement the following control measures: 1) Only certified noxious weed-free erosion control materials will be used. All straw and seed May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 619 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 22 of 70 material will be certified as weed-free prior to being used at the Project Site. 2) Contractor will wash all construction equipment prior to bringing it onto the job site. Inspection will ensure that equipment arrives on site free of mud and seed-bearing material. 3) Any reseeding of disturbed soil areas and newly constructed slopes will use an appropriate native seed mix. Special-Status Plant Species A total of 55 special status plants were initially identified as potentially occurring in the BSA. All but one was ruled out because of lack of habitat, the Project occurs outside the plants range, or it was confirmed absent during focused surveys conducted in November, April, and July of 2017. No federally or state listed species have potential to occur. The one plant identified within the BSA is Condon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) a California Rare Plant Rank Class 1B.1 species that is protected by CEQA. During the July 6, 2017 botanical survey, scattered patches of Congdon's tarplant were identified along Segment 3 primarily outside the Work Area. In total, approximately 136 Congdon's tarplant individuals were observed within the BSA, of which three individuals are growing within the Project Site. San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana) has been recorded along Camino Tassajara north of the Project segments but was not observed during botanical surveys. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1e, Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-1g, and Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-2a and BIO IV(a)-2b, identified below, will ensure that the Project minimizes disturbance to special-status plant populations. In addition, the County will compensate for unavoidable impacts to Congdon’s tarplant as described under Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-3. This would not constitute a substantial adverse effect to the species and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-2 If present in the Project Site, the Project could impact Congdon’s tarplant individuals. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-2a: The following measures will be implemented to avoid impacts to special-status plants:  The County will minimize impacts to populations of Congdon’s tarplant in Segment 3 by establishing a work zone that avoids special-status plants to the greatest extent possible. To accomplish this measure, final design will focus on minimizing the Project footprint within areas that contain these special-status plants, as feasible. Anticipated locations of special status plants will be represented on final plans. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-2b: Prior to any unavoidable excavation work in any areas identified during botanical surveys that support Congdon’s tarplant, seeds will be collected from plants located in the Project footprint. After finished grades generally have been achieved, the collected seeds will be redistributed within areas disturbed by the Project that provide appropriate habitat for the species. Specific actions that will be employed to ensure successful establishment of Congdon’s tarplant include the following: 1) Prior to construction, all accessible areas of permanent disturbance that are within 100 feet of Congdon’s tarplants will be flagged for seed salvage. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 620 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 23 of 70 2) Prior to other earthwork, at the appropriate time when seeds have developed but just before seeds drop, typically late summer and early fall, seeds will be collected and stored in a cool, dry location. 3) Once construction is complete in an area, seeds will be evenly spread over areas of exposed soil and raked in. 4) In areas where seed has been spread, equipment traffic will be limited, to the extent practicable, to minimize compaction. 5) Post construction, areas where seed was spread will be protected from wind and water erosion until after the next growing season (spring/summer) using typical stabilization methods. If hydroseeding is used, hydroseed will be comprised of a native seed mix with a sterilized nurse crop. Special-Status Wildlife Species Of the 34 special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the general Project area, 18 wildlife species will not occur in the BSA or will not have the potential to be affected by the Project because the BSA lacks suitable habitat for the species or is outside the species’ known range. Four of the wildlife species (tricolored blackbird [Agelaius tricolor], peregrine falcon [Falco peregrinus anatum], pallid bat [Antrozous pallidus], and Townsend’s big-eared bat [Corynorhinus townsendii]) may forage in the BSA but would not breed or roost in the BSA due to the lack of suitable habitat. The remaining 12 wildlife species (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], California tiger salamander [Ambystoma californiense], Alameda whipsnake [Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus], western pond turtle [Actinemys marmorata], burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia], golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos], northern harrier [Circus cyaneus], white-tailed kite [Elanus leucurus], loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus], western red bat [Lasiurus blossevillii], American badger [Taxidea taxus], and San Joaquin kit fox [Vulpes macrotis mutica]) were determined to have suitable habitat present in the BSA; however none of these species were observed during the November 10, 2016 and February 10, 2017 wildlife surveys. A description of these species is included below and measures to further avoid and minimize impacts are identified. California Red-legged Frog: Tassajara Creek is located outside of the Project Site, but within the BSA for segments 2, 3, and 4. Potential indirect effects to California red-legged frog breeding habitat in Tassajara Creek will be prevented through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1e. Annual grassland, riparian, and roadside ditch habitats in the BSA for each of the four segments represent suitable upland aestivation and foraging habitat. Additionally, it is possible that California red-legged frog could disperse through any of the vegetation types within the general Project area. Mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs in upland habitat could occur if burrows containing frogs are crushed by construction equipment or frogs are displaced from burrows, exposing them to predators and desiccation. However, this is considered unl ikely because most activities will be completed in the existing disturbed roadside, where frogs may be less likely to burrow. Additionally, although the general Project area represents potential habitat for this species, the likelihood of their presence in the Project Site is considered extremely unlikely. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 621 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 24 of 70 Trenches left open during the night could trap frogs moving through the construction area. Also, construction activities could temporarily impede the movement of juvenile and adult California red - legged frogs dispersing between breeding areas and upland refuge sites. However, these impacts will be mitigated with implementation of mitigations measures described previously. In addition, implementation of the following mitigation measures, prior to and during construction, will further avoid impacts to California red-legged frog. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-3 Project construction could directly and indirectly impact California red-legged frog, California red- legged frog Critical Habitat, and California tiger salamander and its habitat. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3a: All ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project will be restricted to the dry season (estimated between April 15 and October 15) to avoid the period when listed amphibians (California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander) could be actively dispersing through upland habitats. If construction will need to continue past October 15, to avoid potential impacts to these species a qualified biologist will be present during any work conducted after October 15 and no work will occur during rain events. Also refer to Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-1d. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3b: To avoid entrapment of wildlife, all excavated steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will be provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks at the end of each workday. If escape ramps cannot be provided, then holes or trenches will be covered with plywood or similar materials. Providing escape ramps or covering open trenches will prevent injury or mortality of wildlife resulting from falling into trenches and becoming trapped. The trenches will be thoroughly inspected for the presence of wildlife species at the beginning of each workday. If wildlife is discovered in the trenches work will not occur within 50 -feet and the qualified biologist will be called immediately to determine if it is a special status species. Special status species will be left to leave the area on its own. Non-special status species may be removed by a qualified biologist and may require consultation with CDFW prior to removal as determined by the qualified biologist. Also refer to Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-3d. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3c: A preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately preceding initial ground disturbing activities. A qualified biologist will carefully search all suitable habitat areas within the Project Site for California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes. A qualified biologist will monitor all initial ground disturbance and habitat removal e.g. grading, removal of vegetation, removal of culverts or rocks that could provide habitat for California red - legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes. If any California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes are found during these surveys, work will stop within that segment and they will be allowed to move outside the Project Site on their own. Work may resume on approval by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 622 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 25 of 70 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3d: Following preconstruction surveys and Project initiation, it is possible that wildlife species could subsequently enter or return to the Project Site. The following measures shall be implemented to avoid disturbance or harm to these species: 1) If any special-status species or other wildlife species, alive or dead, are observed in the Project Site during construction, construction shall cease in that segment until the qualified biologist can determine if it is a special status species and/or that it is safe to continue. 2) Non-special status species may be relocated by a qualified biologist, CDFW coordination may be required as determined by the qualified biologist. Work may resume when the wildlife is a safe distance away as determined by the qualified biologist. 3) A living special status species will be allowed to leave the site on its own and work will not resume in that segment until approved by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. 4) Any special status species found in the work area, alive or dead will be documented and reported to the wildlife agencies as appropriate by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3e: During construction, tightly woven fiber netting (no monofilament netting) or similar material will be used for erosion control or other purposes within the Project Site to ensure that wildlife are not trapped. Coconut coir matting and burlap contained fiber rolls are an example of acceptable erosion control materials. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-3f: During construction, all food-related garbage will be placed in tightly sealed containers at the end of each workday to avoid attracting predators. Containers will be emptied and garbage removed from the construction site at the end of each work week. If sealed containers are not available, garbage will be removed from the construction site upon completion of daily activities. All garbage removed from the construction site will be disposed of at an appropriate offsite refuse location. California Tiger Salamander: The Project will not affect potential breeding habitat for California tiger salamander because no suitable breeding habitat is present within the BSA for any of the four segments. However, the BSA does provide suitable upland habitat within annual grassland, riparian, and roadside ditch habitats. Mortality or injury of California tiger salamanders in upland habitat could occur if burrows containing salamanders are crushed by construction equipment or salamanders are displaced from burrows, exposing them to predators and desiccation. However, this is considered unlikely for the following reasons. Most activities will be completed in the existing disturbed roadside, where California tiger salamanders are less likely to burrow. Additionally, although the general Project area represents potential habitat for this species, the likelihood of their presence in the Project Site is considered extremely unlikely. Trenches left open during the night could trap California tiger salamanders moving through the construction area. Also, construction activities could temporarily impede the movement of juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders dispersing between breeding areas and upland refuge sites. However, these impacts will be avoided with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-1a May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 623 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 26 of 70 through BIO IV(a)-1e and BIO IV(a)-3a through BIO IV(a)-3f, which require that trenches are covered or equipped with wildlife escape ramps at the end of each workday and that work is restricted to the dry season to avoid the period when this species could be actively dispersing through upland habitats. Alameda Whipsnake: If Alameda whipsnake and/or active burrows are present in the Project Site, excavation, grading, and movement of equipment within grassland habitat could result in mortality or disturbance of adults or young and destruction of burrows containing eggs. However, this is considered unlikely for the following reasons. Most activities will be completed in the existing disturbed roadside. Additionally, although the general Project area theoretically represents potential habitat for this species, the likelihood of their presence in the Project Site is considered extremely unlikely. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1d and BIO IV(a)-3b through BIO IV(a)-3e would ensure that impacts to Alameda whipsnake are avoided. Western Pond Turtle: Marginal habitat for western pond turtle is present within the general Project area. Road widening activities associated with the Project could permanently remove and temporarily disturb potential upland annual grassland habitat. If western pond turtles are present within proposed work areas during construction, the movement of equipment could crush pond turtles or nests containing eggs or young. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1e, BIO IV(a)-3b, BIO IV(a)-3c, and BIO IV(a)-15, described below, would ensure that impacts to western pond turtles are avoided. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-4 The Project has the potential to affect Western Pond Turtle habitat. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact western pond turtle individuals and will temporarily disturb western pond turtle habitat. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-4: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction clearance survey for western pond turtles immediately preceding initial ground disturbing activities within the Project Site. Any western pond turtles found within the Project Site will be allowed to voluntarily move out of this area or will be captured and held by a qualified biologist for the minimum amount of time necessary to release them in suitable habitat outside the Project Site. Burrowing Owl: Although no burrowing owls were found in the BSA during field surveys, suitable habitat for the species is present within short annual grassland containing ground squirrel burrows. If burrowing owls are wintering or breeding within or adjacent to the Project Site, construction activities could disturb nesting burrowing owls or remove active burrowing owl burrows containing eggs, young, or adults. Disturbance or loss of wintering or nesting burrowing owls would violate the MBTA and CFGC. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1d and BIO IV(a)-5, included below, will avoid potential impacts on burrowing owl and will avoid violation of the MBTA and CFGC. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-5 The Project could impact the burrowing owl. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact burrowing owl individuals and will permanently and temporarily impact burrowing owl habitat. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 624 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 27 of 70 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-5: The County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct a one-day preconstruction survey to locate any active burrowing owl burrows within the Project Site or within a 500-foot-wide buffer around the Project Site, if feasible. The preconstruction survey will be conducted in accordance with recommendations provided in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) and no more than 14 days before the start of construction activities (including grading and equipment staging). If no burrowing owls or burrows exhibiting burrowing owl use (i.e., whitewash, owl pellets, feathers, or egg fragments) are detected, then construction may proceed. Preconstruction surveys must be reinitiated if more than 30 days lapse between the survey dates and construction activities. If active burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected in the survey area, the following measures will be implemented. 1) Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (generally February 1– August 30). A no-disturbance buffer will be established around the burrow to avoid disturbance of nesting burrowing owls until a qualified biologist, coordinating with CDFW, determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist (coordinating with the CDFW) and will depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line-of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. 2) If the survey finds an active burrowing owl nest in an area of permanent or temporary impact including staging areas, that cannot be avoided due to spatial restrictions, burrowing owls may be passively relocated in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). This recommends that passive relocation occur following approval from the agencies, outside of the nesting season, and after an agency-approved biologist determined that owls have not begun laying eggs or there is not young of the year present. Per CDFW 2012, passive relocation will include the installation of one-way doors within the burrow to let owls escape, but not allow them to re-enter the burrow. Once the owls have been excluded from the burrow, it will be collapsed by hand by an agency-approved biologist. If passive relocation is necessary, artificial or natural burrows should be in close proximity (100 meters) from the eviction site. Golden Eagle: The BSA is in the foraging range of a known golden eagle nesting territory and a portion of Segment 3 is located within the line of sight of a golden eagle nest. If nesting golden eagles are present in the vicinity of the BSA, noise and human activity associated with the Project could cause disturbance, potentially resulting in the loss of active nests with eggs or young, which would violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, MBTA, and CFGC. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1c and BIO IV(a)-6, described below, will avoid impacts to golden eagles and violation of the MBTA and CFGC. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-6 The Project could impact nesting birds and raptors. The BSA provides habitat for nesting raptors and other birds that are protected under the MBTA. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 625 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 28 of 70 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-6: The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) If construction (including utility pole relocation, equipment staging, and vegetation removal) will occur during the breeding season for migratory birds and raptors (generally January through August), the County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre- construction nesting bird and raptor surveys prior to construction activities. 2) The pre-construction nesting bird and raptor surveys will be conducted prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat in and near (within half a mile for golden eagle and 500 feet for all other raptors) the Project Site. For raptor surveys outside the Project Site where property access has not been granted, the surveying biologist will use binoculars to scan any suitable nesting substrate for potential raptor nests. 3) The surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days before the initiation of construction activities in the Project Area. 4) The known golden eagle nesting territory near Segments 3 and 4 will be observed adequately to determine if it is active. If nesting behavior is observed and the nest is determined to be active, no construction will occur within the line of site of the nest until a qualified biologist coordinating with CDFW determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. 5) If an active bird nest is identified within the Project Area or an active raptor nest is identified in or within 500 feet from the Project Area, then a no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest to avoid disturbance of the nesting birds or raptors until a qualified biologist coordinating with CDFW determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist (coordinating with the CDFW) and will depend on the species identified, level of noise or construction disturbance, line-of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers (generally 50 feet for passerine, 500 feet for raptors, or as agreed on during coordination with CDFW). In addition to the establishment of buffers, other avoidance measures (determined during CDFW coordination) may include monitoring of the nest during construction and restricting the type of work that can be conducted near the nest site. If no active nests are found during the preconstruction surveys, then no additional mitigation is required. Loggerhead Shrike: Trees and shrubs within the Project area provide potential nesting habitat for loggerhead shrikes. Removal of trees or shrubs during the breeding season (generally February through August) could result in the destruction and/or loss of active nests with eggs or young and would violate the MBTA and CFGC. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1c and BIO IV(a)-6 will avoid impacts to loggerhead shrikes and violation of the MBTA and CFGC. White-Tailed Kite: Trees and shrubs within the Project area provide potential nesting habitat for white-tailed kite. Removal of trees or shrubs during the breeding season (generally March through August) could result in the destruction and/or loss of active nests with eggs or young and would violate the MBTA and CFGC. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1c and BIO IV(a)-6 will avoid impacts to white-tailed kites and violation of the MBTA and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 626 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 29 of 70 CFGC. Northern Harrier: Annual grassland provides nesting habitat and cropland, ruderal, and riparian habitats in the Project Area provides potential foraging habitat for northern harriers. Grubbing activities in the Project Area and the movement of construction equipment within annual grassland habitat could result in the destruction and/or loss of active nests with eggs or young, which would violate the MBTA and CFGC. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1c and BIO IV(a)-6 will avoid impacts to northern harriers and violation of the MBTA and CFGC. Western Red Bat: Annual grassland, cropland, and ruderal habitats in the Project Area provides potential foraging habitat for western red bat. Trees in the Project area provide potential roosting habitats. If present, roosting individuals could be injured or killed during tree removal. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a, BIO IV(a)-1b, and BIO IV(a)-7 will avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-7 The Project could impact the western red bat and its habitat during project construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-7: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey of all trees proposed for removal or trimming within the Project Site for the presence of bat roosts. Surveys will entail direct inspection of trees, including around the base within piles of leaf litter, or nocturnal surveys (if not conducted during the hibernation period for bats). The survey will occur no more than 2 weeks prior to the removal or trimming of trees within the Project Site. If bats are not found and there is no evidence of use by bats, construction may proceed. If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the type of roost. If roosting bats are present, measures shall be implemented to avoid or minimize disturbance to the colony. Measures may include excluding bats from the tree before their hibernation period (mid-October to mid-March) and before construction begins. Alternatively a phased approach to removal may be used: small branches and non-habitat features will be carefully removed from the tree under the supervision of a qualified biologist. The next day larger features will be carefully removed under the supervision of a qualified biologist. On the third day a qualified biologist will inspect the tree for the presence of roosting b ats, if no bats are present removal can commence. American Badger: Ground disturbing activities within annual grassland, cropland, orchard habitats, and ruderal habitats in the Project Site have the potential to unearth an American badger den resulting in the mortality of adults and/or young. In general, excavation and fill associated with Project construction will only occur along the existing roadway, with some minor ground disturbance occurring from equipment access and staging. To minimize impacts to American badger, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-8 will be implemented to identify potential badger burrows and either avoid them or exclude nonbreeding badgers. Because American badgers have very large home ranges and typically utilize a large number of burrows, exclusion of nonbreeding badgers from the Project Site will not adversely affect the local population of American badgers. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-8 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 627 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 30 of 70 The Project could impact the American badger. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact American badger individuals and will temporarily impact American badger habitat. Noise and disturbance from construction activities could indirectly disrupt foraging and/or denning activities. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-8: A preconstruction survey for the American badger will be conducted within the BSA no more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist with experience identifying badger burrows. Any potential badger burrow identified should be clearly marked in the field and avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the biologist will determine if the burrow is being used as a natal den (young rearing generally occurs between April and September). If young are determined to be present, the burrow will be avoided until the young vacate the burrow. If the biologist determines that the burrow is not being used for breeding, then a one way door will be installed on the burrow (upon approval by CDFW) to passively exclude the badger from the burrow. Once the badger has been excluded the burrow will be collapsed. San Joaquin Kit Fox: There is a very low likelihood that the species will occur in the general Project area and be affected by Project construction. If present, ground disturbing activities within the Project Site could directly affect San Joaquin Kit Fox. Additionally, noise associated with construction activities involving heavy equipment operation could disturb individuals if present near these activities. However, these potentially adverse effects are considered unlikely because most activities will be completed in the existing disturbed roadside. Additionally, although the general Project area theoretically represents potential habitat for this species, the likelihood of their presence is considered extremely unlikely. Furthermore, to ensure that the Project does not adversely affect San Joaquin kit fox, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1d, BIO IV(a)-3b, BIO IV(a)-3d, BIO IV(a)-3f, and BIO IV(a)-9 will be implemented prior to and during construction. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-9 The Project has the potential to affect San Joaquin kit fox. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact San Joaquin kit fox individuals and will temporarily impact San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Noise and disturbance from construction activities could indirectly disrupt foraging and /or denning activities. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO IV(a)-9: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 30 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect San Joaquin kit fox. Where accessible, or using binoculars in inaccessible areas, the biologist will survey the proposed Project Site and a 200-foot buffer area around the Project Work Area to identify suitable dens (e.g., burrow, pipe, or culvert approximately 5 to 8 inches in diameter). The biologist will conduct den searches by systematically walking transects spaced 30–100 feet apart through the survey area. Transect distance should be determined on the basis of the height of vegetation such that 100% visual coverage of the Project Area is achieved. If dens are found during the survey, the biologist will map the location of each den as well as record the size and shape of the den entrance; the presence of tracks, scat, and prey remains; and if the den was recently excavated. The biologist will also record information on prey availability (e.g., ground squirrel colonies). The status of the den will also be determined and recorded. Dens may be classified in one of the following four den May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 628 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 31 of 70 status categories. Potential den: Any subterranean hole within the species’ range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is sufficient to conclude that it is being used or has been used by a kit fox. Known den: Any existing natural den or artificial structure that is used or has been used at any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include histori cal records; past or current radiotelemetry or spotlighting data; kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey remains; or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a kit fox. Natal or pupping den: Any den determined to be used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively by adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances. A natal den, defined as a den in which kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two; therefore, for purposes of this definition either term applies. Atypical den: Any artificial structure that has been or is determined to be used by a San Joaquin kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and buildings. After preconstruction den searches and before the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist will establish and maintain exclusion zones (varying between 50 and 200 feet ) measured in a radius outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances of each mapped den. Construction activities will be prohibited or greatly restricted within these exclusion zones throughout the construction period. Only essential vehicular operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted. All other construction activities, vehicle operation, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited in the exclusion zones. Other Protected Migratory Birds and Raptors: Grubbing (including tree removal) or ground disturbance that occurs during the breeding season (generally February through August) could result in take of migratory birds and/or raptors. Suitable raptor nesting habitat is present within riparian trees along nearby Tassajara Creek. Noise and disturbance associated with construction activities that occurs during the breeding season could disturb nesting raptors if an active nest is located near these activities. Any disturbance that causes migratory bird or raptor nest abandonment and/or loss of eggs or developing young at active nests located at or near the Project Site would violate the MBTA and CFGC. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-1c and BIO IV(a)-6 will avoid impacts to migratory birds and raptors and violation of the MBTA and CFGC. The project is not anticipated to substantially impact any special-status species with implementation of the mitigation and Mitigation Measures described above. Therefore, project impacts will be less May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 629 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 32 of 70 than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? There are eight roadside ditches in the Area of Potential Impact, totaling 0.302 acre. However, these roadside ditches do not qualify as waters of the U.S. according to verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There are no other Natural Communities of Special Concern in the BSA. Permanent and temporary impacts to habitat types located within the BSA are summarized in Table 3, above. The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or CDFW and USFWS regulations, including critical habitat. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on these types of habitats. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Refer to response IV.b, above. There are no Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the Project Site. As such, there will be no impact. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? There is no habitat for native resident or migratory fish in the Project area. Common and special-status wildlife species could potentially disperse through the Project area. Migratory birds and raptors could potentially nest in the general Project area and native mammals could potentially roost or den in the general Project area. However, the Project is limited to shoulder widening and will not increase capacity of the roadway or create new permanent barriers to wildlife movement. With limited exceptions, Project improvements will occur in the existing road right-of-way. As such, impacts to wildlife breeding habitat will be negligible. Temporary barriers will be installed during construction to limit wildlife passage through the Project Site. These barriers are designed to avoid impacts to wildlife and will be completely removed at the end of construction. Moreover, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-9 will ensure that the Project will have less-than- significant impacts to the movement or reproduction of wildlife species. As such, this impact will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There will be no impact. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The Project is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 630 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 33 of 70 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Regulatory Setting CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project will have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource (includes historical and archaeological) (Public Resources Code Sections 21084, 21084.1, 21083.2). A resource is considered significant if it 1) is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR); 2) is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code 5020.1(k); 3) has been identified as significant in an historical resources survey, as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(g); or 4) is determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. The following CRHR eligibility criteria need to be considered when making a significance determination. 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. To be considered a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA, the resource must also have inte grity, which is the authenticity of a resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. However, because a resource does not appear in the CRHR does not mean that it is not a historical resource. A historical resource includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (PRC Section 5020.1). May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 631 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 34 of 70 California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 also addresses the identification and protection of unique archaeological resources. A “unique archaeological resource” is an archaeological artifact, object, or site for which there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic person or event. In most situations, resources that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource also meet the definition of historical resource. As a result, it is current professional practice to evaluate cultural resources for significance based on their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. Environmental Setting While the western border of Contra Costa County approaches the San Francisco Bay, and the northern border lies along the southern banks of the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay, this Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) lies about 18 miles east of the Bay and 17 miles south of the Strait in a narrow inland valley. The topography of the Project APE includes relatively gently sloping terrain within a natural valley, with elevations within the APE ranging from about 520 feet to about 670 feet above mean sea level. Hills rise to the east and west of the Project area, in terrain common over much of the area between the San Francisco Bay and the Coastal Ranges. Tassajara Creek meanders through the valley, roughly parallel to Camino Tassajara Road, and is a persistent source of water. The main ecological zone in this area is currentl y Foothill Grassland. The environment of this area, like much of California, has changed dramatically since the 1800s. Historical accounts describe large portions of the County as a rolling open grassland environment, but the composition of the grasses in this area changed drastically with the introduction of foxtail, wild oat, and other non-native species. While tule elk and pronghorn antelope are no longer present in the environment, deer, raccoon, foxes, skunks, rabbits, gophers, rats, mice, and a wide variety of bird species do remain. Cultural Resource Assessment Report A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the Project by Condor Country (Condor Country 2017). The following analysis is based on that report. Condor conducted a records search within 0.25 miles around the project segments. The records search included review at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) located in Rohnert Park, California. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a Sacred Lands File search to determine if any recorded Native American sites occur within the project area. The NAHC provided a list of Native American tribal representatives and organizations that may have knowledge of unrecorded sites within the vicinity of the sites. A field survey was also conducted of the sites to determine if any cultural resources are present. Section XVII discusses Tribal Cultural Resources under Assembly Bill 52. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 632 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 35 of 70 a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Two historical resources were identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. The two resources were the remains of a ranch complex located near the intersection of Tassajara Road and Finley Road, and part of the Rasmussen Ranch Complex located east of Tassajara Road between Segments 2 and 3 of the Project. However, these resources were identified outside of the APE and would therefore, not be affected by the Project. Nevertheless, the potential for subsurface resources cannot be completely ruled out and Project construction may unearth unanticipated historic or pre-historic resources; therefore, the following Mitigation Measures will be followed in the event subsurface resources are discovered during Project construction. In addition, Project contract specifications stipulate that construction shall stop in the area if historical resources (i.e. structure/building remains, bottle glass, ceramics, etc.) are encountered until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the findings. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Project impacts on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. IMPACT CUL-1 Development of the Project could disturb unanticipated historic or pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during Project construction to protect unanticipated historic or pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic, pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic Native American period archaeological materials that may be encountered. 2) If an inadvertent discovery is made, the Contractor will cease all ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery. 3) The Contractor will immediately notify the County Public Works Department Resident Engineer who will then request a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the finding(s). 4) If the finding(s) is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribal representative or historical society will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? The records search and field study did not identify archaeological resources within the APE. While no archaeological resources were identified, there is the potential of encountering unrecorded archaeological resources. Project contract specifications stipulate that construction shall stop in the area if potential archaeological resources (i.e., unusual amounts of shell, stone tools, animal bone, etc.) are encountered until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the findings. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL- 1, will be followed in the event subsurface resources are discovered during project construction. As such, Project impacts on archaeological would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 633 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 36 of 70 c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? The records search results and the field survey found no evidence of unique paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or geologic features have within the APE. While no paleontological resources were identified, there is the potential for encountering unrecorded paleontological resources during Project construction. However, Project contract specifications would stipulate that construction shall stop in the area if such potential resources are discovered. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be followed in the event subsurface resources are discovered during project construction. Therefore, Project impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No formal cemeteries are present within or adjacent to the Project site. As part of the cultural review conducted for the Project, the NAHC was contacted to determine if there are any recorded Native American burial grounds and/or sacred land sites in the Project vicinity. The NAHC reported that no recorded sites occur in the Project APE. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), if human remains are uncovered during ground disturbances, Project contract specifications stipulate that the Contractor stop work in the area and immediately notify the CCCPWD Resident Engineer. CCCPWD will immediately notify the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist. The County Coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of discovery. If the County Coroner believes, or has reason to believe, that the human remains are those of a Native American, the County Coroner is required to contact the NAHC within 24 hours of making that determination. The archaeologist and NAHC designated Most Likely Descendent will determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-2, will be followed in the event subsurface resources are discovered during project construction. As such, Project impacts on archaeological would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. IMPACT CUL-2 The Project could impact previously undiscovered human remains. MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discover y shall be redirected and the Contra Costa County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, Contra Costa County, and the Northwest Information Center. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 634 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 37 of 70 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2 Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4 Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Environmental Setting The geology of Contra Costa County is dominated by several northwest trending fault systems, which divide the County into large blocks of rock. The County is subject to seismic events originating on faults within the County and in other parts of the region. Seismic Hazards Contra Costa County is located within a region of high seismicity; the San Francisco Bay Region has been impacted by severe earthquakes during historic time (Contra Costa County 2005h). In order to provide safety of structures for human occupancy, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazards. The law requires the state Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. The Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (SCDC 2017). However, faults occur in the general area (Contra Costa County 2005h). a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 635 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 38 of 70 loss, injury, or death involving? 1 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. The Project Site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no known faults cross the Project site. The Project does not include elements that would increase risk to people or structures, as it is limited to shoulder widening of an existing roadway. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. 2 Strong seismic ground shaking? Faults occur in the area that could potentially cause seismic ground shaking. The duration and intensity of shaking will depend upon both the magnitude of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and ground conditions. The Project design and construction will take the existing seismic conditions into account and the Project will be designed in accordance with local design practice. Further, because the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening, the risk of loss of and the risk of injury or death resulting from implementation of the Project is unlikely. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 3 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the general Project area has potential for liquefaction. The Project design and construction will take existing soil conditions into account and the Project will be designed in accordance with local design practice. Further, because the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening, the risk of loss of and the risk of injury or death resulting from implementation of the Project is unlikely. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 4 Landslides? According to Figure 10-6 of the General Plan, there is some evidence of landslide deposits in the general Project area. The Project is located in a valley therefore landslides could occur on associated hills. Segments 2 and 3 are located some distance from slopes and Segments 1 and 4 have slopes that are close to the roadway. Further, because the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening, the risk of loss of and the risk of injury or death resulting from implementation of the Project is unlikely. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Grading and excavation will disturb soils and create the potential for soil erosion. The Project will incorporate Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1e and BIO IV(a)-1f that require adherence to standard dust control and erosion control practices during construction and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) will identify appropriate erosion control measures to be implemented, after approval by the CCCPWD. Upon Project completion, all areas left exposed will be re-seeded or stabilized in order to prevent erosion. In addition, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1 during construction which would further ensure that soil erosion impacts are reduced. Implementation of these measures will minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil to the extent possible. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 636 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 39 of 70 According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the general Project area has generally high or generally moderate to low potential for liquefaction depending on the precise location (Contra Costa County 2 005h). The Project design and construction will take the existing soil conditions into consideration and the Project will be designed in accordance with local design practice. Further, the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening of an existing road and will not introduce new land uses that could be impacted by unstable soils. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Project Site is located on clay type soils, which tend to be expansive soils. The Project will be engineered according to standard industry practice, which includes design considerations for soil t ype. Moreover, the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening of an existing road, which will not create substantial risk to life or property from expansive soils. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems are not part of the Project. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 637 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 40 of 70 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Regulatory Setting Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time. (California Office of Planning and Research [OPR] 2008). Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognized that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions which poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California (OPR 2008). This bill directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce GHGs to reach the GHG reduction goals by 2020. In order to address global climate change associated with air quality impacts, CEQA statutes were amended to require evaluation of GHG emissions. In developing the threshold of significance for GHG emissions included in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD identified the emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. While the BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction- related GHG emissions, sources of construction-related GHGs include exhaust (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide) for which the same detailed guidance as described for criteria air pollutants and precursors should be followed (BAAQMD 2012). In December 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 118 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2- equivalent (CO2e) emissions, or approximately 21.7 percent from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 545 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 47 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2008 emissions) (CARB 2008). In May 2014, CARB released and has since adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals and evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012 (CARB 2014). Per the update, California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 (CARB 2014). The update also reports the trends in GHG emissions from various emission sectors (e.g., transportation, building energy, agriculture). On January 20, 2017, CARB released its proposed 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan Update), which lays out the framework for achieving the 2030 reductions as established in May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 638 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 41 of 70 more recent legislation (CARB 2017). The proposed 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies the GHG reductions needed by each emissions sector to achieve a statewide emissions level that is 40 percent below 1990 levels before 2030. In December 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP identifies how the County will achieve the AB 32 GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below baseline levels by the year 2020, in addition to supporting other public health, energy efficiency, water conservation, and air quality goals identified in the County’s general plan and other policy documents. An emissions assessment was prepared for the Project by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE 2017). The following analysis is based on the results of that assessment. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil- based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The operational aspect of the Project will not result in an increase of GHG emissions; however, construction activities will generate GHG through vehicle exhaust. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted Threshold of Significance for construction related GHG emissions but states that lead agencies should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction, and make a determination on the significance of these construction-generated impacts. Using the Road Construction Emissions Model, it is estimated that the Project will generate approximately 265 metric tons of CO2e during construction of the Project. The Project’s emissions will be short term and the Project will implement standard best management practices (BMPs) stated in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 which include measures to reduce emissions from construction vehicles such as minimizing idling times and requiring properly maintained and tuned equipment which will further reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Contra Costa County adopted the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan in December 2015, developed for the purpose of reducing the County’s GHG emissions and contribution to climate change. Most of the measures identified in the Climate Action Plan consist of programs and incentives to be implemented by the County and are not applicable to the Project (CCCDCD 2015). As indicated in the analysis presented above, the Project will not generate emissions that would exceed the project-level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD and, therefore, the Project will not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 639 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 42 of 70 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Regulatory Setting A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The release of hazardous materials into the environment could potentially contaminate soils, surface water, and groundwater supplies. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) which consists of the Air Resources Board, Department of Pesticides Regulation, Department of Resources and Recycling and Recovery, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates hazardous materials and waste (CalEPA 2017a). Under Government Code Section 65962.5, the DTSC maintains a list of hazardous substance sites (Cortese List) which includes leaking underground storage tank sites, hazardous material sites, and landfills with evidence May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 640 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 43 of 70 of groundwater contamination (CalEPA 2017b; DTSC 2017). The Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program (2016) serves area residents by responding to emergencies and monitoring hazardous materials. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? During construction, trucks will travel to and from the Project Site. Vehicles would include diesel- powered trucks, backhoes, graders, dump trucks, excavators, water trucks, compactors, skid steers, pick- up trucks, pavers, and hoppers. This equipment may require the use of fuels and other common liquids that have hazardous properties (e.g., fuels, oils, fluids that are flammable) but they would be handled in small quantities that would not create a substantial hazard for construction workers and/or the public. Compliance with federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations would minimize the risk to the public presented by these potential hazards during construction of the Project. Completion of the shoulder widening would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or involve potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project will result in less-than-significant impacts associated with hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As discussed in further detail below in Section VIII.d, the Project Site is not located on a list of hazardous material sites and is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Project construction could cause an unforeseen release of hazardous materials such as a hazardous materials spill or equipment leak. In addition, the Project will remove existing striping that could contain traces of lead. However, the Project contract specifications will require the contractor to implement BMPs such as hazardous materials spill management and regular maintenance of vehicles to minimize potential impacts from accidental spills associated with Project construction or construction equipment. The Contractor will also be required to submit a lead compliance plan for approval by CCCPWD. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Tassajara Hills Elementary School is located approximately one mile to the northeast of Segment 1 and is the closest school to the Project site. Moreover, the Project does not propose land uses that are associated with hazardous substances. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? A database search of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s GeoTracker and Contra Costa County Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStore was conducted on September 11, 2017 and revealed no record of hazardous materials release or other potential for contamination on any of the Project segments. The closest record was a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) approximately 650 feet north of Segment 2. That site is closed and cleanup is complete. No other potential sources of contamination were indicated. Further, land use in the Project area (primarily ranching and residential) is not associated with hazardous materials so possibility of contamination is low. Therefore, Project May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 641 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 44 of 70 impacts will be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The Project site is not within two miles of an airport. According to Figure 3-1 of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan the Project is not within the Livermore Executive Airport Influence Area nor are any Project segments within two miles of any public airport. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Project segments are located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not result in significant changes to existing roadways, change traffic patterns, or interfere with emergency access. Emergency vehicles will have access at all times during construction. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Project site is not located in an area identified as at risk for wildland fires (ABAG 2016). Moreover, no residences, gathering places, or structures are proposed by the Project and the Project does not propose uses that would put residences in danger or increase the risk of wildland fire hazards. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 642 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 45 of 70 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Environmental Setting The Project site is located within the southern foothills of Mount Diablo within the Tassajara Creek drainage corridor. Slopes within the Project site range from 0 to 5 percent and fall toward Tassajara Creek. Tassajara Creek originates within the Black Hills to the north of the Project site and flows in a southerly direction past the Project site towards Arroyo de la Laguna Creek. Arroyo de la Laguna Creek empties into Alameda May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 643 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 46 of 70 Creek. Roadside ditches in the project area drain to Tassajara Creek. Flood Hazard Areas 100-year Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produced a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and printed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These maps show watershed areas which are re-studied and re-mapped periodically and show areas with a one percent chance of flooding each year. These areas are commonly referred to as 100-year floodplains, and are shown as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on the FIRM maps (FEMA 2009). According to the FIRM associated with the Project sites, portions of Segment 4 are located within a Zone A 100-year flood zone area. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The Project will not create wastewater discharge. Tassajara Creek parallels the Project site (varying from 30 to 70 feet away) and is not listed as an impaired water body in the SWRCB 303(d) list. There will be no in-creek work or discharge into the creek. The Project does not add additional lanes and therefore is not trigger County C.3 requirements. As stated in Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1e and BIO IV(a)-1f, a SWPPP or WPCP will be prepared for the Project and standard BMPs will be implemented during construction activities to minimize sediment or pollutants from construction activities from accidentally entering the creek. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The Project will not require any withdrawals from an aquifer or groundwater table and will have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge. Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The Project will include widening the existing roadway along four segments of Camino Tassajara between Finley Road and Windemere Parkway to provide two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The Project will widen approximately 5,050 feet of the existing roadway. All drainage improvements are designed to collect and convey storm water to Tassajara Creek consistent with the existing conditions. Minor modifications to the planned design may occur during the final design phase. Any changes resulting from the Project will be negligible and would not change overall drainage patterns or hydrology of the area or result in erosion or siltation on or off site. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The Project will create additional impervious surface area as a result of the pavement widening. However, as discussed above in Section IX.c, the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The area surrounding Camino Tassajara Road primarily consists of grasslands, orchards, and other pervious surfaces. The surrounding area will remain pervious, vegetated and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 644 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 47 of 70 unpaved, which will provide opportunity for stormwater to percolate into the ground. In addition, the amount of new impervious surface relative to the surrounding area is negligible. The Project will extend culverts and modify inlets as necessary to accommodate the road widening and will re-grade ditches to maintain the existing drainage patterns. In addition, all drainage will be designed to collect and convey stormwater to Tassajara Creek consistent with the existing conditions. The Project will not construct new obstacles that could block or redirect stormwater flows. The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage or flooding pattern of the Project sites. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the e xisting stormwater drainage system in the area. As stated above in Section IX.d, the proposed Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The surrounding area will remain pervious, vegetated and unpaved, which will provide opportunity for stormwater to percolate into the ground. Stormdrain modifications will be limited to those necessary to accommodate the new pavement width. The Project will not add additional travel lanes and is therefore does not trigger C.3 requirements. Further, the Project does not increase capacity of the roadway for vehicle traffic so there will be no additional sources of polluted runoff. Increased safety for bicyclists may encourage alternative modes of transportation which could reduce potential for polluted runoff from vehicles. Re-graded ditches will remain pervious and will be seeded with a native seed mix and sterile nurse crop. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No potential impacts to water quality other than those discussed above are anticipated. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The Project does not include the construction of housing. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? The Project does not include the construction of structures that would impede or redirect flows. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? A small portion of the Project site within Segment 4 is located within a Zone A 100-year flood zone area identified on the FIRM for the area, however the Project will not construct structures or provide places for people to gather or linger that might expose them to danger of flooding. The Project does not include the construction or alteration of any levees or dams and according to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District maps. In addition, the Project is not located within an area that would be inundated by failure of an existing dam. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. j) Would the project the expose people or structures to risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 645 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 48 of 70 The Project site is located in an inland area and is therefore not subject to seiches or tsunamis. Mudslides and debris flows are characterized by fast moving saturated earth. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or “slurry” (FEMA 2017). Areas identified by ABAG as Debris Flow Areas occur approximately one quarter mile to the east and west of the Project s ite, on the slopes of hillsides (ABAG 2017). However, the Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening of an existing road and will not introduce new land uses that could be impacted by mudslides. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 646 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 49 of 70 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Regulatory Setting General planning policies and provisions are contained in the General Plan and the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. The Contra Costa County Transit Authority is a public agency that manages the County's transportation sales tax program and is responsible for countywide transportation planning. The East Bay Regional Park District manages open space and trails near the Camino Tassajara Valley. The County has an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan however the Project is not within the plan’s inventory area. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The Project is limited to lane and shoulder widening of an existing road an d will not physically divide a community. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. The project is consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element goals and policies of the County General Plan including (Contra Costa County 2005c):  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-A: To provide a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-D: To maintain and improve air quality above air quality standards.  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-J: To reduce single-occupant auto commuting and encourage walking and bicycling.  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-L: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources through provision of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.  Roadway and Transit Policy # 5-9: Existing circulation facilities shall be improved and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 647 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 50 of 70 maintained by eliminating structural and geometric design deficiencies.  Roadway and Transit Policy #5-13: The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit.  Roadway and Transit Policy #5-14: Physical conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall be minimized.  Roadway and Transit Policy #5-18: The design and the scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to intermodal safety over other factors including capacity.  Roadway and Transit Policy #5-23: All efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged.  Roadway and Transit Policy #5-24: Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. According to the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, a Class II bicycle lane has been proposed for the Project segments of Camino Tassajara. The Project will provide the desirable pavement width for a Class II bike lane; therefore, the Project is consistent with this plan. According to the East Bay Regional Park District 2013 Master Plan Map, no Parklands or Trails are planned for Camino Tassajara along the Project length (EBRPD 2013). Other potential impacts associated with specific topical sections are discussed in those sections. Based on the analysis above, the Project is consistent with environmental land use policies or plans. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The Project does not fall within the inventory area of the Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 648 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 51 of 70 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Environmental Setting Mineral resources such as crushed rock, sand, and other resources, are important minerals in the region as they provide the necessary components for construction materials including asphalt and concrete for current and future development in the region. The most important mineral resources that are currently mined in the County include diabase near Mt. Zion on the north side of Mt. Diabl o, which provides crushed rock primarily for roadbase and streambank stabilizations; domengine sandstone, located in the eastern portion of the County just south of Camino Diablo and east of Vasco Road in the Byron area, which is the sole deposit in the state; and shale in the Port Costa area, which has been designated for protection by the County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005f). a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? There are no mapped mineral resource areas near the Project. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? There are no mapped mineral resource areas near the Project. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 649 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 52 of 70 XII. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Background Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires that a noise element be prepared as a part of all city and county general plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element follows the guidelines established by the California Department of Health Services entitled Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan, which defines noise metrics, discusses the process of noise element development, and presents land use compatibility guidelines based on various noise levels and provides goals, policies, and implementation measures for consideration (Contra Costa County 2005h). Contra Costa County does not have a noise ordinance and therefore, does not specify operational or construction noise level limits. The Noise Element of the General Plan does specify that construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods. Construction activities are generally limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Contra Costa County 2005h). May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 650 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 53 of 70 a) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Operational Impacts The Project will not increase capacity of the road and no significant changes to topography would occur. Shoulder widening on either side of the roadway will result in small changes (increases and decreases) in the distance of the travel way from nearby receptors although related changes in roadway noise will be negligible. Construction Impacts The Project will result in an increase in ambient noise associated with project construction. However, these impacts would be short-term and temporary in nature. In general, construction equipment generates noise levels ranging from approximately 74 to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source, with higher levels up to 101 dBA for less typical equipment such as pile drivers and rock drills (USDOT 2006). Construction activities for this Project will fall within a typical range between 74 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. There are numerous residences and other sensitive land uses located within the vicinity of the four roadway segments included as part of the Project. At Segment 1, there are approximately six residences located within 500 feet east of the site and another residence located approximately 250 feet northwest of the segment. In some areas along this segment, existing vegetation provides a buffer against roadway noise. At Segment 2, an equestrian center and swimming facility are located within 500 feet north of the segment. A single residence is located approximately 500 feet south. Segment 3 contains a variety of agricultural operations within the vicinity of the site. Two residences are located north of the segment within 400 feet. Segment 4 contains a variety of residences and agricultural operations immediately to the east and west of the segment. As stated above, Contra Costa County does not have a noise ordinance but the General Plan specifies that construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses. Construction activities will be generally limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Although unanticipated, if work is necessary outside of these hours, the Resident Engineer shall approve the work and will be available to address any noise concerns during all construction activities. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further ensure that potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT NOI-1 Development of the Project will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels during Project construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-1: The project contractor shall employ the following noise-reducing practices during project construction: 1. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. 2. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences should be strictly prohibited. 3. Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. 4. Utilize ‘quiet’ air compressors and other ‘quiet’ equipment where such technology exists. 5. Avoid staging of construction equipment within 200 feet of residences and locate all stationary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 651 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 54 of 70 noise-generating construction equipment as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors. 6. Require all construction equipment to conform to Section 14-8.02 Noise Control, of the latest Standard Specifications. 7. Provide notification to the adjacent noise-sensitive receptors including the specific construction schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Excessive ground borne vibration from construction activities results from equipment such as pile drivers, which will not be used to construct the Project. Some ground borne vibration may result from construction but will not be excessive based on the types of construction equipment that will be used and will be short term in nature. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Project will not increase the capacity of the roadway and no significant changes in topography will occur from Project implementation. As stated above, any changes in perceptible roadway noise will be negligible. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed in Section XII.a, the Project will result in temporary construction noise. Construction noise sources would be temporary and short-term in nature. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI- 1, project impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There is no public airport located within two miles of the project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 652 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 55 of 70 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Regulatory Setting Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a lead agency discuss ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, either directly by construction of businesses or housing, or indirectly by removing obstacles to population growth; for example, extending infrastructure into previously un- serviced areas. Increases in population may stress existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Project does not include new homes or businesses that could directly induce population growth. The Project will not increase the capacity of the roadway. Drainage modifications are limited to that which is necessary to accommodate the new pavement width and storm drain capacity will not be increased. No other infrastructure is proposed that could indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project will not displace any existing housing; as such, no replacement housing is necessary. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project will not displace any people; as such, no replacement housing construction is necessary. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 653 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 56 of 70 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? 1 Fire Protection? 2 Police Protection? 3 Schools? 4 Parks? 5 Other public facilities? Environmental Setting The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District provides fire protection services and emergency services to the Tassajara Valley and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department provides general public safety and law enforcement services in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County (Contra Costa County 2005e). The Project is located in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. (SRVSD 2017) a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new o r physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? The Project will not result in new development that could increase demand on public services and therefore will not necessitate the construction of new facilities or the alteration of facilities that c ould result in environmental impacts. Because the Project will not result in population growth, nor does it propose land uses that increase demand on police and fire services, the Project will not impact service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 654 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 57 of 70 XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The Project does not include new development that could increase use of existing parks or recreational facilities that could result in deterioration of facilities. Therefore the Project will have no impact. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As noted above, the Project does not include new development that could require construction of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 655 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 58 of 70 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Regulatory Setting The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed to manage the County's transportation sales tax program and to conduct countywide transportation planning. CCTA is responsible for maintaining and improving the County’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that connect the communities safely and efficiently including bicycle and pedestrian projects as described in the 2009 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (CCTA 2009). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan includes transportation goals and policies (Contra Costa County 2005c). a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The Project does not include elements that could increase traffic on local roadways (for example residential May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 656 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 59 of 70 or commercial construction). Changes to the roadway are limited to lane and shoulder wideni ng to bring the road up to current County standards and will not substantially change the configuration of the road or increase capacity. As such, the Project will not conflict with plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for roadway performance. According to the County Connection website, there are no County Connection bus routes along the Project length of Camino Tassajara. According to the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Wheels, System Maps does not identify bus routes along the Project length of Camino Tassajara. As such, no public transit routes will be affected. According to the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, a Class II bicycle lane has been proposed for the Project segment of Cami no Tassajara. The Project will provide the desirable pavement width for a Class II bike lane. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this plan. According to the East Bay Regional Park District 2013 Master Plan Map, no Parklands or Trails are planned for Camino Tassajara along the Project length. Through Project implementation, the roadway would be signed and striped for a Class II bike lane. This use is consistent with General Plan Policy 5-L, which encourages increased opportunity for bicycle use for recreation as well as transportation. For the reasons stated, the Project does not conflict with applicable plans and Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? As discussed above, the Project does not include elements that could increase traffic on roadways nor does it propose significant changes to the road. The Project would not increase the capacity of the road or result in any permanent impacts to any level of service or other roadway standards. The Project is estimated to take approximately 45 working days per segment to construct and during certain items of work, the Project may require a full or partial lane closure for short durations. As such, temporary traffic disruptions will occur along segments of the Project roadway where work is taking place. It is anticipated that no more than two segments would be constructed at a time. During short-term lane closures, traffic control measures such as flaggers and signage are expected to minimize significant congestion or delays. In addition, at least one lane will be open at all times to accommodate vehicles and to the extent feasible, any lane closure will be conducted during off-peak hours. Messaging boards will also be utilized to inform roadway users of upcoming construction delays. At the end of each workday, any lane closures will be re-opened to traffic. Full road closure is not anticipated and no detours will be necessary. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The Project is not located near an airport nor does it propose creation of structures or land uses that could affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? The Project will not increase hazards due to a design feature as the purpose of the Project is to provide safer roadway conditions along the roadway by bringing these segments up to current County standards. During construction, the Project contract specifications will require the contractor to implement measures May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 657 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 60 of 70 to minimize potential construction impacts. Therefore project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency vehicles will have access through the Project site at all times. Contract specifications will require the Contractor to notify local authorities of the Contractor’s intent to begin work at least 5 days before work is scheduled to begin. The Contractor will be required to cooperate with local authorities relative to handling traffic through the Project area and will make arrangements relative to keeping the work area clear of parked vehicles. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? As stated above, the roadway would be signed and striped for a Class II bike lane, which is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and the 2009 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. In addition, no public transit routes are located along the Project segment of Camino Tassajara. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 658 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 61 of 70 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Historical Resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resourced determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Regulatory Setting Assembly Bill 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as: 1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are any of the following: a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 659 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 62 of 70 A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Consultation is concluded when either the lead agency and tribes agree to appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, or when a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (PRC Section 21080.3.2(b)), whereby the lead agency uses its best judgement in requiring mitigation measures that avoid or minimize impact to the greatest extent feasible. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Historical Resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or ii) A resourced determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The Wilton Rancheria Tribe has submitted a general request letter to be notified of Projects within Contr a Costa County under AB52. On May 25, 2016 an offer to consult was sent to the AB52 contact indicated in the Wilton Rancheria general request letter. No response was received in the 30-day response period. Therefore the consultation period under AB52 closed with no response from the Tribe regarding presence of potential resources. As noted in Section V, Cultural Resources, a cultural resource assessment was completed and did not identify any historical resources within the APE. As in typical for general cultural resource investigations, throughout all stages of Project planning and archaeological investigations, Condor Country Consulting, Inc. (Condor) conducted consultations with local Native American representatives. On November 15, 2016, Condor faxed a letter to the NAHC requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project area, and program analysts conducted the records search on November 21, 2016. According to the NAHC, the search of the Sacred Lands File failed to identify any culturally sensitive locations within the Project APE. As per California Public Resources Code §5097.98, the NAHC provided Condor with a list of Native American contacts for further consultation regarding the Project. Six Native American tribal representatives and/or organizations were identified as possibly having information relevant to the Project area or concerns regarding proposed Project activities. On May 25, 2017, Condor mailed letters and Project maps through the United States Post Service (Priority Mail) to the contacts provided by the NAHC. In addition to the maps, the letters included a description of the Project and the Project location, as well as the negative results of the records search and archaeological May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 660 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 63 of 70 reconnaissance survey. The letters’ purpose was to inform the individuals and organizations representing the Native American community of the Project and to seek information regarding any areas of concern within or adjacent to the APE. In soliciting comments, questions, and concerns with regard to the Project, Condor specifically requested any information on Traditional Cultural Properties or places, such as traditional plant gathering sites, and whether any other sites of historic interest were in or immediately adjacent to the Project area, particularly those that may not have been previously recorded. The following contacts received letters:  Chairperson Irene Zwierlein (Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista)  Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers (Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan)  Chairperson Rosemary Cambra (Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area)  Chairperson Katherine Erolinda Perez (North Valley Yokuts Tribe)  Representative Andrew Galvan (The Ohlone Indian Tribe)  Chairperson Raymond Hitchcock (Wilton Rancheria) Subsequent attempts to reach the representatives were made by telephone on June 5, 2017 to solicit comments, questions, or concerns regarding the Project. Chairperson Sayers, expressed her confidence in the archaeological assessment and asked to be notified if any Native American cultural resources are encountered during construction. Detailed messages were left with Ms. Cambra, Mr. Galvan, and Mr. Hitchcock. These messages referenced the previously sent letters, described the nature and location of the Project, and asked that the representatives call to discuss any concerns or additional information that they may have regarding cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. Calls to Ms. Zwierlein and Ms. Perez went unanswered. Ms. Zwierlein’s voicemail box was full, and Ms. Perez had not made voicemail available. Second attempts to reach the remaining representatives were made on June 7, 2017, but no new responses were received. Voice messages were again left with Ms. Cambra, Mr. Galvan, and Mr. Hitchcock, but voicemail was still unavailable for Ms. Zwierlein and Ms. Perez. A written reply was received from Mr. Antonio Ruiz, Jr. Cultural Resources Officer for the Wilton Rancheria of Wilton California on June 19, 2017. The reply did not contain information regarding cultural resources. Mr. Ruiz requested that all Wilton Rancheria correspondences be kept confidential and only shared between the Tribe and County and as such, their specific requests do not appear in this document. None of the other Native American representatives identified by the NAHC has voiced any concerns with regard to the potential for discovery of Native American cultural resources within APE, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 AND CUL-2 will be implemented to minimize unanticipated impacts to previously undiscovered resources. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 661 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 64 of 70 XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The Project will not exceed wastewater requirem ents because the completed Project will not result in the need for wastewater treatment. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project does not include nor will it require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Drainage modifications will be limited to those necessary to accommodate shoulder widening. Capacity May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 662 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 65 of 70 would not be increased. The impacts associated with minor drainage modifications are analyzed in this document and were found to be less than significant. No other storm water drainage facilities are proposed or will be necessary for implementation of the Project. Therefore, the Project’s impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The completed Project will not require water service, and any water needed during project construction would be provided by water trucks from off-site water sources. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The Project does not require wastewater treatment services. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s waste disposal needs? The Project will not generate operational waste and will not result in the need for a new solid waste facility. However, a small amount of construction waste including vegetative matter, asphalt, and concrete may be generated. The County has active solid waste facilities with capacity to accommodate any construction waste that may be generated (CalRecycle, 2017). In addition, Project contract specifications will require that the contractor dispose of solid waste in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, the Project impacts will be less than significant. g) Would the project comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? As stated above, Project contract specifications will require that the contractor dispose of solid waste in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 663 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 66 of 70 XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section IV, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-9 would ensure that development of the Project would not: 1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 2) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 3) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or 4) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO IV(a)-1a through BIO IV(a)-9 would ensure that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than- significant levels. As discussed in Section V, the Project would not impact on- and/or off-site historic resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. As such, the proposed Project will result in less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? All project impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 664 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 67 of 70 measures incorporated. No other known projects that could result in cumulative construction impacts are currently planned. Therefore, the impacts will be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The Project will not cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings as impacts will be avoided and minimized where possible and mitigated when necessary. Mitigation measures will be implemented as described in the Air Quality, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise sections. Therefore, project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 665 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 68 of 70 References Area West Environmental Inc. (AWE 2017). Farmland Conversion Impact Analysis for the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project. April 10, 2017. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2016). 2016. ABAG Wildfire Hazard Maps and Information. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=wildfireThreat. Accessed December 1, 2017. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2017). 2017. Rainfall-Induced Landslides: Debris Flow Source Areas. Website: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=debrisFlowSource. Accessed November 6, 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 1999). December 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Accessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. Available online: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqaguid.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2012). 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available online: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa- guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017a). 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan. Available online: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap- vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 2, 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017b). 2017. San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attainment status: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed: November 2, 2017 California Air Resources Board (CARB 2008). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed: November 29, 2017. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2014). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 . https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2017. California Air Resources Board. (CARB 2017). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan . https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2017. California Department of Conservation (CDC 2000). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas more likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos. Available online: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/ofr_2000- 019.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA 2017a). 2017. General information. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/About/History01/. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA 2017b). 2017. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List. Department of Toxic Substance Control. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ California Office of Planning and Research (OPR 2008). 2008. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California. June 19, 2008. Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Sacramento, CA. CalRecycle. 2017. Website. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Search.aspx. Accessed: November 6, 2017. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2011). Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed November 16, 2017 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 666 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 69 of 70 Condor County Consulting, Inc. (Condor County, 2017) Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Cultural Resources Assessment Report. December 2017. Contra Costa County. January 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, CA. 2005a: Chapter 3. Land Use Element. 2005b: Chapter 4. Growth Management Element. 2005c: Chapter 5. Transportation and Circulation Element. 2005d: Chapter 6: Housing Element. 2005e: Chapter 7: Public Facilities/Services Element. 2005f: Chapter 8: Conservation Element. 2005g: Chapter 9: Open Space Element: 2005h: Chapter 10. Safety Element 2005h: Chapter 11. Noise Element Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. (CCCDCD 2015) Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/39791. Accessed November 2, 2017. Contra Costa County Public Works Department. (CCCPWD 2017). Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Biological Resources Assessment. December 2017. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2009). 2009. 2009 Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Available online: http://www.ccta.net/uploads/5297adc44d334.pdf. Accessed: September 11, 2017. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2015). 2015. Update of the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Plan . Available online at: http://www.ccta.net/uploads/Final_2015_CMP.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2017 County of Alameda. Livermore Executive Airport. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August 2012. Available on line at: http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/LVK_ALUCP_082012_FULL.pdf. . Accessed on: December 1, 2017. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (DTSC 2017) EnviroStor. Available on line: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: September 11, 2017. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD 2013). 2013 Master Plan. Available online at: http://www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Master+Plan/Master+Plan+2013+Final+-+Web.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2017. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (FEMA 2009). June 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas Panel 500 of 602. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2017). 2017. Landslide and Debris Flow (Mudslide). Website: http://www.ready.gov/landslides-debris-flow. Accessed: October 31, 2017. Municode. 2017. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Available online at: http://www.municode.com/Library/clientCodePage.aspx?clientID=5184. Accessed September 8, 2017 Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE 2017). Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Construction Emissions Assessment and Air Quality Memo. September 12, 2017 Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay. 2015. Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R2-2015-0049). November 19. San Francisco, CA. San Ramon Valley School District. (SRVSD 2017) 2017. School Site Locator. Available online: http://www.srvusd.net/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1280584257363 . Accessed: November 1, 2017. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 667 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 70 of 70 State of California Department of Conservation (SCDC 2017). 2017. California Geologic Survey – Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed December 1, 2017. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. 2017. Website: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed September 11, 2017. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD 2009). Noise Guidebook Chapter 1: Basic Overview of the Environmental Noise Problem. https://www.hudexchange.info/onecpd/assets/File/Noise-Guidebook-Chapter-1.pdf. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (USDOT 2006). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/index.cfm. Accessed: November 30, 2017. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2016). https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/title-iv-noise- pollution United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2017). 2017. Criteria Air Pollutants. Website: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. Accessed: November 2, 2017. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 668 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 669 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 670 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 2: Project Vicinity Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 671 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 672 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 3: Aerial View of the Project Sites May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 673 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 674 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 4: Segment 1 Area of Maximum Effect Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 675 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 676 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 5: Segment 2 Area of Maximum Effect Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 677 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 678 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 6: Segment 3 Area of Maximum Effect Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 679 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 680 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 7: Segment 4 Area of Maximum Effect Map May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 681 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 682 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 8: Zoning within the Project Area May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 683 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 684 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County February 2018 FIGURE 9: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Project Area May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 685 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 686 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 1 of 17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies the Mitigation Measures that will be implemented as part of the Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department (CCCPWD) or its Contractors under the supervision of CCCPWD will be responsible for implementing the following measures. CCCPWD will be responsible for monitoring to ensure the following measures are implemented. Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES IMPACT AGR-1 Development of the Project may require right of way acquisition of a small roadside area that is currently under Williamson Act. AGR-1: If right of way takes of land under a Williamson Act Contract is necessary, prior to construction the CCCPWD or its designated representative will notify the Director of the California Department of Conservation and the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development of the property acquisition and will provide a subsequent notification within 10 working days upon completion of the acquisition. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD II. AIR QUALITY IMPACT AIR-1 Construction activities could result in fugitive dust emissions during Project construction. AIR-1: Consistent with the Construction Mitigation Measures required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the construction contractor shall comply with the following: 1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 687 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 2 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility 6) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and contact information for the designated on-site construction manager available to receive and respond to dust complaints. This person shall report all complaints to Contra Costa County and take immediate corrective action as soon as practical but not more than 48 hours after the complaint is received. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. IMPACT AIR-2 Construction of three or four segments simultaneously (Scenario C and D) will result in NOx emissions that exceed the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance. AIR-2: Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall provide a written calculation to the County, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average of at least 28 percent of NOX and 45 percent of diesel PM reduction as compared to (CARB) statewide fleet average emissions. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products (e.g., CARB approved High Performance Renewable Diesel), alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The Construction Emissions Mitigation Tool development by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) may be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the approving agency as described above. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 688 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 3 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT BIO IV(a)-1 Potential habitat for the special-status wildlife species is present within the Biological Study Area (BSA) and surrounding area. In addition, the BSA is located within California red-legged frog Critical Habitat Unit CCS-2B. Therefore, impacts to special status species and their habitats could occur as a result of Project implementation. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to all special status species and their habitat. Impacts to specific species and associated mitigation measures are discussed individually. BIO IV(a)-1a: Before any Project work occurs, including installation of exclusion fencing, grading and equipment staging, all construction personnel will participate in an environmental awareness training given by a qualified biologist regarding special-status species and sensitive habitats present in the Biological Study Area (BSA). If new construction personnel are added to the Project, they must receive the mandatory training before starting work. As part of the training, an environmental awareness handout will be provided to all personnel that describes and illustrates sensitive resources (i.e., special-status plant populations and special-status wildlife habitat) to be avoided during Project construction and lists applicable permit conditions required to protect these resources. New construction personnel will receive the training from a qualified biologist or from staff deemed adequate to give the training by the qualified biologist. Prior to and during Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-1b: Before any Project equipment staging or ground- disturbing activity occurs, the County will ensure that appropriately sized temporary wildlife barrier fencing, buffer fencing, and/or silt fencing will be installed between the Project Site and adjacent habitats and any environmentally sensitive habitat areas (i.e., special - status plants, special-status wildlife habitat, active bird nests), as appropriate. Wildlife barrier fencing will be a minimum of 4 feet tall and made of suitable wildlife exclusion material (such as ERTECH E-Fence). As appropriate, the lower portion of barrier fence will be buried such that Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 689 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 4 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility 6 inches of the fence is below ground and at least 48 inches is above ground. Wildlife exclusion fencing will contain wildlife funnels that allow animals to leave the Project Site but not to enter it. Temporary silt fencing installed for erosion control will be 24 inches tall. Fencing will be installed in a manner that is consistent with applicable water quality requirements contained within the Project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP). Construction personnel and construction activity will avoid areas outside the fencing. The exact location of the fencing will be determined by the resident engineer coordinating with a qualified biologist, with the goal of protecting sensitive biological habitat and water quality. Installation of fencing will occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist. The fencing will be checked regularly and maintained until all construction is complete. No grading, clearing, storage of equipment or machinery, or other disturbance or activity may occur until the County has inspected and approved all temporary construction fencing. The fencing and a note reflecting this condition will be shown on the final construction documents. BIO IV(a)-1c: A representative from the County will make weekly mo nitoring visits to construction areas occurring in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, (i.e., waters of the U.S. and State, special-status plants, special-status wildlife habitat). The County will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor maintains the construction barrier fencing protecting sensitive biological resources. Additionally, the County will retain a qualified biologist on-call to assist the County and the construction crew in complying with all Project implementation restrictions and guidelines. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-1d: All temporarily disturbed areas will be returned to pre- project conditions upon completion of Project construction. These areas will be properly protected from washout and erosion using appropriate erosion control devices. Following Construction Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-1e: The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during construction to protect water quality withi n the Prior to, During, and CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 690 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 5 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility watershed: 1) Final construction plans will depict the designated construction footprint as well as habitat to be avoided. 2) Before October 15 and/or immediately after construction is complete, stabilize exposed surfaces. 3) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre-Project conditions. 4) All exposed soils will be stabilized with an erosion control tackifier and will be seeded with a native seed mix with a sterilized nurse crop to reduce the effects of erosion. 5) Avoid construction within ponded or saturated areas to the maximum extent possible. 6) Staging areas will be contained within silt fencing or lined and bermed areas such that no leaks, runoff, or construction liquids could enter any drainage facilities. 7) No refueling, storage, servicing, or maintenance of equipment will take place within 50 feet of Tassajara Creek, its tributaries, or other adjacent wetland features. 8) All machinery used during construction of the Project will be properly maintained and cleaned to prevent spills and leaks that could contaminate soil or water. 9) Any spills or leaks from construction equipment (i.e., fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and grease) will be cleaned up in accordance with applicable local, state, and/or federal regulations. Following Construction BIO IV(a)-1f: The County will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements associated with construction activity as required under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. As part of this requirement, the County will require the contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the project qualifies for an erosivity waiver, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) will be prepared. In either case, the document will include erosion control measures and construction-waste containment measures to ensure that waters of the U.S. and State are protected during and after Project construction. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 691 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 6 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility The SWPPP or WPCP will include measure to minimize offsite stormwater runoff. Components of the SWPP or WPCP will include but not be limited to: 1) A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed, and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas. 2) A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices used during construction, and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff. 3) Specifications and designs for the appropriate BMPs for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase. 4) A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance, and identifies the party responsible for monitoring. 5) A site map that locates all water quality control measures and restricted areas to be left undisturbed. BIO IV(a)-1g: To prevent the accidental introduction of new invasive species into the Project Site during construction, the County will require that the Project contractor implement the following control measures: 1) Only certified noxious weed-free erosion control materials will be used. All straw and seed material will be certified as weed-free prior to being used at the Project Site. 2) Contractor will wash all construction equipment prior to bringing it onto the job site. Inspection will ensure that equipment arrives on site free of mud and seed-bearing material. 3) Any reseeding of disturbed soil areas and newly constructed slopes will use an appropriate native seed mix. During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD IMPACT BIO IV(a)-2 If present in the Project Site, the Project could impact BIO IV(a)-2a: The following measures will be implemented to avoid impacts to special-status plants:  The County will minimize impacts to populations of Prior to and During Construction CCCPWD CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 692 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 7 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Congdon’s tarplant individuals. Congdon’s tarplant in Segment 3 by establishing a work zone that avoids special-status plants to the greatest extent possible. To accomplish this measure, final design will focus on minimizing the Project footprint within areas that contain these special-status plants, as feasible. Anticipated locations of special status plants will be represented on final plans. BIO IV(a)-2b: Prior to any unavoidable excavation work in any areas identified during botanical surveys that support Congdon’s tarplant, seeds will be collected from plants located in the Project footprint. After finished grades generally have been achieved, the collected seeds will be redistributed within areas disturbed by the Project that provide appropriate habitat for the species. Specific actions that will be employed to ensure successful establishment of Congdon’s tarplant include the following: 1) Prior to construction, all areas of permanent disturbance that are within 100 feet of Congdon’s tarplants will be flagged for seed salvage. 2) Prior to other earthwork, at the appropriate time when seeds have developed but just before seeds drop, typically late summer and early fall, seeds will be collected and stored in a cool, dry location. 3) Once construction is complete in an area, seeds will be evenly spread over areas of exposed soil and raked in. 4) In areas where seed has been spread, equipment traffic will be limited, to the extent practicable, to minimize compaction. 5) Post construction, areas where seed was spread will be protected from wind and water erosion until after the next growing season (spring/summer) using typical stabilization methods. If hydroseeding is used, hydroseed will be comprised of a native seed mix with a sterilized nurse crop. Prior to, During, and Following Construction CCCPWD CCCPWD IMPACT BIO IV(a)-3 Project construction could directly and indirectly impact California red-legged frog, BIO IV(a)-3a: All ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project will be restricted to the dry season (estimated between April 15 and October 15) to avoid the period when listed amphibians (California red-legged frog and California During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 693 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 8 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility California red-legged frog Critical Habitat, and California tiger salamander and its habitat. tiger salamander) could be actively dispersing through upland habitats. If construction will need to continue past October 15, to avoid potential impacts to these species a qualified biologist will be present during any work conducted after October 15 and no work will occur during rain events. Also refer to Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)- 1d. BIO IV(a)-3b: To avoid entrapment of wildlife, all excavated steep- walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will be provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks at the end of each workday. If escape ramps cannot be provided, then holes or trenches will be covered with plywood or similar materials. Providing escape ramps or covering open trenches will prevent injury or mortality of wildlife resulting from falling into trenches and becoming trapped. The trenches will be thoroughly inspected for the presence of wildlife species at the beginning of each workday. If wildlife is discovered in the trenches work will not occur within 50- feet and the qualified biologist will be called immediately to determine if it is a special status species. Special status species will be left to leave the area on its own. Non-special status species may be removed by a qualified biologist and may require consultation with CDFW prior to removal as determined by the qualified biologist. Also refer to Mitigation Measure BIO IV(a)-3d. Prior to and During Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-3c: A preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately preceding initial ground disturbing activities. A qualified biologist will carefully search all suitable habitat areas within the Project Site for California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes. A qualified biologist will monitor all initial ground disturbance and habitat removal e.g. grading, removal of vegetation, removal of culverts or rocks that could provide habitat for California red -legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes. If any California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, or Alameda whipsnakes are found during these surveys, work will stop Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 694 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 9 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility within that segment and they will be allowed to move outside the Project Site on their own. Work may resume on approval by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. BIO IV(a)-3d: Following preconstruction surveys and Project initiation, it is possible that wildlife species could subsequently enter or return to the Project Site. The following measures shall be implemented to avoid disturbance or harm to these species: 1) If any special-status species or other wildlife species, alive or dead, are observed in the Project Site during construction, construction shall cease in that segment until the qualified biologist can determine if it is a special status species and/or that it is safe to continue. 2) Non-special status species may be relocated by a qualified biologist, CDFW coordination may be required as determined by the qualified biologist. Work may resume when the wildlife is a safe distance away as determined by the qualified biologist. 3) A living special status species will be allowed to leave the site on its own and work will not resume in that segment until approved by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. 4) Any special status species found in the work area, alive or dead will be documented and reported to the wildlife agencies as appropriate by the County Environmental Division Project Manager. Prior to and During Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-3e: During construction, tightly woven fiber netting (no monofilament netting) or similar material will be used for erosion control or other purposes within the Project Site to ensure that wildlife are not trapped. Coconut coir matting and burlap contained fiber rolls are an example of acceptable erosion control materials. During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD BIO IV(a)-3f: During construction, all food-related garbage will be placed in tightly sealed containers at the end of each workday to avoid attracting predators. Containers will be emptied and garbage removed from the construction site at the end of each work week. If sealed containers are not available, garbage will be removed from the During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 695 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 10 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility construction site upon completion of daily activities. All garbage removed from the construction site will be disposed of at an appropriate offsite refuse location. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-4 The Project has the potential to affect Western Pond Turtle habitat. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact western pond turtle individuals and will temporarily disturb western pond turtle habitat. BIO IV(a)-4: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction clearance survey for western pond turtles immediately preceding initial ground disturbing activities within the Project Site. Any western pond turtles found within the Project Site will be allowed to voluntarily move out of this area or will be captured and held by a qualified biologist for the minimum amount of time necessary to release them in suitable habitat outside the Project Site. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Qualified Biologist CCCPWD IMPACT BIO IV(a)-5 The Project could impact the burrowing owl. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact burrowing owl individuals and will permanently and temporarily impact burrowing owl habitat. BIO IV(a)-5: The County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct a one-day preconstruction survey to locate any active burrowing owl burrows within the Project Site or within a 500-foot-wide buffer around the Project Site, if feasible. The preconstruction survey will be conducted in accordance with recommendations provided in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) and no more than 14 days before the start of construction activities (including grading and equipment staging). If no burrowing owls or burrows exhibiting burrowing owl use (i.e., whitewash, owl pellets, feathers, or egg fragments) are detected, then construction may proceed. Preconstruction surveys must be reinitiated if more than 30 days lapse between the survey dates and construction activities. If active burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected in the survey area, the following measures will be implemented. 1) Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (generally February 1–August 30). A no-disturbance buffer will be established around the burrow to avoid disturbance of nesting burrowing owls until a qualified biologist, coordinating with CDFW, determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist (coordinating with the CDFW) and will depend on the level Prior to Construction CCCPWD CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 696 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 11 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility of noise or construction disturbance, line-of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. 2) If the survey finds an active burrowing owl nest in an area of permanent or temporary impact including staging areas, that cannot be avoided due to spatial restrictions, burrowing owls may be passively relocated in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). This recommends that passive relocation occur following approval from the agencies, outside of the nesting season, and after an agency-approved biologist determined that owls have not begun laying eggs or there is not young of the year present. Per CDFW 2012, passive relocation will include the installation of one-way doors within the burrow to let owls escape, but not allow them to re-enter the burrow. Once the owls have been excluded from the burrow, it will be collapsed by hand by an agency-approved biologist. If passive relocation is necessary, artificial or natural burrows should be in close proximity (100 meters) from the eviction site. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-6 The Project could impact nesting birds and raptors. The BSA provides habitat for nesting raptors and other birds that are protected under the MBTA. BIO IV(a)-6: The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) If construction (including utility pole relocation, equipment staging, and vegetation removal) will occur during the breeding season for migratory birds and raptors (generally January through August), the County will retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction nesting bird and raptor surveys prior to construction activities. 2) The pre-construction nesting bird and raptor surveys will be conducted prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat in and near (within half a mile for golden eagle and 500 feet for all other raptors) the Project Site. For raptor surveys outside the Project Site where property access has not been granted, the surveying biologist will use binoculars Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 697 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 12 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility to scan any suitable nesting substrate for potential raptor nests. 3) The surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days before the initiation of construction activities in the Project Area. 4) The known golden eagle nesting territory near Segments 3 and 4 will be observed adequately to determine if it is active. If nesting behavior is observed and the nest is determined to be active, no construction will occur within the line of site of the nest until a qualified biologist coordinating with CDFW determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. 5) If an active bird nest is identified within the Project Area or an active raptor nest is identified in or within 500 feet from the Project Area, then a no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest to avoid disturbance of the nesting birds or raptors until a qualified biologist coordinating with CDFW determines that the young have fledged and are foraging on their own. The extent of these buffers will be determined by the biologist (coordinating with the CDFW) and will depend on the species identified, level of noise or construction disturbance, line -of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers (generally 50 feet for passerine, 500 feet for raptors, or as agreed on during coordination with CDFW). In addition to the establishment of buffers, other avoidance measures (determined during CDFW coordination) may include monitoring of the nest during construction and restricting the type of work that can be conducted near the nest site. If no active nests are found during the preconstruction surveys, then no additional mitigation is required. IMPACT BIO IV(a)-7 The Project could impact the western red bat and its habitat BIO IV(a)-7: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey of all trees proposed for removal or trimming within the Project Site for the presence of bat roosts. Surveys will entail direct Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 698 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 13 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility during project construction. inspection of trees, including around the base within piles of leaf litter, or nocturnal surveys (if not conducted during the hibernation period for bats). The survey will occur no more than 2 weeks prior to the removal or trimming of trees within the Project Site. If bats are not found and there is no evidence of use by bats, construction may proceed. If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the type of roost. If roosting bats are present, measures shall be implemented to avoid or minimize disturbance to the colony. Measures may include excluding bats from the tree before their hibernation period (mid-October to mid-March) and before construction begins. Alternatively a phased approach to removal may be used: small branches and non-habitat features will be carefully removed from the tree under the supervision of a qualified biologist. The next day larger features will be carefully removed under the supervision of a qualified biologist. On the third day a qualified biologist will inspect the tree for the presence of roosting bats, if no bats are present removal can commence. Biologist IMPACT BIO IV(a)-8 The Project could impact the American badger. Project construction could directly and indirectly impact American badger individuals and will temporarily impact American badger habitat. Noise and disturbance from construction activities could indirectly disrupt foraging and/or denning activities. BIO IV(a)-8: A preconstruction survey for the American badger will be conducted within the BSA no more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist with experience identifying badger burrows. Any potential badger burrow identified should be clearly marked in the field and avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the biologist will determine if the burrow is being used as a natal den (young rearing generally occurs between April and September). If young are determined to be present, the burrow will be avoided until the young vacate the burrow. If the biologist determines that the burrow is not being used for breeding, then a one way door will be installed on the burrow (upon approval by CDFW) to passively exclude the badger from the burrow. Once the badger has been excluded the burrow will be collapsed. Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD IMPACT BIO IV(a)-9 The Project has the potential to affect San Joaquin kit fox. Project construction could BIO IV(a)-9: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 30 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect San Joaquin kit fox. Where accessible, or using binoculars in inaccessible areas, the biologist will Prior to Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Biologist CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 699 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 14 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility directly and indirectly impact San Joaquin kit fox individuals and will temporarily impact San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Noise and disturbance from construction activities could indirectly disrupt foraging and/or denning activities. survey the proposed Project Site and a 200 -foot buffer area around the Project Work Area to identify suitable dens (e.g., burrow, pipe, or culvert approximately 5 to 8 inches in diameter). The biologist will conduct den searches by systematically walking transects spaced 30– 100 feet apart through the survey area. Transect distance should be determined on the basis of the height of vegetation such that 100% visual coverage of the Project Area is achieved. If dens are found during the survey, the biologist will map the location of each den as well as record the size and shape of the den entrance; the presence of tracks, scat, and prey remains; and if the den was recently excavated. The biologist will also record information on prey availability (e.g., ground squirrel colonies). The status of the den will also be determined and recorded. Dens may be classified in one of the following four den status categories. Potential den: Any subterranean hole within the species’ range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is sufficient to conclude that it is being used or has been used by a kit fox. Known den: Any existing natural den or artificial structure that is used or has been used at any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include historical records; past or current radiotelemetry or spotlighting data; kit fox sign such as tracks, scat, and/or prey remains; or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a kit fox. Natal or pupping den: Any den determined to be used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively by adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances. A natal den, defined as a den in which kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 700 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 15 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two; therefore, for purposes of this definition either term applies. Atypical den: Any artificial structure that has been or is determined to be used by a San Joaquin kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and buildings. After preconstruction den searches and before the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist will establish and maintain exclusion zones (varying between 50 and 200 feet) measured in a radius outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances of each mapped den. Construction activities will be prohibited or greatly restricted within these exclusion zones throughout the construction period. Only essential vehicular operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted. All other construction activities, vehicle operation, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited in the exclusion zones. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT CUL-1 Development of the Project could disturb unanticipated historic or pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. CUL-1: The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during Project construction to protect unanticipated historic or pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic, pre-historic, archaeological, or paleontological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic Native American period archaeological materials that may be encountered. 2) If an inadvertent discovery is made, the Contractor will cease all ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery. 3) The Contractor will immediately notify the County Public Works Department Resident Engineer who will then request a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the finding(s). 4) If the finding(s) is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist in consultation with the appropriate Native Prior to and during Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Archaeologist CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 701 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 16 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility American tribal representative or historical society will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. IMPACT CUL-2 The Project could impact previously undiscovered human remains. CUL-2: If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Contra Costa County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, Contra Costa County, and the Northwest Information Center. During Construction CCCPWD Contractor and Qualified Archaeologist CCCPWD XII. NOISE May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 702 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department February 2018 Project No.: 0662-6R4010 County CEQA No.:(CP# 17-49) Page 17 of 17 Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility IMPACT NOI-1 Development of the Project will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels during Project construction. NOI-1: The project contractor shall employ the following noise- reducing practices during project construction: 1) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences should be strictly prohibited. 3) Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. 4) Utilize ‘quiet’ air compressors and other ‘quiet’ equipment where such technology exists. 5) Avoid staging of construction equipment within 200 feet of residences and locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors. 6) Require all construction equipment to conform to Section 14-8.02 Noise Control, of the latest Standard Specifications. 7) Provide notification to the adjacent noise-sensitive receptors including the specific construction schedule for major noise- generating construction activities. During Construction CCCPWD Contractor CCCPWD May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 703 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 704 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 705 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement (CSA) with Dynamic Dzyne Associates, Inc., (dba Substrate, Inc.) (Substrate), in an amount not to exceed $600,000, for construction management services for the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project (Project), for the period of May 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, Clayton area. (District III) County Project No. 0662-6R4079 / Federal Project No.: BRLS 5928 (107) FISCAL IMPACT: This project, including this CSA, is funded by 11.47% Local Road Funds and 88.53% Federal Highway Bridge Program Funds. BACKGROUND: The Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement project consists of removing an existing bridge and construction of a new bridge, pavement reconstruction, temporary and permanent waterlines, drainage improvements, erosion control, signing and striping. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh - 925-313-2233 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:CSA with Dynamic Dzyne Associates, Inc., for the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project, Clayton area May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 706 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Substrate was selected to provide construction management services for the Project because they were determined to be the best fit of available interested construction management consultants to provide these services as determined by County staff in charge of the Project through an open consultant selection process. Public Works has successfully negotiated with Substrate to provide the construction management services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board of Supervisors’ approval, this CSA will not be in effect. A delay in the construction of the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement will occur, ultimately delaying the completion of the Project. The Project delay may also result in substantial additional Project costs and jeopardize the funding. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 707 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Right of Way Contract (Contract) and ACCEPT a Grant of Perpetual Maintenance Easement (Easement) dated April 27, 2018, on a portion of property located at 425 Castle Rock Road, Walnut Creek and identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 139-090-001, from Mt. Diablo Unified School District (District), in connection with the Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project (Project), pursuant to Government Code Section 25350, in the Walnut Creek area. (Project No.: 0662-6R4112 [CP #14-36]) APPROVE payment of $2,000 for said property rights and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to issue a check in said amount, payable to Mount Diablo Unified School District, 1936 Carlotta Drive, Concord, CA 94519 to be forwarded to the Real Estate Division for delivery. DIRECT the Real Estate Division of the Public Works Department to have the above referenced Easement recorded in the office of the County Clerk-Recorder. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Angela Bell, (925) 313-2337 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE a Right of Way Contract for Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project, Walnut Creek area. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 708 FISCAL IMPACT: 28% Transportation Development Act Grant, 72% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The County intends to construct the Project in order to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility, as well as increase driver awareness at existing crosswalks in East and Central Contra Costa County. This Contract and Easements are required to allow Contra Costa County (County) to work within approximately 800 feet of property owned by the District as a work space during the Project and in order to maintain County-owned facilities in the future. As a condition of the Contract, the District has requested indemnification from the County. The indemnification language has been reviewed by County Counsel. On February 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the Project and determined the Project is exempt from CEQA (CP #14-36). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department will not have sufficient access rights to allow construction in accordance with approved plans and specifications. ATTACHMENTS Perpetual Maintenance Easement ROW Contract and Exhibits May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 709 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 710 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 711 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 712 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 713 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 714 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 715 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 716 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 717 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 718 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 719 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 720 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 721 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 722 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 723 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 724 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 725 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 726 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 727 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 728 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 729 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 730 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 731 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 732 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 733 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 734 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 735 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 736 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 737 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/153 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Willow Pass Road between Marin Avenue and Manor Drive, on May 28, 2018, from 10:00 AM through 11:00 AM, for the purpose of Bay Point Spring Derby Parade, Bay Point area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Applicant shall follow guidelines set forth by the Public Works Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Applicant will be unable to close the road for planned activities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Bob Hendry (925) 674-7744 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Close portion of Willow Pass Road between Marin Avenue and Manor Drive, on May 28, 2018, from 10:00 AM through 11:00 AM, Bay Point area. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 738 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2018/153 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2018/153 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 739 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/01/2018 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2018/153 IN THE MATTER OF Approving and Authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Willow Pass Road between Marin Avenue and Manor Drive, on May 28, 2018, from 10:00 AM through 11:00 AM, for the purpose of Bay Point Spring Derby Parade, Bay Point area. (District V) RC18-6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that permission is granted to Bay Point Garden Club to fully close Willow Pass Road between Marin Avenue and Manor Drive, except for emergency traffic, on May 28, 2018, for the period of 10:00 AM through 11:00 AM, subject to the following conditions: 1. Traffic will be detoured via per traffic control plan reviewed by Public Works. 2. All signing to be in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3. Bay Point Garden Club shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County. 4. Provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for Comprehensive General Public Liability which names the County as an additional insured prior to permit issuance. 5. Obtain approval for the closure from the Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol and the Fire District. Contact: Bob Hendry (925) 674-7744 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 740 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 741 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Ernest F. Broussal Jr., Tommie Clayton, Deandre Antoine Lewis, Doug MacMaster, and Precision Risk Management Inc., DENY late claims filed by Wali Jahangiri (2), Nadieh Kakar, and Mario Torres. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott Selby 925.335.1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 742 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Ernest F. Broussal Jr.: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $537.42 Tommie Clayton: Property claim for damage to vehicle in an amount TBD Deandre Antoine Lewis: Personal injury claim for emotional distress in an amount to exceed $10,000. Doug MacMaster: Claim for wage deduction and vacation wages in the amount of $38,222.68 Precision Risk Management Inc.: Property claim for fire damage in the amount of $1,000,000. Wali Jahangiri: Request that Board of Supervisors accept a late claim Nadieh Kakar: Request that Board of Supervisors accept a late claim Mario Torres: Request that Board of Supervisors accept a late claim May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 743 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/147 recognizing the month of May as Community Action Month, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Community Action Agencies were created when the Economic Opportunities Act of 1964 was signed into law. The Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, is the Community Action Agency for Contra Costa County. The Community Services Bureau with all its community partnerships has made an essential contribution to individuals and families in Contra Costa County, by providing them with innovative and cost-effective programs to help those with limited income to become self-sufficient. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Community Action Agency will not be recognized for its contributions to helping low income residents become self-sufficient. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Christina Reich, 681-6345 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Nancy Sparks, Christina Reich C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Proclaim May as Community Action Month May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 744 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 745 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2018/147 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2018/147 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 746 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2018/147 Declaring the month of May 2018 as Community Action Month. WHEREAS, Community Action Agencies were created when the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was signed into law; and WHEREAS, Community Action Agencies have a 54-year history of promoting self-sufficiency for those with limited income; and WHEREAS, The Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau is the Community Action Agency for Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, The Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services, Community Services Bureau and with all its community partnerships has made an essential contribution to individuals and families in Contra Costa County, by providing them with innovative and cost-effective programs; and WHEREAS, the Economic Opportunity Council has served as the Advisory Body to the Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, low income residents of Contra Costa County continue to need opportunities to improve their lives and their living conditions, thus ensuring that all residents are able to live in dignity; and WHEREAS, Community Services Block Grant funding, administered by the Community Action Program in collaboration with the Economic Opportunity Council continues to support safety net services that alleviate poverty in Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County and the entire United States must continue to promote economic security by providing support and opportunities for all citizens in need of assistance; and WHEREAS, every year in May, the Community Action Agencies and Economic Opportunity Councils across the country celebrate National Community Action Month. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County hereby declares May 2018 COMMUNITY ACTION MONTH in Contra Costa County. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 747 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 748 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 749 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing the Intergenerational Network of All-Age Friendly Cities and Communities May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 750 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2018/164 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2018/164 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 751 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2018/164 Recognizing the Intergenerational Network of All-Age Friendly Cities and Communities WHEREAS, the global population of people aged 60 and over is expected to grow from 600 million in 2000 to almost 2 billion by 2050; and WHEREAS, people over 65 years of age will outnumber children by the year 2035; and WHEREAS, this projected growth has accelerated with the increasing number of boomers moving into their senior years; and WHEREAS, this shift deepens challenges for fiscal policy and economic growth decisions; and WHEREAS, in California, the population of people aged 60 and over is expected to grow from 16.4% in 2012, to 18.3% in 2020 to 22% in 2030, leading the nation in number of residents over age 60; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County, the population of people aged over 60 currently is 20.4%, and if following growth projections of California, will be at 25% in 2030; and WHEREAS, research shows that older Californians overwhelmingly want to remain in their homes and communities as they age; and WHEREAS, access to quality health care and long-term services and supports is essential for individuals to live in their homes and communities; and WHEREAS, 21% of adults age 65 and older do not drive, and more than half of these non-drivers do not leave home on a given day, in part because they lack accessible transportation; and WHEREAS, reduced mobility for older non-drivers leads to 15% fewer trips to the doctor, 59% fewer shopping trips and visits to restaurants, and 65% fewer trips for social, family and religious activities; and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities to encourage and promote public policies to increase the number of cities and communities that support healthy aging and thereby improve the health, well-being, satisfaction, and quality of life for older Americans; and WHEREAS, deliberate and meaningful intergenerational programs can help communities truly become age-friendly and thereby improve the wellbeing of all; and WHEREAS, it has been proven that healthy aging also is created when that population cohabitates with children of all ages; and WHEREAS, making cities and communities all age friendly is one of the most effective policy approaches for responding to demographic aging; and WHEREAS, the WHO has developed eight domains of community life that influence the health and quality of life of older people; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: that the Board of Supervisors does hereby support initiatives and opportunities to engage in the WHO Age-Friendly and the Intergenerational Network of All-Age Friendly Cities and Communities efforts. Be It Further Resolved: that the Board of Supervisors supports collaborative efforts to promote and expand all-age friendly communities in Contra Costa County, working with Aging and Adult Services of Contra Costa County, Advisory Council on Aging, Contra Costa Public Health, Choice in Aging, Ombudsman Services of Contra Costa, and Meals on Wheels Diablo Region, in their efforts to promote intergenerational and all-age friendly communities. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 752 ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 753 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 754 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lia Bristol, (925) 521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring Meals on Wheels Diablo Region on its 50th Anniversary May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 755 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2018/169 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2018/169 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 756 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2018/169 In the Matter of Honoring Meals on Wheels Diablo Region on its 50th Anniversary Whereas, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region has been serving the needs of Contra Costa seniors for 50 years; and Whereas, starting in 1968 as a meal delivery service, the organization has evolved, adding programs to address the full range of seniors’ most pressing life issues; and Whereas, in 1971 the Friendly Visitors program was established to help fight senior isolation; and Whereas, a year later, C.C. Cafes opened, providing lunches and companionship at six senior center locations; and Whereas, the Home Care Registry was created in 1975 to provide respite care and training for low-income older adults and their caregivers; and Whereas, in 1996 Meals on Wheels Diablo Region created a Care Management team to address the special issues of low-income seniors; and Whereas, this vital safety net focused on mental health, nutrition, mobility, housing, and companionship- areas often overlooked by society; and Whereas, in 2008 they launched the Fall Prevention Program as a county-wide coalition to address this frequently fatal epidemic; and Whereas, to create a holistic approach, they adopted a Coordinated Care model in 2014; and Whereas, they have also added Elder Abuse Prevention outreach and training services; and Whereas, over the course of 50 years, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region has expanded and created a new model to effectively meet the changing needs of the population; and Whereas, they recently rebranded and changed their name to Meals on Wheels Diablo Region which closely aligns them with the national senior advocacy movement and their broader focus in the county; and Whereas, uncertain government priorities, the aging population, and the changing healthcare landscape require Meals on Wheels Diablo Region to remain strong, innovative, and collaborative; and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 757 Whereas, in Contra Costa County 81,080 are isolated and living alone, 37,211 are threatened by hunger, and 29,037 are living in or near poverty; and Whereas, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region delivers the support that keeps seniors in their own homes, out of hospitals and nursing homes, saving millions in Medicare and Medicaid costs while also offering better care for seniors in our community; and Whereas, Meals on Wheels Diablo Region decreases the rate of falls among seniors, which cost our county $100 million each year; and Whereas, they can provide meals for 1 year for a senior for about the same cost as 1 day in a hospital; and Whereas, investing in the preventive care that Meals on Wheels Diablo Region provides is a win-win for our seniors, our families, and our community; and Whereas, in partnership with public and private agencies in Contra Costa, provide solutions that keep the best interests of our senior population at heart. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County do hereby congratulate Meals on Wheels Diablo Region on its 50 years of empowering seniors through a holistic, comprehensive approach and commend them on their vital services to seniors in our community. ___________________ KAREN MITCHOFF Chair, District IV Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS FEDERAL D. GLOVER District III Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 758 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 759 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-13 to require the humane treatment of roosters. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact to the County General Fund. The enforcement activities proposed by the ordinance would be funded by administrative fines and other revenues. BACKGROUND: On December 6, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) development of an ordinance to authorize administrative penalties for barking dogs and other noisy animals, and to limit the number of roosters on private property in the County's unincorporated areas. After receiving feedback from Contra Costa County residents, the Animal Services Department (ASD) also determined that the County lacks regulations enabling ASD to effectively combat illegal rooster fighting activities. In April 2017, after reviewing a draft ordinance, the IOC chose to recommend to the Board for adoption an ordinance only addressing barking dogs and other noisy animal concerns. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Steve Burdo, 925-608-8470 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance No. 2018-13 to require the humane treatment of roosters May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 760 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The IOC directed ASD staff to work with the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to incorporate the provisions addressing the keeping of roosters into the urban farm animal ordinance. The noisy animal ordinance was subsequently adopted by the Board on June 6, 2017. ASD staff has continued to partner and work with DCD to prepare and present Ordinance No. 2018-13. This ordinance would amend the County Ordinance Code by adding Article 416-12.10 to regulate the keeping of roosters in unincorporated areas of the County by prohibiting the tethering of roosters and including other specific requirements to ensure rooster health, safety, and well-being. In addition, the proposed ordinance would authorize the Animal Services Director to enforce the rooster keeping regulations. A separate urban farm animal ordinance amending Title 8 of the County Ordinance Code has been prepared by DCD and includes provisions limiting the number of roosters that may be kept on a lot. The Board will consider adopting the urban farm animal ordinance after a public hearing on May 1, 2018. Staff recommends that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 2018-13. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have specific provisions in its ordinance code regulating the keeping of roosters to ensure rooster health, safety, and well-being. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2018-13 Rooster Keeping May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 761 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-13 ROOSTER KEEPING The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Article 416-12.10 to the County Ordinance Code to require humane treatment of roosters. SECTION II. Article 416-12.10 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Article 416-12.10 Roosters 416-12.1002 Definition. For the purposes of this article, “rooster” means any male chicken that: (1) is six months or older, (2) has full adult plumage, or (3) is capable of crowing. (Ord. 2018-13 § 2). 416-12.1004 Rooster keeping. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person may maintain any rooster by means of a tether attached to an object. (b) At all times, roosters must be provided all of the following: (1) Access to water. (2) Shelter from the elements, including rain, wind, and direct sun. (3) Sufficient room to spread both wings fully and to be able to turn in a complete circle without any impediment and without touching the side of an enclosure. (4) Clean and sanitary premises that are maintained in good repair. (Ord. 2018-13 § 2). 416-12.1006 Enforcement In addition to any other remedy allowed by this code or applicable law, the animal services director may issue an administrative penalty under Article 416-4.8 to any responsible person for a violation of this article. (Ord. 2018-13 § 2). ORDINANCE NO. 2018-13 1 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 762 SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2018\DCD\Ordinance No. 2018-13 Rooster Keeping.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2018-13 2 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 763 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to the District V Representative Alternate Seat of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission with a term to expire June 30, 2021, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover: Walter "Dub" Fields FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission responsibility is to review and advise on annual operations and capital budgets; to review district expenditures; to review and advise on long-range capital improvement plans; pursuant to district ordinance to serve as the Appeals Board on weed abatement matters; to advise the Fire Chief on district service matters; to meet jointly with the Board of Supervisors and provide advice to the board as needed; to communicate with the other fire district advisory commissions on services and functional integration; to assist in the Fire Chief's selection process as required; to serve as liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the community served by each district; to perform such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned and as directed by the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Vincent Manuel, (925) 608-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Re-Appoint Walter Fields to the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission - District V Alternate May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 764 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The position would remain vacant. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 765 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, department changes, additional privileges, advancements, voluntary resignations, and changes to the anesthesiology privileges, as recommended by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their April 16, 2018 meeting, and by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has requested that evidence of Board of Supervisors' approval for each medical staff member will be placed in his or her credentials file. The above recommendations for appointment/reappointment were reviewed by the Credentials Committee and approved by the Medical Executive Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers' medical staff would not be appropriately credentialed and in compliance with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Tami Sloan C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Medical Staff Appointments and Reappointments – April, 2018 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 766 ATTACHMENTS Attachment Anesthesiology Privilege Change May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 767 MEC Recommendations – April Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affiliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 1 A. New Medical Staff Members Cheng, Jennifer, DO Internal Medicine Ubhayakar, Kiran, MD Internal Medicine B. Request for Additional Privileges Requested by Department Requesting Bhatt, Veda, MD Family Medicine OB/GYN Bliss, Judy, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Dao, Huy, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Feierabend, Susan, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Graham, Oliver, MD Internal Medicine Hospitalist Keller, Lisa, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Kompaniez, Kari, MD Family Medicine Hospitalist Longstroth, David, MD Hospitalist OB/GYN Newman, Allison, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Rodelo, Lisa, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Sinclair, Barbara, MD Family Medicine OB/GYN Vanjani, Rachna, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN Wong, Christina, MD Family Medicine OB/GYN Wright, Courtney, MD OB/GYN OB/GYN C. Request for Primary Department Change Requested by Original Department Requesting Department Graham, Oliver, MD Internal Medicine Hospitalist Kompaniez, Kari, MD Family Medicine Hospitalist D. Advance to Non-Provisional Belknap, Kaya, MD Family Medicine Hirschtritt, Matthew, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Jackson, Neil, MD Obstetrics & Gynecology Kompaniez, Kari, MD Family Medicine Larson, Kimberly, MD Pediatrics Sorokin, Jeffrey, MD Family Medicine E. Biennial Reappointments Bajpai-Pillai, Urmila, MD Internal Medicine-Rheumatology A Barnett, Charles MD Diagnostic Imaging C Brandeis, Judson, MD Surgery C Curtis, Brett, MD Family Medicine C Duque-Silva, Alexandra, MD Pediatrics A Fraser-Hulthage, Anna, MD Family Medicine A Hinman, Priscilla, MD Family Medicine C Hopkins, Brian, MD Surgery C Keyashian, Peyman, MD Anesthesia A Khan, Ahmed, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Kogan, Mark, MD Internal Medicine-Gastro C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 768 MEC Recommendations – April Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affiliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 2 Mbanugo, Ogo, MD Family Medicine A McCall, Mariposa, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A McIlroy, Richard, MD Family Medicine A McNeil, Sarah, MD Family Medicine A Morrissey, Ellen, MD Internal Medicine-Nephrology C Pap, Diane, MD Diagnostic Imaging C Patil, Shilpa, MD Pediatrics A Radhakrishna, Rohan, MD Family Medicine A Randles, Bradley, MD Family Medicine C Reinking, Jason, MD Emergency Medicine C Shey, Jason, MD Internal Medicine (Nephrology) C Shratter, Lee, MD Diagnostic Imaging C Slauson, Dana, MD Family Medicine A Su, Gigi, MD Family Medicine A Weinreich, Don, MD Family Medicine A Wong, Samuel, DO Internal Medicine Nephrology C *No Hospital affiliations, requires MEC waiver F. Biennial Renew of Privileges Kirkpatrick, Haley, NP Family Medicine AFF Splivalo, Lesley, NP Pediatrics AFF G. Voluntary Resignations Colwell, Kate, MD Hospitalist Littlefield, Matthew, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Sidhartha, Tanuj, MD Psychiatry/Psychology H. Attachments Change to Anesthesiology Privilege Packet May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 769 Removal of ANE2 from the Anesthesiology Privilege Packet Departments (s) Number Privilege Descriptions D/C/U Training/ Education Experience Current Competence Requested Granted D= Denied P= Pending CNM=Criteria Not Met D= With Direct Supervision C= With Consultation U= Unrestricted Anesthesia ANE ANE 2 Pediatric Anesthesia* Children 6 months to 6 years. D AN and "U" ANE1 N/A N/A U AN and "U" ANE1 25 10 cases in last 2 years May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 770 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT resignation of Lanita Mims, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 3-A seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The mission of the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding treatment and prevention of alcohol and drug abuse problems. They report their findings and recommendations to the Contra Costa Health Services Department, the Board of Supervisors and the communities they serve. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board works in collaboration with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Division of Contra Costa Health Services. They provide input and recommendations as they pertain to alcohol and other drugs prevention, intervention, and treatment services. Ms. Mims notified the District 3 office of her resignation on March 28, 2018, effective immediately. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lea Castleberry, (925) 252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Vacancy on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 771 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 772 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 773 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on Board Member Committee Assignments on March 21, 2000. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that adoption of a new Master Resolution with a complete roster of all appointments is required by Board policy whenever terms expire or new appointments are made. 3. REAPPOINT Supervisor Candace Andersen and Supervisor Federal D. Glover as the Board of Supervisors' representatives to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission to new four-year terms ending on May 2, 2022. 4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/170 appointing Board members and other individuals to serve on Board committees, special county committees, and regional boards/ committees/ commissions for 2018, some of which include additional compensation in the form of stipend. 5. INDICATE that this Resolution No. 2018/170 supersedes in its entirety Resolution No. 2018/1, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.335.1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: LAFCo Executive Officer, CAO C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPRESENTATION ON THE CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 774 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 6. RESOLVE that Board Members as named are APPOINTED to serve on Board committees, special county committees and regional boards/ committees/ commissions as specified on Attachment II to Resolution No. 2017/413 as Internal Standing Committees (Type I), Other Internal Committees, (Type II), Regional Bodies (Type III), Special/Restricted Seats (Type IV), and Ad Hoc Committees (Type V). 7. DIRECT staff to update, if necessary, the County website a single Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 806, which lists all the paid appointed positions on committees, boards, or commissions for members of the Board of Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County from this action. BACKGROUND: The recommended appointments to the Local Agency Formation Commission will ensure continued representation of the Board of Supervisors on the myriad issues of significance to Contra Costa County. The terms of office of the Board's appointees to the LAFCo will expire on May 7, 2018. LAFCo is a regulatory agency charged by the State legislature with “discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies” based on “local circumstances and conditions.” To meet its responsibilities, LAFCO reviews and approves or denies proposals to: Annex land to cities or special districts, Detach land from cities or special districts, Consolidate two or more cities or two or more special districts, Form new special districts and incorporate new cities, Dissolve special districts and disincorporate cities, Merge cities and special districts, Allow cities or special districts to provide services outside of their boundaries. LAFCo is also charged by the State Legislature to determine and update at least every five years the “sphere of influence” of each city and special district. FPPC Form 806 In April 2012, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted Regulation § 18705.5, which permits a Supervisor to vote on his/her own appointment to a body or board paying a salary or stipend for service if all of the following conditions are met: 1. the appointment is to a committee, board, or commission of a public agency, a special district, a joint powers agency or authority, or a metropolitan planning organization; and 2. State law, a local ordinance, or a joint powers agreement requires the Board to appoint; and 3. the Board adopts and posts on its website, a list of each appointed position for which compensation is paid, the salary or stipend for the position, the name of the appointee, the name of the alternate, if any, and the term of the appointment. Form 806 is used to report additional compensation that officials receive when appointing themselves to positions on committees, boards, or commissions of a public agency, special district, and joint powers agency or authority. Each agency must post on its website a single Form 806, listing all of the paidMay 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 775 agency or authority. Each agency must post on its website a single Form 806, listing all of the paid appointed positions. When there is a change in compensation or a new appointment, the Form 806 is updated to reflect the change. The form must be updated promptly as changes occur. Staff of the County Administrator's Office has prepared the Form 806 and has posted it to the County's website. Staff will update the form, if necessary, after the Board of Supervisors acts to adopt the revised Master List of Board Member Committee Assignments for 2018. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2018/170 Attachment I to Resolution No. 2018/170 - LAFCO Appointments MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2018/170 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 776 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/01/2018 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2018/170 IN THE MATTER OF ENSURING CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION AND UPDATING BOARD MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS TO 2018 BOARD COMMITTEES, SPECIAL COUNTY COMMITTEES, AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WHEREAS the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is a regulatory agency charged by the State legislature with “discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies” based on “local circumstances and conditions."; and WHEREAS, the LAFCo is also charged by the State Legislature to determine and update at least every five years the “sphere of influence” of each city and special district; and WHEREAS, the terms of office of the Board's appointees to the LAFCo will expire on May 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, the recommended appointments will ensure continued representation of the Board of Supervisors on the myriad issues of significance to Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS adoption of a new Master Resolution with a complete roster of all appointments is required by Board policy whenever terms expire or new appointments are made; and WHEREAS, after any new appointments or reappointments are made, when there is a change in compensation for any appointment, or where there is a change in the number of meetings of the board or committee to which an appointment is made, the Fair Political Practices Commission requires the County to update and post on the County’s website the County’s Report of Public Official Appointments, Form 806; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLVES TO: 1. REAPPOINT Supervisor Candace Andersen and Supervisor Federal D. Glover to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission to new terms ending on May 2, 2022. 2. APPOINT the Board members and other individuals to serve on Board committees, special county committees and regional boards / committees / commissions as specified in the Master List (see Attachment II) as Type I for Board Standing Committees, Type II for Other Internal Committees, Type III for Regional Bodies, Type IV for Special/Restricted seats, and Type V for Board Ad Hoc Committees. 3. INDICATE that this Resolution No. 2018/170 supersedes in its entirety Resolution No. 2018/1, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 2018. 4, UPDATE the County's Report of Public Official Appointments, Form 806, if necessary, to reflect the appointments on the adopted Master List for 2018 and post it on the County's website. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 777 Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.335.1077 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: LAFCo Executive Officer, CAO May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 778 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 779 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information I Airport Committee, Chair Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Airport Committee, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Family & Human Services Committee, Chair Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Family & Human Services Committee, Vice Chair John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Finance Committee, Chair Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Finance Committee, Vice Chair John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Hiring Outreach & Oversight Committee, Chair Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Hiring Outreach & Oversight Committee, Vice-Chair Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Internal Operations Committee, Chair Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Internal Operations Committee, Vice Chair Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Legislation Committee, Chair Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Legislation Committee, Vice Chair Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Public Protection, Chair John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Public Protection, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND I Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee, Chair Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 780 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information I Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee, Vice Chair Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Bay Area Counties Caucus Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Bay Area Counties Caucus, Alternate Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System (BayRICS) Authority Mike Casten 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II BayRICS Authority, Alternate Elise Warren 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II California Identification System Remote Access Network Board (Cal-ID RAN Board)Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Candace Andersen Unspecified STIPEND of $50/meeting; max of 2 paid/month II Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Karen Mitchoff Unspecified STIPEND of $50/meeting; max of 2 paid/month II Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Contra Costa Health Plan Joint Conference Committee Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Contra Costa Health Plan Joint Conference Committee Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East Bay Regional Communication System (EBRCS) Authority Governing Board Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East Bay Regional Communication System (EBRCS) Authority Governing Board, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 781 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information II East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, Governing Board Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, Governing Board, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II East County Water Management Association Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $170/meeting; max 6 per month II East County Water Management Association, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $170/meeting; max 6 per month II eBART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Partnership Policy Advisory Committee Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II eBART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Partnership Policy Advisory Committee Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II First 5 Children and Families Commission Member Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II First 5 Children and Families Commission Alternate Member Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee Candace Andersen Unspecified STIPEND of $150 per meeting. II Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee, Alternate Karen Mitchoff Unspecified STIPEND of $150 per meeting. II Medical Services Joint Conference Committee, Chair Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Medical Services Joint Conference Committee, Vice Chair John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II North Richmond Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee Committee John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 782 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information II North Richmond Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee Committee, Alternate Robert Rogers 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Open Space/Parks & East Bay Regional Parks District Liaison Committee, Chair Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Open Space/Parks & East Bay Regional Parks District Liaison Committee, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Pleasant Hill BART/Contra Costa Centre Joint Powers Authority Board of Trustees Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND II Pleasant Hill BART/Contra Costa Centre Joint Powers Authority Board of Trustees Candace Andersen Unspecified NO STIPEND II State Route 4 Bypass Authority Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II State Route 4 Bypass Authority, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II SWAT (Southwest Area Transportation Committee)Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II SWAT, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRAFFIX (Measure J Traffic Congestion Relief Agency)Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRAFFIX (Measure J Traffic Congestion Relief Agency), Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRANSPAC (Central County Transportation Partnership and Cooperation)Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRANSPAC, Alternate Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRANSPLAN (East County Transportation Planning)Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II TRANSPLAN, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 783 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information II Tri-Valley Transportation Council Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II Urban Counties of California Federal D. Glover 12/31/2019 NO STIPEND II Urban Counties of California, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2019 NO STIPEND II WCCTAC (West County Transportation Advisory Committee)John Gioia 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II WCCTAC, Alternate Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND II West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority John Gioia Unspecified STIPEND of $50 per meeting. II West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, Alternate Federal D. Glover Unspecified STIPEND of $50 per meeting. III Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors Karen Mitchoff 1/20/2020 Per diem of $100/meeting + travel exp; max $6,000 III Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors John Gioia 6/17/2021 Per diem of $100/meeting + travel exp; max $6,000 III Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) Board of Directors Candace Andersen 5/1/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $200 month III Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) Board of Directors, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 5/1/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $200 month III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners (Seat 1)Federal D. Glover 1/31/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners (Seat 2)Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners, Alternate (Seat 1)Candace Andersen 1/31/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners, Alternate (Seat 2)John Gioia 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 784 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners, Second Alternate (Seat 1)John Gioia 1/31/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month III Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Commissioners, Third Alternate (Seat 1)Diane Burgis 1/31/2019 STIPEND of $100 per meeting; up to $400 month III Local Agency Formation Commission Candace Andersen 5/2/2022 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. III Local Agency Formation Commission Federal D. Glover 5/2/2022 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. III Local Agency Formation Commission, Alternate Diane Burgis 5/4/2020 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. III Marin Energy Authority (MCE) Board of Directors Federal D. Glover 12/31/2020 NO STIPEND III Marin Energy Authority (MCE) Board of Directors, Alternate John Gioia 12/31/2020 NO STIPEND III Metropolitan Transportation Commission Federal D. Glover 2/1/2019 STIPEND of $100/meeting; up to $500/month per agency. III Tri Delta Transit Authority, Board of Directors (Seat 1)Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $100/month III Tri Delta Transit Authority, Board of Directors (Seat 2)Diane Burgis 12/31/2019 STIPEND of $100/month IV ABAG Executive Board (Seat 1)Karen Mitchoff 6/30/2018 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. IV ABAG Executive Board (Seat 2)Candace Andersen 6/30/2018 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. IV ABAG Executive Board, Alternate 1 John Gioia 6/30/2018 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. IV ABAG Executive Board, Alternate 2 Diane Burgis 6/30/2018 STIPEND of $150 per meeting. IV ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corporations Board of Directors and its Executive Committee Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 785 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information IV ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corporations Board of Directors and its Executive Committee, First Alternate Russell Watts 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corporations Board of Directors and its Executive Committee, Second Alternate Belinda Zhu 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV ABAG General Assembly Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV ABAG General Assembly, Alternate Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV ABAG Regional Planning Committee Karen Mitchoff Unspecified STIPEND of $150 per meeting. IV Bay Conservation & Development Commission John Gioia Unspecified STIPEND of $100 per meeting; max of 4 meetings. IV Bay Conservation & Development Commission, Alternate Federal D. Glover Unspecified STIPEND of $100 per meeting; max of 4 meetings. IV CCCERA (Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association) Board of Trustees Candace Andersen 6/30/2020 STIPEND of $100 per meeting. IV Clayton Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Concord Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Contra Costa County Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Federal D. Glover Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Contra Costa County Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND IV CSAC (California State Association of Counties) Board of Directors John Gioia 11/26/2018 NO STIPEND IV CSAC Board of Directors, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 11/26/2018 NO STIPEND IV Delta Diablo Sanitation District Governing Board Federal D. Glover 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $170 per meeting; max of 6 meetings. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 786 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information IV Delta Diablo Sanitation District Governing Board, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 STIPEND of $170 per meeting; max of 6 meetings. IV Delta Protection Commission Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV Delta Protection Commission, Alternate Karen Mitchoff 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV Law Library Board of Trustees Nolan Armstrong 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV Mental Health Commission Diane Burgis 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV Mental Health Commission, Alternate Candace Andersen 12/31/2018 NO STIPEND IV Pittsburg Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Federal D. Glover Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Board, Alternate Ryan Hernandez Unspecified NO STIPEND IV San Pablo Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board VACANT Unspecified NO STIPEND IV Walnut Creek Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board Karen Mitchoff Unspecified NO STIPEND V Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee John Gioia Unspecified NO STIPEND V Industrial Safety Ordinance/Community Warning System Ad Hoc Committee Federal D. Glover Unspecified NO STIPEND V Northern Waterfront Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee Federal D. Glover Unspecified NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 787 Type*Committee Name 2018 Appointee Term Expiration Stipend Information V Northern Waterfront Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee Diane Burgis Unspecified NO STIPEND V Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee, Chair John Gioia Unspecified NO STIPEND V Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Unspecified NO STIPEND May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 788 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER adopting a position of "Support" on the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018, a citizens initiative water bond that may appear on the November 2018 statewide California ballot, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: See Attachment C. BACKGROUND: The California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative (#17-0010) may appear on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. The measure would issue $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. On March 13, 2018, the Secretary of State announced that signatures had been filed for the ballot initiative. As of March 22, 601,535 signatures had been filed. At least 365,880 of those signatures—about 60.8 percent—need to be valid. Counties have until April 24, 2018, to conduct a random sample of APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:"Support" on the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 789 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) signatures. The request for the Board of Supervisors' support for the State Water Supply Infrastructure, Water Conveyance, Ecosystem and Watershed Protection and Restoration, and Drinking Water Protection act of 2018 was considered by the Legislation Committee at their April 9, 2018 meeting and unanimously approved. Attached is a comparison provided by the California Urban Streams Partnership of the anticipated Fall 2018 bond and Proposition 68, which is set for the June 2018 ballot. (Attachment B.) Attachment A is the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018. More information can be found at: https://waterbond.org/ CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board will not have an official position on the initiative if one is not adopted. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 790 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Division 38 (commencing with Section 86000) is added to the Water Code, to read: DIVISION 38. State water supply infrastructure, water conveyance, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and drinking water protection act of 2018. CHAPTER 1. Short Title. 86000. This division shall be known and may be cited as the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018. CHAPTER 2. Findings and Declarations. 86001. The people find and declare the following: (a) In our frequently very dry state, our high-tech, agricultural and urbanized economy relies on an uninterrupted and high-quality water supply. By making water use more efficient, reducing the demand for water, providing new and diverse water supplies, improving the quality of our source watersheds, and protecting key environmental uses of water, this measure will assure that the economic and environmental engines of California are not derailed by a shortage of water. (b) California’s recent historic drought raises serious questions about the long-term reliability of our current water supplies. The drought underscores the need to use our existing water supplies more efficiently, increase investments in our water infrastructure, and more effectively integrate our water system from the headwaters to the end user. (c) California’s water situation requires implementation of the Governor’s Water Action Plan to provide for the water needs of people, agriculture and the environment. This division will help provide a more reliable water supply by reducing waste, increasing the amount of water available to meet our needs, and improving water quality. This division also provides additional protection for our communities from floods. (d) This division will implement cost effective methods of water development and conservation to meet California’s present and future water needs in a changing climate, including capture of urban drainage and stormwater runoff, groundwater and brackish water desalting, groundwater storage, water recycling, water conservation, and watershed management, restoration, enhancement and protection. (e) Many of the water supply and water quality investments provided by this division will be matched by agencies and grant recipients, more than doubling the effectiveness of the funding provided. (f) Agencies implementing this division will give high priority to cost-effective projects, and to the most durable and most environmentally beneficial projects. Funding will go to projects that contribute to implementation of the Governor’s Water Action Plan, the goal of which is to increase the resiliency of the California water system and the ability of California communities to cope with drought conditions. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 791 (g) Every Californian has a right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water. By complying with Section 106.3, agencies providing funds for safe drinking water pursuant to this division will help achieve the intent of that Section. (h) This division provides a fair and reasonable distribution of funds directly and indirectly benefitting every region of the state. (i) This division provides short and long-term cost-effective actions to address the water shortages caused by the recent drought, and will help prepare local communities for future droughts. Droughts reduce water supplies for people, agriculture and the environment. This division will help meet the water needs of people, agriculture, and the environment and make California more resilient in the face of a changing climate. (j) By improving the health and water productivity of watersheds, communities will become more self- reliant with respect to water supply, and local environmental quality will be increased. (k) By removing invasive plants such as yellow starthistle, giant reed (Arundo donax) and tamarisk, water supply will be increased and habitat for fish and wildlife will be improved. (l) Flooding can devastate communities and infrastructure. We can make better use of floodwaters by capturing waters and putting them to use in our communities, on our farms, and by recharging groundwater basins. By providing funds to intelligently manage our watersheds and floodplains, this division will also help avoid flood damage, improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove pollutants from our water supply, enhance groundwater, remediate aquifers and improve the environment. Better floodplain management may allow improved operation of upstream reservoirs for water supply purposes. (m) Severe fire conditions can lead to significant erosion, reduced water quality and impacts on water infrastructure. This division provides funding to manage forests and watersheds to reduce fire danger, mitigate the effects of wildfires on water supply and quality, and enhance water supplies. (n) This division funds the following programs, which respond to human and environmental water needs in California: (1) Improvement of water supply and water quality utilizing cost effective methods, including water conservation, desalting of groundwater and other inland saline water, stormwater management, wastewater recycling, and similar water management measures. (2) Better management of forest and rangeland watersheds, such as through the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program to improve the pattern, quantity and quality of water runoff and groundwater recharge. Improving soil health improves the ability of the ground to better contain groundwater and moderate the rate of water runoff. (3) Better groundwater management, including faster implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and better recognition of the connection between surface and groundwater. (4) Provision of water for fish and wildlife, including restoration of the Pacific Flyway and management of habitat in a dynamic way to respond to changing environmental conditions. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 792 (5) Increased capacity to convey water resulting in greater groundwater recharge and improved conveyance and utilization of floodwaters for use in drought years. (o) The State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and many other agencies have recognized that providing funding for fish habitat enhancement is vital to restoring native California fish populations, and that relying solely on flow to restore those populations will not be sufficient. Providing funding for fish habitat enhancement is a vital complement to reasonable flows to protect fish. (p) California has lost ninety-five percent (95%) of its historical wetlands. These wetlands provide food, water and cover for migratory and other birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and a vast number of plant species. Many species may become endangered or threatened without wetlands and many more survive only due to wetlands available today. This division combines work to sustain and protect current wetlands with the potential to increase wetlands in California to support a thriving flora and fauna. (q) The implementation of this division will result in cost savings to local governments immediately by substantially more than one billion dollars, and reduce local government operating costs by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This division will provide funding that displaces local government funding, resulting in the implementation of projects in the following areas. These projects would have eventually been implemented by local government. (1) Safe Drinking Water. State direct and matching funds will reduce the cost to local government of implementing drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, and to some extent the operation of those systems. (2) Wastewater recycling. State funds will reduce the cost of these plants, reducing the capital cost of the projects for local governments. By reducing local government capital costs, the cost of water from these plants will also be reduced. Implementation of wastewater recycling plants will defer the need for more expensive alternative sources of water supply, thus further reducing local capital and operating costs. (3) Groundwater desalting. State funds will reduce the cost of these plants, reducing the capital cost of the projects for local governments. By reducing local government capital costs, the cost of water from these plants will also be reduced. Implementation of groundwater desalting plants will defer the need for more expensive alternative sources of water supply, thus further reducing local capital and operating costs. (4) Water Conservation. State funds will reduce the cost of these projects, reducing costs to local government. More importantly, reduced water demand resulting from these projects will reduce operating costs, and will temporarily or permanently defer the construction and operating costs of more expensive capital outlay projects needed to provide new water. (5) Repairing flood control reservoirs. State funds will reduce the costs of these projects for local government. (6) San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority funds. State investment in wetlands projects providing flood protection around San Francisco Bay will reduce flood risk associated with climate change. This will reduce the cost of other flood control measures, and more importantly will reduce flood damage which often results in tremendous costs to local government for facility repair. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 793 (7) Stormwater funding. Regulations imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board and various regional water quality control boards will result in the construction of various capital outlay projects costing billions of dollars. Providing funds through this measure will reduce the cost of these projects to local government. (8) Fisheries restoration. This division provides hundreds of millions of dollars for fisheries restoration. Local and regional water agencies are voluntarily undertaking many of these projects. By providing state funds, this division will reduce local costs. In addition, the resulting increase in fish populations will make it possible to improve local water supplies, avoiding local government costs to provide replacement water supplies costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. (9) Bay Area Regional Reliability. Bay Area water districts are undertaking extensive improvements in their water distribution systems to interconnect their water supplies for greater drought water supply reliability and other benefits. By providing funds for this program, this division will reduce their costs by two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000). (10) Friant Kern Canal Repair. Groundwater overdraft has caused subsidence of the Friant Kern Canal. State funds to repair the canal will reduce the cost of repairing the canal to local water districts. Avoiding the cost to finance this project will also save tens of millions of dollars per year in interest costs which would have to be paid by these districts. (11) Oroville Dam Repair. Although the costs of repairing Oroville Dam should be covered by the federal government either through the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Corps of Engineers, the federal government may not fulfill this obligation. If the State Water Resources Development System contractors, all local agencies, are forced to cover all or part of these costs, this division will reduce their costs by two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000). Interest costs would also be reduced. (r) Substantial funds remain to be allocated to storage projects pursuant to Division 26.7. For this reason, and so as not to interfere with the work of the California Water Commission in awarding these funds, this measure does not include funding for the construction of specific storage projects. CHAPTER 3. Definitions. 86002. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this section govern the construction of this division, as follows: (a) “Conservation” means rehabilitation, stabilization, restoration, reduced water use, development, and reconstruction, or any combination of those activities. (b) “Conservation actions on private lands" means projects implemented with willing landowners that involve the adaptive and flexible management of natural resources in response to changing conditions and threats to habitat and wildlife. These investments and actions are specifically designed to create habitat conditions on private lands which, when managed dynamically over time, contribute to the long-term health and resiliency of vital ecosystems and enhance wildlife populations. (c) “Delta” means the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as defined in Section 12220. (d) “Department” means the Department of Water Resources. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 794 (e) “Desalination” means removing salt and other contaminants from polluted groundwater or other inland sources of water containing salts, including brackish water. (f) “Disadvantaged community” has the meaning set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 79505.5, as it may be amended. (g) “Economically distressed area” has the meaning set forth in subdivision (k) of Section 79702, as it may be amended. (h) “Finance committee” means the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Finance Committee created by Section 86182. (i) “Fund” means the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Fund of 2018 created by Section 86169. (j) “Groundwater sustainability agency” means an agency defined in subdivision (j) of Section 10721. (k) “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan” means a comprehensive plan for a defined geographic area that meets the requirements of Part 2.2 (commencing with Section 10530) of Division 6, as that part may be amended. (l) “Invasive plant” means a terrestrial or aquatic plant not native to California of no or negligible agricultural value which does any of the following: displaces native plants, threatens native plant biodiversity, harms agricultural or rangeland productivity, degrades wildlife habitat, contributes to fire hazard, or uses more water than the plants it displaces. (m) “Multi-benefit project” means a project that serves more than one purpose, including but not limited to flood management, water supply, water quality improvement, environmental enhancement, recreation, energy conservation, reduction of emission of climate-changing gases, and fish and wildlife improvement. (n) “Nonprofit organization” means an organization qualified to do business in California and exempt under Section 501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(6) of Title 26 of the United States Code, to the extent permitted by state and federal law. (o) “Protection” means those actions necessary to prevent harm or damage to persons, property or natural resources or those actions necessary to allow the continued use and enjoyment of property or natural resources and includes acquisition, development, restoration, conservation, preservation and interpretation as interpretation is defined in subdivision (i) of Section 75005 of the Public Resources Code. (p) “Public agency” means a state agency or department, special district, joint powers authority, city, county, city and county, or other political subdivision of the state. (q) “Public water systems” are defined in subdivision (h) of section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code and means regional, municipal, and district urban water suppliers, including privately owned water suppliers as defined in Part 2.6, Section 10617 of the Water Code Division 6. (r) “Restoration” means the improvement of physical structures or facilities and, in the case of natural systems and landscape features, includes but is not limited to projects that improve physical and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 795 ecological processes, including but not limited to erosion control; sediment management; the control and elimination of invasive species; prescribed burning; fuel hazard reduction; fencing out threats to existing or restored natural resources; meadow, wetland, riparian, and stream restoration; and other plant and wildlife habitat improvement to increase the natural system value of the property. Restoration projects shall include the planning, monitoring and reporting necessary to ensure successful implementation of the project objectives. (s) “Severely disadvantaged community” means a community with a median household income of less than 60 percent (60%) of the statewide median household income. (t) “Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program” is a coordinated, integrated, collaborative program to restore the health of California's primary watershed by increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration in order to maintain the important benefits that the Sierra Nevada region provides. (u) “State board” means the State Water Resources Control Board. (v) “State General Obligation Bond Law” means the State General Obligation Bond Law, Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (w) “Stormwater” and “dry weather runoff” are defined as in Section 10561.5. (x) “Stormwater Resource Plans” are defined as in Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6. CHAPTER 4. Accountability. 86003. (a) (1) The California Natural Resources Agency shall provide for an independent audit of expenditures pursuant to this division no less than every three years. (2) On or before January 10, 2020, and every six months thereafter, the Natural Resources Agency shall publish on its website a report that contains all of the following information relating to this division for the previous six months with the information summarized by section of this division: (A) Funding encumbrances. (B) Summary of new projects funded. (C) Summary of projects completed. (D) Discussion of progress towards meeting the metrics of success established pursuant to Section 86157. (E) Discussion of common challenges experienced by state agencies and recipients of funding in executing projects. (F) Discussion of major accomplishments and successes experienced by state agencies and recipients of funding in executing projects. (3) This subsection shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2028, and as of that date is repealed. (b) The Department of Finance or the Controller, or the California State Auditor at the direction of the Legislature, may conduct an audit of the expenditures of any state agency receiving funding pursuant to May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 796 this act. (c) The state agency issuing any grant with funding authorized by this division shall require adequate reporting of the expenditures of the funding from the grant. CHAPTER 5. Improvement of Water Supply and Water Quality. CHAPTER 5.1. Safe Drinking Water. 86004. The sum of seven hundred fifty million dollars ($750,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State board for expenditures, grants, and loans to improve water quality or help provide clean, safe, and reliable drinking water to all Californians. 86005. The projects eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter shall help improve water quality for a beneficial use. The purposes of this chapter are to: (a) Reduce contaminants in drinking water supplies regardless of the source of the water or the contamination. (b) Assess and prioritize the risk of contamination to drinking water supplies. (c) Address the critical and immediate needs of disadvantaged, rural, or small communities that suffer from contaminated or inadequate drinking water supplies, including, but not limited to, projects that address a public health emergency. (d) Leverage other private, federal, state, and local drinking water quality and wastewater treatment funds. (e) Provide disadvantaged communities with public drinking water infrastructure that provides clean, safe, and reliable drinking water supplies that the community can sustain over the long term. (f) Ensure access to clean, safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water for California’s communities. (g) Meet primary and secondary drinking water standards or remove contaminants identified by the state or federal government to meet primary or secondary drinking water standards. 86006. The contaminants that may be addressed with funding pursuant to this chapter may include, but shall not be limited to, lead, nitrates, perchlorate, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), arsenic, selenium, hexavalent chromium, mercury, PCE (perchloroethylene), TCE (trichloroethylene), DCE (dichloroethene), DCA (dichloroethane), 1,2,3-TCP (trichloropropane), carbon tetrachloride, 1,4-dioxane, 1,4- dioxacyclohexane, nitrosodimethylamine, bromide, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, and uranium. 86007. (a) (1) Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) shall be available for grants and loans for public water system infrastructure improvements and related actions to meet safe drinking water standards, ensure affordable drinking water, or both. Priority shall be given to projects that provide treatment for contamination or access to an alternate drinking water source or sources for small community water systems or state small water systems in disadvantaged communities whose drinking water source is impaired by chemical and nitrate contaminants and other health hazards May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 797 identified by the State board. Eligible recipients serve disadvantaged communities and are public water systems or public agencies. (2) Eligible expenses may include initial operation and maintenance costs for systems serving disadvantaged communities. Priority shall be given to projects that provide shared solutions for multiple communities, at least one of which is a disadvantaged community that lacks safe, affordable drinking water and is served by a small community water system, state small water system, or a private well. Construction grants shall be limited to five million dollars ($5,000,000) per project, except that the State board may set a limit of not more than twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) for projects that provide regional benefits or are shared among multiple entities, including consolidation of two or more drinking water systems, at least one of which shall be a small disadvantaged community. Not more than 50 percent (50%) of a grant may be awarded in advance of actual expenditures. (3) For the purposes of this subdivision, “initial operation and maintenance costs” means those initial, eligible, and reimbursable costs under a construction funding agreement that are incurred up to, and including, but not limited to, initial startup testing of the constructed project in order to deem the project complete. Initial operation and maintenance costs are eligible to receive funding pursuant to this section for a period not to exceed three years. (b) Of the funds authorized by this section, up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be available for grants to provide school children with safe drinking water under the Drinking Water for Schools Grant Program pursuant to Section 116276 of the Health and Safety Code. 86008. Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) shall be available for deposit in the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund created pursuant to Section 13477.6 for grants and loans for wastewater treatment projects. Priority shall be given to projects that serve disadvantaged communities and severely disadvantaged communities, and to projects that address public health hazards. Projects may include, but not be limited to, projects that identify, plan, design, and implement regional mechanisms to consolidate wastewater systems or provide affordable treatment technologies. 86009. Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, up to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) shall be made available for drinking water infrastructure and/or wastewater improvements on private property, or for interim replacement drinking water supplies. (a) Funds may be used for the following purposes: (1) To conduct water quality testing of drinking water wells. (2) To install and replace laterals, repair or replace private wells or onsite wastewater systems, properly close abandoned wells and septic system infrastructure, and provide infrastructure necessary to connect residences to a public water or wastewater system. (3) To replace interior drinking water plumbing and fixtures that contain lead. (4) To provide interim replacement drinking water supplies. (b) The State board may establish a revolving loan fund to facilitate financing for activities allowable under this section. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 798 (c) Priority shall be given to projects that assist low-income homeowners, including mobile home owners, and vulnerable populations. 86010. (a) For the purposes of awarding funding pursuant to this chapter, a local cost share of not less than 50 percent (50%) of the total costs of the project shall be required. The cost-sharing requirement may be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area. (b) At least 10 percent (10%) of the funds available pursuant to this chapter shall be allocated for projects serving severely disadvantaged communities. (c) Up to 15 percent (15%) of the funds available pursuant to this chapter may be allocated for technical assistance to disadvantaged communities. The State board shall operate a multidisciplinary technical assistance program for small and disadvantaged communities which may include, but is not limited to, outreach and education, needs assessments, review of alternative approaches to provide communities with safe drinking water or wastewater services, project selection and design, board and operator training, and other technical, managerial, and financial capacity building assistance for utilities serving disadvantaged communities related to providing communities with safe drinking water or wastewater services. The agency may also contract with a nonprofit organization, resource conservation district, or other local agency to provide these services. CHAPTER 5.2. Water Recycling and Desalination. 86020. The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State board to award grants and loans to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 on a competitive basis for wastewater recycling projects. Grants pursuant to this section may be made for all of the following: (a) Water recycling projects, including, but not limited to, treatment, storage, conveyance, brine disposal, and distribution facilities for potable and nonpotable recycling projects. (b) Dedicated distribution infrastructure to serve residential, commercial, agricultural, fish and wildlife habitat, and industrial end-user retrofit projects to allow use of recycled water. (c) Pilot projects for new potable reuse and contaminant removal technology. (d) Multi-benefit recycled water projects that improve water quality. (e) Multi-benefit recycled water projects that protect, conserve and restore wetland and other wildlife habitat. (f) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. 86021. The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State board to award grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 on a competitive basis for desalination of brackish groundwater, and other brackish water desalination projects which do May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 799 not directly negatively affect riparian habitat, estuaries, coastal bays, coastal lagoons, or ocean waters of California as defined by the State board. Grants pursuant to this section must comply with the requirements of this section, and may be made for all of the following: (a) Treatment, storage, conveyance, and distribution facilities. Projects may remove contaminants in addition to salts, but shall be primarily constructed and operated to remove salt. (b) Distribution infrastructure to serve residential, commercial, agricultural, fish and wildlife habitat, and industrial end-user retrofit projects to allow use of desalted water. (c) Multi-benefit salt removal projects that improve water quality. (d) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (e) Multi-benefit salt removal projects that provide water supply for wetland and other wildlife habitat. (f) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. 86022. No grant made pursuant to this chapter shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project, but this requirement may be eliminated or reduced for that portion of projects that primarily serve disadvantaged communities, economically distressed areas, or wildlife habitat. 86023. Projects funded pursuant to this chapter shall be selected on a competitive basis with priority given to the following criteria: (a) Water supply reliability improvement. (b) Water quality and ecosystem benefits related to decreased reliance on diversions from the Delta or from local rivers and streams, and benefits related to attainment of beneficial uses and water quality objectives in local receiving waters. (c) Public health benefits from improved drinking water quality or supply. (d) Cost-effectiveness, based on the amount of water produced per dollar invested, and other cost- effectiveness criteria adopted by the State board. (e) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions. (f) Water supply or water quality improvements benefitting disadvantaged communities. (g) Protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, as well as provision of a reliable water supply for fish and wildlife. CHAPTER 5.3. Water Conservation. 86030. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 800 department for the following purposes: (a) Statewide turf removal program. (1) The program shall provide financial incentives to public and private property owners to convert their irrigated or watered landscaping to drought tolerant plantings, including appropriate low water using plants. The department shall set a maximum amount each applicant can receive, and shall allow greater incentives to low-income homeowners who could not otherwise afford to participate in the landscape water conversion program. No less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds allocated to this program shall be spent on programs benefitting residential property owners. The department shall make awards to nonresidential applicants on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply. Each grant must reduce water consumption by at least fifty percent (50%) compared to current water use. (2) The most cost-effective projects and those projects that provide the greatest environmental benefits based on the state investment shall receive highest priority for funding. Environmental benefits shall include, but not be limited to, planting appropriate drought resistant native and other plants, reduction in consumptive water use, and increased availability of water for environmental benefits. (3) The department shall not reject or reduce eligibility to residents residing in service areas which have previously offered turf removal rebate programs as long as the resident was not a participant in the program. (4) The department shall cooperate with eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 and the California Public Utilities Commission to develop an on-bill repayment mechanism to pay for the consumer’s share of the landscape conversion project. (b) Leak detection. (1) Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems to reduce leaks in their water distribution systems, eliminate leaks in the water systems of their customers if the water system operator determines that customer leak detection and elimination is a cost-effective way to improve the water system operator’s water supply and provides a public benefit, and install instrumentation to detect leaks at residential, institutional, and commercial properties. The department shall make awards on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply. Water system operators receiving grants pursuant to this subdivision shall give highest priority to leak detection and water waste elimination programs in disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (2) No grant award shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project. Cost sharing may be reduced or eliminated for a grant award that primarily benefits residential property owners in a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area. (c) Toilet replacement. Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems or eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to replace toilets using more than three gallons per flush with new toilets that conserve water and flush 1.28 gallons per flush or less. The department shall make awards on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply. Entities receiving grants pursuant to this subdivision shall give highest priority to toilet replacement programs in disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 801 (d) Water meters. Installation of water meters in disadvantaged communities that are not metered. (e) Energy saving water conservation. Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems to undertake water conservation projects that promote saving energy. These projects shall document the greenhouse gas emission reductions coming from water conservation programs. The department shall make awards on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply as well as energy savings. Highest priority shall be given to programs in disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (f) In determining how to allocate the funds appropriated pursuant to this section, the department shall determine which technologies are most cost-effective, produce the greatest environmental benefits, and provide the most benefit to disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (g) Any entity receiving a grant pursuant to this section may use grant funds to establish a revolving fund from which the entity may make loans to implement water conservation programs. The interest rate shall be established by the entity, and the entity may charge a reasonable administration fee to be paid along with the interest on the loan over the lifetime of the loan. Payments made on loans made pursuant to this program shall be returned to the revolving fund to be used for additional loans to implement water conservation programs. Loans made pursuant to this section may be for up to 15 years, or for the useful life of the water conservation project, whichever is shorter. 86031. The sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Energy Commission for the Water Energy Technology Program to accelerate the deployment of innovative water and energy saving technologies and help continue to make water conservation a California way of life. 86032. (a) The purpose of this section is to help make it possible to improve flows in tributaries to the Delta, and to expedite the transfer of conserved agricultural water while minimizing impacts on water rights holders. (b) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for matching grants to local agencies to aid in the construction and implementation of agricultural water conservation projects, and for grants in accordance with Section 79158. (c) For the purposes of approving a grant under this section, the department shall determine if there will be a net savings of water as a result of each proposed project and if the project is cost-effective and technically sound. (d) A project under this section shall not receive more than five million dollars ($5,000,000) in grant proceeds from the department. (e) The department shall give preference to the most cost-effective and technically sound projects. (f) Priority shall be given to grants that result in water savings which are used to improve the quality of fish and wildlife through increased flows in tributaries to the Delta. Grants improving internal water district efficiency for other uses and transfers are also eligible for funding. (g) No project may cause adverse impacts to fish or wildlife without mitigating those impacts below a level of significance. The cost of mitigation may be included in grant funds. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 802 CHAPTER 5.4. Flood Management for Improved Water Supply. 86040. (a) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board for: (1) Enlargement and environmental enhancement of existing floodways and bypasses within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, including providing recreation opportunities. (2) Improvement of flood control facilities and environmental enhancement within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. (b) To be eligible for funding under this section, a project shall provide reduced flood risk, reduced liability, or reduced maintenance responsibility for state agencies or local flood control districts or both. (c) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board shall give preference to: (1) Those projects that primarily benefit disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas. (2) Multi-benefit projects designed to reduce flood risk and enhance fish and wildlife habitat by allowing rivers and floodplains to function more naturally. These projects create additional public benefits such as protecting farms and ranches, improving water quality, increasing groundwater recharge, and providing public recreation opportunities. (3) Those projects that include matching funds, including but not limited to matching funds from other state agencies. Matching fund requirements may be reduced or eliminated to the extent the project directly benefits disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas. (d) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board may make grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to implement this section. (e) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board may use up to one million ($1,000,000) of these funds to develop a programmatic permit for authorization of habitat restoration and related multi-benefit floodplain restoration projects whose primary purpose is restoration and that meet the criteria described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (f) Of the amount appropriated in paragraph (a), fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) shall be awarded for matching grants to public agencies to construct flood control improvements to existing dams on rivers in the Sacramento Valley that provide flood protection to urbanized areas. If these funds are not awarded for this purpose by January 1, 2032, they may be used for the other purposes of this section. 86041. (a) The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for grants to local agencies on a fifty percent (50%) matching basis to repair or reoperate reservoirs that provide flood control either as a principal purpose or as an indirect effect of their operation. Grantees must demonstrate that the proposed repair or reoperation will increase the amount of water stored in those reservoirs that could be put to beneficial use. No funds appropriated under this section shall be used to raise the height of any dam. Spillway modification projects that do not raise the May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 803 crest height of the dam are eligible for grant funds. (b) (1) To be eligible for funding under this section, a project must provide substantial increases in recreational opportunities, such as trails along river channels, and significant net improvements to fish and wildlife habitat in and adjacent to the river channel downstream of the reservoir, and to the extent compatible with safe reservoir operation, within the reservoir. At least ten percent (10%) of project costs shall be allocated to these recreational and habitat purposes. The funds to carry out these purposes shall be allocated by the department directly to a state conservancy if there is a conservancy with jurisdiction over the area of the project. If there is no conservancy, the Natural Resources Agency’s California River Parkways Program shall contract with an eligible entity as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to carry out these purposes. The agency operating the reservoir being repaired or reoperated shall approve the recreational and habitat elements of the project and shall not charge any fees for review, plan check, permits, inspections, or any other related costs associated with the project, and shall provide permanent operation and maintenance of the entire project, including the habitat and recreational elements. Projects may include grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to implement this paragraph. (2) All costs associated with the requirements of this subdivision may be paid for with funds provided to local agencies by this section, and do not have to be matched by the agency. (c) Grants made pursuant to this section may be for the purpose of seismic retrofit. (d) No grants made pursuant to this section shall be for reservoir maintenance or sediment removal from the reservoir or upstream of the reservoir, except as necessary to complete projects authorized under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). (e) Applicants shall certify that projects paid for by funds provided by this section will be permanently operated and maintained. (f) First priority shall be given to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. (g) Projects to assist in the reoperation of eligible reservoirs shall increase water supply for beneficial uses through the purchase and installation of water measuring equipment, acquisition of information systems, and the use of technologies and data to improve reservoir management. (h) (1) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this chapter to create recreational facilities or wildlife habitat may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of those recreational facilities or wildlife habitat. (2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land, recreation facilities or wildlife habitat with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in the land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat. (3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (4) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 804 pursuant to this subdivision, the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the grant that it can maintain the land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat to be acquired or developed from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization. (5) If the interest in land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this section. (i) The department shall give preference to those projects that coordinate reservoir reoperation with the provision of water for groundwater recharge through conjunctive use or other integrated surface/groundwater projects. 86042. The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to provide matching grants for flood management, wetlands restoration, and other projects consistent with Article 2 (commencing with Section 66704.5) of Chapter 5 of Title 7.25 of the Government Code. For purposes of this section, matching funds may include funds provided by local governments, regional governments, the federal government, private parties, or other funds raised by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. No grant shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project. 86043. (a)(1) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this chapter to acquire an interest in land may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of that interest in land. (2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in land to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in land. (3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the grant that it can maintain the land to be acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization. (c) If the interest in land is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter. CHAPTER 5.5. Funding for Water Measurement and Information. 86048. The sum of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund for water measurement and information systems, as follows: (a) The sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) is appropriated to the department for development of May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 805 methods and installation of water measuring equipment to improve estimates of water balance, water budgets, diversions and water use to support water allocations, drought management, groundwater management, water quality management and water rights. (b) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated to the State board for development of information systems, technologies, and data that improve the State board’s ability to manage water rights. These systems will include, but not be limited to, digitizing and making available the 10 million pages of paper records on water rights within the State board and in other repositories and the creation of a digital repository for water diversion and use data. (c) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated to the Water Data Administration Fund established pursuant to Section 12420, to be used by the department in consultation with the State board for the purpose of making California water information interoperable, consistent with Part 4.9 of Division 6 of the Water Code. (d) The sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) is appropriated as follows: (1) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the University of California for its multi- campus Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative to develop core elements of a water resources information system, in cooperation with the department and the State board. (2) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the California Water Institute at California State University, Fresno to undertake research leading to improvement and conservation of water supplies and improved water quality in California. (3) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the Irrigation Training and Research Center at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo to undertake research leading to improvement and conservation of water supplies and improved water quality in California. (4) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the Office of Water Programs at California State University, Sacramento to undertake research leading to improvement and conservation of water supplies and improved water quality in California. (5) The institutions of higher education receiving funds pursuant to this paragraph shall work together to assure that their efforts do not conflict or overlap, but are complementary to each other. CHAPTER 5.6. Capture and Use of Urban Runoff and Stormwater. 86050. (a) The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State board for projects to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff. All grants made pursuant to this section by the State board for construction projects must be to counties or cities, a city and county, or a joint powers authority containing a city, county, or city and county with responsibility for flood control or management. The State board may spend up to fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) for grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to develop Stormwater Resource Plans. Funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated to projects serving and providing a direct benefit to disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities. The State board may use these funds to make grants for technical assistance and outreach to disadvantaged communities. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 806 (b) The sum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Tahoe Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff in the Lake Tahoe Basin pursuant to Title 7.42 (commencing with Section 66905) of the Government Code. (c) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources Code in the area defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 86080. (d) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public Resources Code. (e) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State Coastal Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff pursuant to Division 21 (commencing with Section 31000) of the Public Resources. (f) Funds spent pursuant to this section shall be used for competitive grants for projects that develop, implement, or improve multi-benefit projects identified and prioritized in Stormwater Resource Plans consistent with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6, as that part may be amended, and shall include as many as possible of the following benefits: capture and treatment of stormwater or dry weather runoff for beneficial uses; removal of pollutants from the captured and treated runoff; creation or restoration of habitat or parkland to capture and treat stormwater or dry weather runoff for beneficial uses by using best management practices that improve environmental quality; removal of pollutants from the captured and treated runoff; creation or restoration of habitat or parkland; storage, infiltration or use of the captured and treated runoff to augment local water supplies; creation or restoration of native habitat, trails, park land or other natural open space; reduction of urban heat islands; and provision of other public recreational opportunities. Projects that include wetlands and native habitat or project elements designed to mimic or restore natural watershed functions shall be given the highest priority. (g) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to subdivision (a), at least forty million dollars ($40,000,000) shall be available for projects that reduce the flow of trash and other pollutants: (1) into a National Estuarine Research Reserve, onto beaches, or into near-shore coastal waters in San Diego County, or (2) into San Diego Bay. Priority shall be given to projects that reduce the flow of trash or other pollutants into one or more units of the State Parks System. 86051. (a) Each state agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall require at least a fifty percent (50%) cost share by recipients of grant funds, but may eliminate or reduce the matching requirements for that portion of projects primarily benefiting disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas. (b) Projects funded by this section must comply with water quality policies or regulations adopted by the State board or the regional water quality control board with jurisdiction over the project. (c) Project costs may include development of decision support tools, data acquisition, and geographic information system data analysis to identify and evaluate the benefits and costs of potential stormwater capture and reuse projects. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 807 (d) Preference shall be granted to projects that divert stormwater or dry weather runoff from storm drains or channels and put it to beneficial use. (e) Agencies receiving funds pursuant to this section shall give high priority to projects benefitting disadvantaged communities. Each agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall allocate at least thirty-five percent (35%) of the funds they receive for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. (f) In implementing this chapter, each agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall consult with the Natural Resources Agency regarding the integration and prioritization of the habitat, park land, open space, recreational and public use components of stormwater and dry weather runoff capture and reuse projects, and shall seek assistance from the Natural Resources Agency in the review and scoring of proposed projects. (g) Projects may prevent stormwater and dry weather runoff from entering storm drains or channels. 86052. Entities defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 are eligible to receive funds under subdivisions (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 86050. 86053. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect. Chapter 5.7. Integrated Regional Water Management. 86054. The sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) is allocated to the department to provide direct funding support to approved Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) regional water management groups for the purpose of maintaining ongoing IRWM planning and implementation efforts, thereby sustaining the significant investment made through IRWM for regional collaboration on water management. CHAPTER 6. Watershed, Land, and Fisheries Improvements. CHAPTER 6.1. Watershed Improvement for Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement. 86080. The sum of two billion three hundred fifty-five million dollars ($2,355,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to protect, restore and improve the health of watershed lands, including forest lands (including oaks, redwoods and sequoias), meadows, wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat and other watershed lands, including lands owned by the United States, in order to protect and improve water supply and water quality, improve forest health, reduce fire danger consistent with the best available science, mitigate the effects of wildfires on water quality and supply, increase flood protection, remediate aquifers, or to protect or restore riparian or aquatic resources. No grants made pursuant to this section shall be for reservoir maintenance or sediment removal from a reservoir or upstream of a reservoir, except as necessary for field research required pursuant to subdivision (a). Funds shall be allocated as follows: (a) Two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy for the protection, restoration and improvement of Sierra Nevada watersheds, pursuant to Division 23.3 (commencing with Section 33300) of the Public Resources Code and including the purposes outlined in Section 33320 of the Public Resources Code. Funds shall also be spent for the implementation and to further the goals and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 808 purposes of the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program. Projects eligible for funding under the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program may include research and monitoring to measure the impact of forest restoration work on water supply, climate and other benefits, including long-term air quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage, habitat, recreational uses, and community vitality. Projects funded under the Sierra Nevada watershed Improvement Program shall be based on the best available science regarding forest restoration and must be undertaken to improve water supply and quality, protect and restore ecological values and to promote forest conditions that are more resilient to wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy may make grants to federal agencies if it determines such grants are the most efficient way to implement the intent of this division on federally managed lands. (b) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the California Tahoe Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds of the Lake Tahoe Basin, pursuant to Title 7.42 (commencing with Section 66905) of the Government Code. Funds shall be spent for implementation and to further the goals and purposes of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, pursuant to Article 6 of Chapter 1.692 of Division 5 (commencing with Section 5096.351) of the Public Resources Code. (c) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds of the San Francisco Bay Area, pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 31160). (d) One hundred eighty million dollars ($180,000,000) for the protection and restoration of watersheds of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties as follows: (1) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for the protection and restoration of the watersheds of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public Resources Code. (2) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, for the protection and restoration of the watersheds of Santa Monica Bay, the Upper Los Angeles River and the Upper Santa Clara River pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources Code, and the watersheds defined in subdivision (c) of Section 79570. (3) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program of the Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds of the Santa Ana River pursuant to Chapter 4.6 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 31170). (4) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Baldwin Hills Conservancy for the protection and restoration of the Baldwin Hills and Ballona Creek watersheds, and for projects to capture dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff pursuant to Division 22.7 (commencing with Section 32550) of the Public Resources Code. (e) Forty million dollars ($40,000,000) to the San Diego River Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds in San Diego County pursuant to Division of 22.9 (commencing with Section 32630) of the Public Resources Code. (f) One hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of coastal watersheds pursuant to Division 21 (commencing with Section May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 809 31000) of the Public Resources Code. (g) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) for the protection and restoration of the watersheds of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers as follows: (1) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy for protection and restoration of the Delta pursuant to Division 22.3 (commencing with Section 32300) of the Public Resources Code. Highest priority shall be given to projects that benefit the restoration of native species and that reduce the negative impacts of excessive salinity intrusion. Highest priority shall also be given to projects that restore habitat important to species listed pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and the California State Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2100). The funds may also be used for improvement of public recreational facilities in the Delta, and for grants to local agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase community access to parks and recreational opportunities for underserved urban communities in the Delta. The Conservancy may implement programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Delta. (2) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the San Joaquin River Conservancy for the implementation of the San Joaquin River Parkway pursuant to Division 22.5 (commencing with Section 32500) of the Public Resources Code. (3) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Lower American River Conservancy Fund created by Section 5845.9 of the Public Resources Code. The Wildlife Conservation Board shall use these funds to implement Chapter 10.5 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 5845). (h) One hundred and seventy million dollars ($170,000,000) for river parkways, as follows: (1) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) to the California Natural Resources Agency for projects pursuant the California River Parkways Act of 2004, Chapter 3.8 (commencing with Section 5750) of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code. The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall allocate at least sixty-five percent (65%) of these funds for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. With the remaining funds, the Secretary shall seek to benefit poorer communities that do not qualify as disadvantaged communities. (2) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Guadalupe River corridor. (3) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Russian River corridor. (4) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Santa Clara River corridor. (5) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Tijuana River corridor. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 810 (6) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Carmel River corridor. (7) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvement along the Napa River corridor. (8) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for river parkway projects within the San Diego Bay watershed. (9) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for river parkway projects along the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County. (10) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the California Tahoe Conservancy to implement habitat restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvements along the Upper Truckee River corridor. (i) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) shall be available for projects that restore, protect and preserve the Los Angeles River and its tributaries, as follows: (1) Seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 79508 of the Water Code. (2) Seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 79508 of the Water Code. (j) Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the following: (1) For the protection and restoration of the watersheds of the Sacramento, Smith, Eel, and Klamath Rivers and other rivers of Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, and the Carrizo Plain pursuant to Chapter 4 of Division 2 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Fish and Game Code. (2) For protection and restoration of oak woodlands and rangelands pursuant to Division 10.4 (commencing with Section 10330) of the Public Resources Code and Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 1360) of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code. (3) For acquisition and restoration of riparian habitat, migratory bird habitat, anadromous fisheries, wetland habitat and other watershed lands pursuant to Chapter 4 of Division 2 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Fish and Game Code. (4) Grants may include funding to help fulfill state commitments to implement Natural Community Conservation Plans adopted pursuant to Chapter 10 of Division 3 (commencing with Section 2800) of the Fish and Game Code, and to large scale regional Habitat Conservation Plans adopted pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Chapter 35). May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 811 (5) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be available to assist farmers in integrating agricultural activities with watershed restoration and wildlife protection. Priority shall be given to projects that include partnerships with resource conservation districts. (6) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund established by Section 1363 of the Fish and Game Code, and may be expended pursuant to Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code. (7) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) shall be available for grazing land protection pursuant to the California Rangeland, Grazing Land and Grassland Protection Act, commencing with Section 10330 of Division 10.4 of the Public Resources Code. (8) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, not less than sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) shall be available for projects that advance the conservation objectives of natural community conservation plans adopted pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. First priority shall be given to plans that include protection of aquatic ecosystems. Funding pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used to offset mitigation obligations otherwise required. (k) Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy for the protection and restoration of the Coachella Valley watershed pursuant to Division 23.5 (commencing with Section 33500) of the Public Resources Code. (l) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for protection and restoration of watershed lands within and affecting units of the State Parks System, with high priority to redwood and other forest land important to protecting river and stream flows and quality. In addition to other purposes authorized pursuant to this section, the Department of Parks and Recreation may allocate funds to improve and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of State Park water supply and wastewater treatment systems. (m) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the Department of Conservation for watershed restoration and conservation projects on agricultural lands, rangelands, managed wetlands, and forested lands. (1) No less than thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) shall be used for grants pursuant to Section 9084 of the Public Resources Code. (2) No less than thirty-one million dollars ($31,000,000) shall be used for the purposes of Division 10.2 (commencing with Section 10200) of the Public Resources Code. (3) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be used for the Watershed Coordinator Grant Program. (n) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the California Ocean Protection Council for projects that: (1) reduce the amount of pollutants that flow to beaches, bays, coastal estuaries, and near-shore ecosystems; and (2) protect coastal and near-shore ocean resources from the impacts of rising sea levels, storm surges, ocean acidification and related hazards, including, but not limited to, increasing the resiliency of near-shore ocean habitats. Projects may include, but are not limited to, projects that protect May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 812 or restore beaches, coastal estuaries and watersheds, bays, and near-shore ecosystems including marine protected areas. Of this amount, the Council shall use at least five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the Local Coastal Program sea level rise grant program that supports Local Coastal Program updates to address sea level rise, including sea-level rise modeling, vulnerability assessments, and adaptation planning and policy development. (o) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Natural Resources Agency, for water-related projects that implement the Natural Resources Agency’s Salton Sea Management Program consistent with provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 2940) of Chapter 13 of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code, and in fulfillment of the obligations of the State of California to comply with the terms of Chapters 611, 612, 613, and 614 of the Statutes of 2003. These statutes were enacted to facilitate the execution and implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, including restoration of the Salton Sea. The Natural Resources Agency may expend these funds on projects that provide multiple benefits of ecosystem restoration, air quality improvement, and economic recovery for severely disadvantaged communities. (1) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph, not less than twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) shall be available for purposes consistent with the New River Water Quality, Public Health, and River Parkway Development Program, as described in Section 71103.6 of the Public Resources Code. (2) Of the amount allocated pursuant to this section, the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be available for a Salton Sea Integrated Watershed Plan providing technical assistance for, outreach to, and engagement with severely disadvantaged communities. (p) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the Delta Stewardship Council for the Delta Science Program as described in Section 85280. (q) Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to the department for Urban Streams Restoration Program competitive grants pursuant to Section 7048. The department shall allocate at least sixty-five (65%) of these funds for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. With the remaining funds, the department shall seek to benefit poorer communities that do not qualify as disadvantaged communities. (r) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for grants for urban forestry projects that manage, capture or conserve stormwater, recharge local groundwater supplies or improve water supplies or water quality through infiltration, sediment management and erosion control pursuant to the California Urban Forestry Act, Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 4799.06) of Part 2.5 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code. (s) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the Delta Protection Commission for expenditures, grants, or loans for projects that improve water quality by improving wastewater treatment in Delta legacy communities (as described in section 32301(f) of the Public Resources Code) and at recreational facilities in the Delta. Funds may be expended on wastewater improvement projects serving Delta legacy communities, or Delta legacy community households with failing septic systems which threaten the quality of groundwater or surface water supplies used for urban, agricultural or fisheries purposes. Funds may also be allocated to improve and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Delta recreational facility wastewater treatment systems. Priority shall be given to projects that address public health hazards. Projects may identify, plan, design, and implement regional mechanisms to consolidate wastewater systems or provide affordable treatment technologies. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 813 (t) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for projects that provide access to rivers for non-motorized recreation, and for grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for this purpose. First priority shall be given to projects that include matching funds, and to projects that serve disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas, whether or not they include cost sharing. (u) (1) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the construction of a Pacific Flyway Center in the vicinity of the Suisun Marsh, to be operated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife may contract with a nonprofit organization to operate the Center. The Center shall be used to educate the public about the importance of California’s wetlands, agricultural lands (including rice) and riparian areas in benefitting waterfowl, shorebirds, native plants and animals, the value of wetlands in absorbing gases that cause climate change, and similar educational purposes. The operator of the Center shall make special efforts to bring people, and especially students, from disadvantaged communities to the Center for educational purposes. If the Wildlife Conservation Board determines that all or part of these funds is not needed to complete this project, it may allocate the unneeded part of the funds to the purposes of paragraph (j) of this section. (2) (A) Of the amount appropriated by paragraph (1), the Wildlife Conservation Board may make a grant of up to four million dollars ($4,000,000) to a nonprofit organization whose principal purpose is wildlife conservation to establish a trust fund, the interest from which shall be used exclusively to operate the Pacific Flyway Center and bring people from disadvantaged communities to the Center. (B) With the approval of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the nonprofit organization can transfer the operation of the Pacific Flyway Center to another nonprofit organization. If such a transfer takes place, the trust fund shall be transferred to the new nonprofit organization. (3) If the funds allocated by this section are not all used to construct the Pacific Flyway Center by January 1, 2028, any remaining funds are appropriated to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the purposes of Section 86123. (v) Eighty million dollars ($80,000,000) to the Coastal Conservancy for the removal of Matilija Dam, and for associated levee and flood control improvements, water supply improvements, and related projects on Matilija Creek and the Ventura River, and for river parkway projects along the Ventura River. The Conservancy may grant all or part of these funds to Ventura County. Highest priority for the river parkway projects shall be those which benefit disadvantaged communities. If the Coastal Conservancy determines that all or part of these funds is not needed to complete this project, it may allocate the unneeded part of the funds to the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section. (w) The sum of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the University of California for the Natural Reserve System for matching grants for land acquisition and for the construction and development of facilities that will be used for research and training to improve the management of aquatic ecosystems, natural lands and the preservation or conservation of California’s wildlife resources. Priority shall be given to projects that advance research on the impacts of climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation of natural systems to the impacts of climate change. (x) (1) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy for the purpose of awarding grants within the jurisdiction of the Conservancy to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watershed health. Projects may be for the purpose of hazardous fuel May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 814 reduction, postfire watershed rehabilitation, forest management practices that promote forest resilience to severe wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances, and development of local plans to reduce the risk of wildfires that could adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to grants which include matching funds, but this preference may be reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas. (2) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for the purpose of awarding grants in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watershed health. Projects may be for the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction, postfire watershed rehabilitation and restoration, forest management practices that promote forest resilience to severe wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances, and development of local plans to reduce the risk of wildfires that could adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to grants which include matching funds, but this preference may be reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas. 86083. Consistent with the other requirements of this chapter, funds spent pursuant to this chapter may be used for grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166. Funds awarded to eligible entities may be used for projects on land owned by a state or federal agency. With the exception of funds allocated to grant programs, funds may also be used directly by the state agency receiving the funds to implement watershed improvement projects consistent with this chapter. In making grants pursuant to this chapter, agencies shall give high priority to applications that include cost sharing, and to grants that benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas whether or not they include cost sharing. 86084. (a) For a project to be eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter, the project shall have watershed protection and restoration, water supply or water quality benefits, or ecosystem benefits relating to rivers, streams, forests, meadows, wetlands or other water-related resources. (b) (1) Funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter may be used for protection and restoration of forests, meadows, wetlands, riparian habitat, coastal resources, and near-shore ocean habitat; to acquire land and easements to protect these resources and avoid development that may reduce watershed health, and to take other measures that protect or improve the quality or quantity of water supplies downstream from projects funded in whole or in part by this chapter. Forest restoration projects, including but not limited to hazardous fuel reduction, post-fire watershed rehabilitation, and forest management and tree planting using appropriate native plants shall be based on the best available science regarding forest restoration and must be undertaken to protect and restore ecological values and to promote forest conditions that are more resilient to wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances. (2) Fuel hazard reduction activities on United States Forest Service lands in the Sierra Nevada and similar forest types shall be generally consistent with objectives of the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program and the best available science, including United States Forest Service General Technical Report 220 as it may be updated. 86085. Any entity receiving funds pursuant to this chapter that expends funds on private lands shall secure an agreement or interest in the private lands to assure the purpose of the expenditure is maintained for such time as is commensurate with the best practices for the type of project. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 815 86086. (a)(1) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding for a project pursuant to this chapter may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of that project. (2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in a project with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in the project to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in the project. (3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the grant that it can maintain the project to be undertaken using funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization. (c) The interest from the trust fund shall be used only to monitor the implementation of a project, and maintain a project and its water supply and water quality benefits implemented pursuant to this chapter. (d) If an interest in a project is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in the project is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated and shall be returned to the agency that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter. 86087. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect. 86088. By April 30, 2019, the Natural Resources Agency shall recommend provisions for grant approval guidelines to each state agency that receives an appropriation pursuant to this chapter in order to ensure appropriate consistency of the guidelines. Each agency shall consider the recommendations of the Natural Resources Agency as they adopt their own guidelines. 86089. Agencies receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall give high priority to projects that benefit the native wildlife, birds and fishes of California. CHAPTER 6.2. Land and Water Management for Water Supply Improvement. 86090. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the purpose of awarding competitive grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to improve the quality of public and private rangelands, wildlands, meadows, wetlands, riparian areas and aquatic areas for the purpose of increasing groundwater recharge and water supply from those lands, and for improving water quality consistent with protecting and restoring ecological values. 86091. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 816 regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect. 86094. In making grants pursuant to this chapter, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall give highest priority to projects which: (a) Are most cost-effective in producing improved water supply or water quality, and which provide the greatest fish and wildlife benefits. (b) Include matching funds. (c) Benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (d) Are for the purpose of invasive plant control and eradication, restoration of riparian habitat, meadows and wetlands, and other projects that improve the flow of water from the lands, and reduce the use of water by invasive plant species. 86096. For a project to be eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter, the project shall have water supply or water quality benefits or both. A project that targets the removal of invasive plants to increase water supply shall only be funded if the applicant guarantees that the land from which plants will be removed will be maintained. 86097. (a)(1) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this chapter may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of the funded project. (2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that undertakes a project with money from this division and can no longer maintain the project shall transfer the ownership of the trust fund to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that is willing and able to maintain that project. (3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the grant that it can maintain the project in an appropriate condition. (c) The interest from the trust fund established from the funds available pursuant to this section shall be used only to maintain a project and its water supply and water quality benefits implemented pursuant to this chapter. (d) If the interest in a project is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in the project is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated and shall be returned to the Wildlife Conservation Board. The funds returned may be utilized only for projects authorized by this chapter. 86098. In implementing this chapter, the Wildlife Conservation Board may provide incentives to landowners for conservation actions on private lands or use of voluntary habitat credit exchange mechanisms. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 817 86099. At least ten percent (10%) of the funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated for projects that provide a direct benefit to disadvantaged communities. These benefits may include range improvement, among other benefits. These projects may include technical assistance for, outreach to, and engagement with disadvantaged communities. CHAPTER 6.3. Conservation Corps. 86105. The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Conservation Corps for projects to protect, restore, and improve the health of watershed lands, including forest lands, meadows, wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat and other watershed lands. Projects may include, but are not limited to, regional and community fuel hazard reduction projects on public lands, invasive species removal, and stream, river, and riparian restoration projects. The California Conservation Corps shall allocate at least fifty percent (50%) of the funds pursuant to this section for grants to certified local conservation corps. Projects shall improve water quality, water supply reliability, or riparian or watershed health. Projects shall be undertaken in coordination with a nonprofit organization or public agency. CHAPTER 6.4. Central Valley Fisheries Restoration. 86106. (a) The people of California find and declare that the protection, restoration and enhancement of native fish populations (including anadromous salmonids) of the Central Valley is necessary for the ecological and economic health of the State of California. (b) Fish need both suitable habitat and appropriately timed flows in rivers and their tributaries. (c) The State Water Resources Control Board shall take note of the funding provided by this chapter and the resulting fish habitat restoration as the Board determines flows necessary to restore Central Valley native fish populations and fisheries. (d) Many state and federal agencies, including the Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and federal Bureau of Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service have prepared policies and plans to restore Central Valley native fish and fisheries habitat, but these policies and plans are not fully funded. (e) Many state and federal laws require the restoration of Central Valley native fish populations and fisheries habitat, but funding has not been fully available to carry out the requirements of these laws. (f) The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Natural Resources Agency for the restoration of Central Valley populations of native fish and fisheries habitat. (1) (A) The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall appoint a Central Valley Fisheries Advisory Committee made up of representatives from the Central Valley Salmon Habitat Partnership, appropriate local, state and federal fish and water management and other agencies, nonprofit organizations, commercial fishing organizations, universities, local agencies and Indian tribes with relevant scientific expertise including representation from the upper watersheds. The committee shall advise the Secretary on the annual expenditure of funds appropriated pursuant to this Chapter. The May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 818 committee may solicit projects, and direct the creation of projects pursuant to this chapter, subject to approval by the Secretary. (B) The committee shall work closely with representatives from each river basin in the Central Valley, including local government and water agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations, to develop projects that are most suitable for the conditions in the basin, and which meet the other requirements of this section. (C) In proposing projects, the committee shall take into account the entire life cycle of the fish species to be benefitted, and shall consider the interaction of the effects of each project within a river basin with projects in other river basins. The committee shall also consider adverse impacts resulting from poor watershed health, including severe wildfire and extensive tree mortality. (2) Projects funded pursuant to this section shall increase self-sustaining populations of native fish, or contribute to an existing fish population becoming self-sustaining in the future, with a minimal requirement of expenditures to continue to operate the project. No funds may be expended on fish hatcheries. (3) The committee shall give high priority to projects that provide multiple benefits, such as improved flood management, improved water quality, improved water supply, enhanced groundwater sustainability, aquifer remediation and reduction of emission of greenhouse gases, while also improving conditions for native fish species and their habitats. The committee shall also give high priority to projects that can be integrated into an existing flow regime and provide multi-species benefits over a range of flow conditions. The committee shall also give high priority to projects that are consistent with recovery plan and resiliency strategies for native California fish species. (4) Expenditures shall be for capital outlay projects, such as conservation easements, water measurement needed to measure the effects of the project, projects that restore or enhance fisheries habitat such as floodplain expansion, reintroductions of fish into their historical habitat, improved fish passage opportunities, creation or enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat and other projects. Acquisition of land or easements as part of a fisheries enhancement project must be from willing sellers. Project costs shall include the costs of planning, environmental review, mitigation of the impacts of the project, and permitting. High priority shall be given to projects that provide adult and juvenile fish access to or fish passage through agricultural fields or floodplain habitats that will provide enhanced juvenile rearing and food production opportunities. (5) Of the funds authorized by this section, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may allocate up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for one or more grants for capital outlay and related programmatic purposes to institutions of higher education for facilities that can be used to improve scientific and technical coordination, communication and training among those institutions, the department, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State board and other state agencies to assure that developments in ecosystem and fisheries science and management are deployed and employed across higher education institutions and state government agencies. (g) Based on the recommendations of the committee, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may make grants to any state or local agency, Indian tribe, or nonprofit organization to carry out the purpose of this section. The Secretary shall give high priority to projects that include matching funds, projects with a local agency as the lead agency, and projects supporting proposed actions in the Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy (as published by the California Natural Resources Agency in June 2017, and as May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 819 it may be amended), the National Marine Fisheries Service California Central Valley Steelhead Recovery Plan and other similar strategies as they are adopted. (h) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this section, not less than thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) shall be available for projects to restore rivers and streams in support of fisheries and wildlife, including, but not limited to, reconnection of rivers with their floodplains, riparian and side- channel habitat restoration pursuant to the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program, Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 1385) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, and restoration and protection of upper watershed forests and meadow systems that are important for fish and wildlife resources. Subdivision (f) of Section 79738 of the Water Code applies to this subdivision. Priority shall be given to projects supported by multi-stakeholder public or private partnerships, or both, using a science- based approach and measurable objectives to guide identification, design, and implementation of regional actions to benefit salmon and steelhead. (i) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this section, five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available to assist in the development of the Central Valley Salmon Partnership Habitat Implementation Plan. (j) The Secretary shall give high priority to the removal of Dennett Dam on the Tuolumne River, if additional funds are still needed to complete removal of the Dam. (k) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization receiving funding under this chapter may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund, the proceeds of which shall be used exclusively to pay or help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of the project being funded. (1) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization is unable to continue to maintain and monitor the project, it may transfer ownership of the trust fund to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization, with the approval of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency. (2) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (3) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to paragraph (1), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency that it can maintain the project from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization. (4) If all or part of the project cannot be maintained or is condemned, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the California Natural Resources Agency. The funds returned to the Agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter. (l) Of the amount appropriated to the California Natural Resources agency pursuant to this section, seven million dollars ($7,000,000) is appropriated to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for native fish restoration projects on the upper Feather River below Oroville dam for gravel restoration, streambed restoration, and salmon habitat restoration projects. CHAPTER 7. Groundwater Sustainability and Storage. 86110. (a) The sum of six hundred seventy-five million dollars ($675,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for projects and programs that support sustainable groundwater management May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 820 consistent with Part 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720). The funds shall be used for competitive grants that advance sustainable groundwater management through implementation of groundwater sustainability plans and projects that protect, enhance, or improve groundwater supplies. At least ten percent (10%) of all grants made pursuant to this paragraph shall be made to groundwater sustainability agencies whose groundwater basins underlie disadvantaged communities. (b) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated from the fund to the State board, for use by the Office of Sustainable Water Solutions to implement a multidisciplinary technical assistance program for small and disadvantaged communities, and support the involvement of disadvantaged communities and the public in groundwater sustainability agencies and in the development and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans. 86111. (a) Of the funds authorized by section 86110, six hundred forty million dollars ($640,000,000) shall be available for grants to groundwater sustainability agencies implementing groundwater sustainability plans pursuant to subdivision (k) of Section 10721 for the following purposes: (1) Groundwater recharge and storage projects including but not limited to acquisition of land and groundwater pumping allocations from willing sellers, planning of facilities such as feasibility studies and environmental compliance, distribution systems, and monitoring facilities. No grant made pursuant to this section shall exceed twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). (2) Projects that implement groundwater sustainability plans pursuant to Part 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720). Projects eligible for funding include but are not limited to feasibility studies, environmental compliance, engineering work used to develop groundwater use and sustainable yield for specific projects, well use measurement and innovative decision support tools. (3) Projects that assess and address saltwater intrusion including future impacts related to climate change. (4) Matching grants to groundwater sustainability agencies to develop groundwater sustainability plans pursuant to subdivision (k) of Section 10721. No grant shall exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), and no groundwater sustainability agency shall receive more than one grant. (b) Of the funds authorized by this section, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available for research to guide investments made pursuant to this section. Research activities may include, but are not limited to, geophysical surveys, system-level modeling and analysis, development of novel methods and tools that can be applicable to local decision-making, cross-sector economic and policy analysis of novel recharge methods, and development of new approaches to significantly enhance groundwater recharge and fit-for-purpose water treatment and reuse. (c) Of the funds authorized by this section, the department may allocate up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for the development of publicly accessible decision support tools to assist groundwater sustainability agencies in conducting drinking water quality analysis, including the development and assessment of sustainable yield, undesirable results, measurable objectives and other required targets. The decision support tools should also support vulnerability assessments to help determine communities that may be at risk of facing water supply or contamination challenges. The tools should be available for other efforts such as drought vulnerability assessments and shall be linked to the Human Right to Water indicator housed at the State board. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 821 (d) Of the funds authorized by this section, the department may allocate up to five million dollars ($5,000,000) for one or more grants for capital outlay and related programmatic purposes to institutions of higher education for facilities that can be used to improve communication and coordination among these institutions, the department and the State board in order to assure that developments in groundwater science and management are efficiently deployed and employed across higher education institutions and state government agencies. (e) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization receiving funding under this section may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund used exclusively to pay or help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of the agency’s or organization’s interest in land acquired pursuant to this section. (1) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquired an interest in land with money from this section decides to transfer that interest to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization, the ownership of the trust fund established to maintain that interest in land shall also be transferred. (2) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (3) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to this subdivision the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the grant that it can maintain the land to be acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization. (4) If the interest in land is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter. 86112. (a) The department shall give priority for funding pursuant to this chapter to the following in equal priority: (1) Groundwater basins designated by the department as critically overdrafted basins, groundwater basins which are in danger of becoming critically overdrafted, and groundwater basins where surface and groundwater are interconnected. (2) Groundwater basins with documented water quality problems, land subsidence, impacts on surface streams or groundwater dependent ecosystems, or other undesirable results as defined by subdivision (x) of Section 10721. (3) Groundwater basins that protect important state-owned resources, such as state parks and wildlife areas. (4) Projects that support the use of floodwaters of acceptable water quality to recharge groundwater basins. This innovative multi-benefit concept brings together four important California water management objectives, including flood hazard reduction, sustainable groundwater management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply reliability. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 822 (A) Projects may include adaptive modification of flood and conservation storage operations at reservoirs, modifications to spillway facilities at existing reservoirs, inundation of new or expanded flood bypasses or temporary flood storage land areas, application of floodwaters to agricultural lands during fallow or dormant seasons, or increased use of existing groundwater recharge facilities. (B) Projects may include using floodwaters for recharge of groundwater projects, with both flood hazard reduction and groundwater sustainability benefits. (C) Projects that provide benefits in flood hazard reduction and groundwater sustainability. Project feasibility can also be supported by ecosystem restoration and water supply benefits. (b) Of the amount appropriated in section 86110, the department may use up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for the following purposes: (1) Assess statewide potential for use of floodwaters for recharge and prioritize locations based upon proximity and conveyance connections in the State with flood hazard reduction and groundwater sustainability needs. (2) Complete a pilot study of a priority location to demonstrate potential water resources management innovations to facilitate flood hazard reduction and groundwater recharge. (3) Identify and demonstrate use of analytical tools and innovative water management techniques to support development of available floodwaters and recharge of groundwater basins. (4) Develop economic monetization techniques of groundwater recharge benefits. (5) Demonstrate application of the department’s climate change methodology to both water supply and flood management applications. (6) Provide technical assistance to groundwater sustainability and local flood management agencies, as well as coordination with state and federal flood agencies. (c) The department shall consider the following criteria when awarding grants: (1) The potential of the project to prevent or correct undesirable results due to groundwater use. (2) The potential of the project to maximize groundwater storage, reliability, recharge or conjunctive use. (3) The potential of the project to support sustainable groundwater management. (4) The annualized cost-effectiveness of the project to achieve the goals of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Chapter 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720). (d) Eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166, including groundwater sustainability agencies, shall be eligible for grants. Priority for funding shall be given to local agencies implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 823 (e) For purposes of awarding funding under this chapter, a local cost share of not less than fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of the project shall be required. The cost-sharing requirement may be waived or reduced for that portion of a project that directly benefits a disadvantaged community or economically distressed area, or for projects the majority of whose benefits are to restore ecosystems dependent on groundwater. (f) No grant may be made unless the Department of Fish and Wildlife certifies that harm done to fish or wildlife as a result of the project will be mitigated to ensure any potential impacts are less than significant. (g) Eligible projects may include such infrastructure improvements such as improved canal and infiltration capacity. 86113. (a) For purposes of this section, “District” means the Borrego Water District. (b) Of the amount appropriated in Section 86110, thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) shall be awarded as a grant to the District for the following programs: (1) Acquisition of land and acquisition of the right to pump groundwater from willing sellers to reduce groundwater pumping in order to bring groundwater pumping within the boundaries of the Borrego Springs Subbasin of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin to a level that is sustainable on a long- term basis pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Chapter 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720). Lands acquired may be transferred to the Department of Parks and Recreation, a nonprofit organization or another public agency for future management. (2) Water end-use efficiency, including urban and agricultural water conservation, and water conservation on recreational facilities such as golf courses. (3) Restoration of lands acquired pursuant to this section. (4) Stormwater capture for groundwater basin recharge and re-use. (5) Other District projects implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. (c) (1) No cost sharing by the District is required to implement this section. This is justified because the community of Borrego Springs is a severely disadvantaged community, and because excessive groundwater pumping can impact important resources in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park whose 500,000 annual visitors contribute an estimated forty million dollars ($40,000,000) annually to the region, as well as support 600 jobs. (2) The District may require cost sharing by beneficiaries when making grants pursuant paragraphs (2) and (4) of subdivision (b). (d) As a condition of this grant, the District must agree to: (1) Implement measures which assure that lands not presently being irrigated will not come into irrigation, and that presently irrigated lands will not become more intensively irrigated; and May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 824 (2) Require new development to pay all costs of water purchases the District incurs, and all costs of water projects the District undertakes in order to accommodate that development. (e) (1) The District or a nonprofit organization that receives funding pursuant to this chapter to acquire an interest in land may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance, monitoring and restoration of that interest in land. (2) The District or a nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in land to another public agency or nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in land. (3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies. (4) If the District or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to this subdivision, the agency or organization shall certify to the department that it can maintain the land to be acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency or organization. (5) If the interest in land is condemned or if the District or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the District. The funds returned to the District may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter. (f) Any funds not needed by the District to implement the program described in this section may be granted by the District to a nonprofit organization or the California Department of Parks and Recreation to acquire lands adjacent to or in the immediate proximity of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to prevent development or irrigation of that land which might impact groundwater resources in the Park. These lands may be inside or outside the boundaries of the District, but must be within the boundaries of the Borrego Springs Subbasin of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin, which is the source of all potable water for the Borrego Springs community and visitors to the Park. The lands may be used for wildlife habitat. (g) The District may award grants to nonprofit organizations in order to carry out all or part of the programs authorized by this section. CHAPTER 8. Water for Wildlife, Pacific Flyway Restoration, and Dynamic Habitat Management. 86120. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board (hereinafter in this section “the Board”) to acquire water from willing sellers and to acquire storage and delivery rights to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams, rivers, wildlife refuges, wetland habitat areas and estuaries. High priority shall be given to meeting the water delivery goals of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of Public Law 102-575). The Board may arrange for acquisition, long-term lease agreements, or transfer of water rights if it determines such actions are beneficial to wildlife conservation. The Board may sell, transfer, or store water or storage rights purchased pursuant to this section, if the Board finds that the sale, transfer or storage will not cause harm to fish and wildlife. In years when the Board does not require the water for fish and wildlife purposes, the Board may temporarily sell or lease the water or delivery rights. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, the proceeds of any water sales pursuant to this section by the Board are appropriated directly to the Board without regard to fiscal year. The Board shall use the proceeds of the sale, lease or transfer of water or delivery rights to achieve conservation purposes authorized by this May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 825 section. The acquisition of water using funds expended pursuant to this chapter shall only be used for projects that will provide fisheries, wildlife or ecosystem benefits. 86121. The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the purpose of improving water supply and water quality conditions for fish and wildlife on private lands. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife may provide incentives to landowners for conservation actions on private lands or use of voluntary habitat credit exchange mechanisms. Such incentives shall be designed to be appropriately flexible and responsive to the highly variable amounts of water required by fish and wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall use a portion of the funds provided by this section to develop a programmatic authorization to expedite approval of habitat restoration and water quality improvement projects not covered under Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, and for the implementation of that Chapter. 86122. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board for coastal and Central Valley salmon and steelhead fisheries restoration projects. The Wildlife Conservation Board shall give priority to projects that contribute to the recovery of salmon and steelhead species listed pursuant to the state or federal endangered species acts, to enhance commercial and recreational salmon fisheries and to achieve the goals of Chapter 8 of Part 1 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 6900) of the Fish and Game Code. (a) Of the amount appropriated by this section, up to one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall be spent for matching grants to local agencies for capital outlay projects to implement programs to improve fish passage opportunities and to restore anadromous salmonid habitats, particularly juvenile rearing habitat for spring run salmon, on rivers in the Sacramento Valley that have dams blocking the main stem of the river. (b) Of the amount appropriated by this section, at least one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall be spent to install fish screens on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and in the Delta to screen anadromous fish from water intakes. High priority shall go to projects identified as high priority in the Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy (as published by the California Natural Resources Agency in June 2017, and as it may be amended). 86123. (a) The sum of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board for projects to protect migratory birds through habitat acquisition, easements, restoration, or other projects, and to provide water for wildlife refuges and wildlife habitat areas to fulfill the purposes identified in the Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan, as it may be amended, including: (1) Projects to implement this section which may include conservation actions on private lands. (2) Protection and restoration of riparian and wetland habitat in the Sacramento River Basin. (3) Protection and restoration of riparian and wetland habitat in the San Joaquin and Tulare Basins. (b) Of the amount appropriated by this section, forty million dollars ($40,000,000) shall be deposited in the California Waterfowl Habitat Preservation Account established pursuant to Section 3467 of the Fish May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 826 and Game Code, for the purposes of implementing the California Waterfowl Habitat Program pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 3460) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Landowner Incentive Program of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Permanent Wetland Easement Program of the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the establishment or enhancement of waterfowl nesting and other wildlife habitat cover on fallowed lands including projects authorized pursuant to Section 1018. (c) Of the amount appropriated by this section, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be deposited in the Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Account established pursuant to Section 1572 of the Fish and Game Code and administered by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for the purposes of providing hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to the public through voluntary agreements with private landowners. (d) Of the amount appropriated by this section, at least one hundred and ten million dollars ($110,000,000) shall be expended for acquisition and delivery of water to wildlife refuges, and associated infrastructure projects, to achieve full compliance with the terms of subsection (d) of Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of Public Law 102-575). CHAPTER 8.6. Sacramento Region Water Reliability and Habitat Protection. 86124. (a) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for grants to the Regional Water Authority and to the City of Sacramento on behalf of the Sacramento Area Water Forum for projects that are consistent with the coequal objectives of the Water Forum Agreement. Eligible projects include facilities, studies and other actions to improve flow and temperature conditions and habitat in the lower American River, increase water use efficiency and conservation, or improve the integration of surface water and groundwater supplies to provide for dry year water supply reliability. (b) The Regional Water Authority and the Water Forum shall jointly develop and approve studies, projects, or programs to be funded by the grants. Highest priority shall be given to improving water temperature conditions in the lower American River, and to projects or programs that contribute to both of the Water Forum’s coequal objectives of improving water supply and protecting the environment. The Regional Water Authority will be the grantee for water supply and water efficiency projects. The City of Sacramento, on behalf of the Water Forum, will be the grantee for environmental protection, water temperature studies, and habitat restoration projects. (c) The amount allocated in aggregate to the package of projects shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the projects’ total cost. (d) No funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be spent to build new surface storage or raise existing reservoirs. CHAPTER 9. Bay Area Regional Water Reliability. 86125. Two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for a grant to the group of eight water agencies collectively known as the Bay Area Regional Reliability Partnership (BARR) for new facilities that extend the benefits of surface water storage for region-wide benefits in any of the following areas: drought supply reliability, drinking water quality, and emergency storage, as generally described in the Final Mitigation Project List contained in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Reliability Drought Contingency Plan. The Contra Costa Water District may May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 827 receive the grant on behalf of the Partnership unless the BARR Partnership has a governance structure in place at the time of the grant award that makes its eligible to receive the funds directly. The participating water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Reliability Drought Contingency Plan will determine and designate funds to one or any of the listed projects, however in no case will the amount determined for any single project be more than 50% of the project’s total cost. No funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be spent to build new surface storage, or raise existing reservoirs. CHAPTER 10. Improved Water Conveyance and Water Conservation. 86126. Even though the drought has eased, the effects of the drought are still being felt in many areas throughout the state, including the San Joaquin Valley. Further exacerbating the impact of drought conditions on water users were legal requirements restricting pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. One of the consequences of both the drought and pumping restrictions was a significant increase in groundwater pumping as a means to replace reduced surface supplies. Such increase in groundwater pumping lowers groundwater tables, which in turn causes wells to go dry and land to subside, which has particularly been the case on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Friant-Kern Canal has lost 60% of its capacity to convey water for both consumptive uses and groundwater recharge. Unless conveyance capacity is restored and increased, the subsidence will continue to get worse and those local communities, including disadvantaged communities, who largely rely on groundwater to serve their citizens, will continue to suffer adverse effects. Significant public benefits will result from this state investment, including avoiding increased unemployment, stabilization of groundwater, and securing a more stable food supply for California. 86127. The sum of seven hundred fifty million dollars ($750,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for a grant to the Friant Water Authority for water conveyance capital improvements, including restored and increased conveyance capacity to and in the Madera and Friant-Kern canals, resulting in greater groundwater recharge, improved conveyance and utilization of floodwaters, and for water conservation. Improvements with funds provided by this paragraph shall be completed consistent with applicable state and federal laws and contracts. 86128. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Natural Resources Agency for actions that support projects defined in paragraph 11 in the settlement agreement to restore the San Joaquin River referenced in Section 2080.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Before expenditure may occur, formal concurrence on specific projects to be undertaken is required by the settling parties to the agreement. 86129. The diversion of water from Barker Slough to the North Bay Aqueduct adversely impacts listed fish species, and also adversely impacts water quality served to a large urban area. There would be multiple public benefits to relocating the diversion to the North Bay Aqueduct to the Sacramento River. 86130. The sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated from the fund to the department to plan for a diversion of water from the Sacramento River to the North Bay Aqueduct to reduce the adverse impact on listed fish species, and provide a higher quality of drinking water to those served by the Aqueduct. CHAPTER 11. Oroville Dam Flood Safety. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 828 86131. Oroville Dam provides flood control for the Sacramento Valley. The inclusion of flood control at Oroville Dam was not an obligation of the public water agencies that receive water from Oroville Dam. The flood control function of Oroville Dam was paid for by the federal government. 86132. The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for repair and reconstruction of the spillways at the Oroville Dam. 86133. The sum of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be spent for Feather River sediment management and removal between Live Oak and Verona in coordination with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency. Six million dollars ($6,000,000) of these funds shall be awarded as a grant to the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency for floodwater attenuation projects at the Oroville Wildlife Area that provide downstream flood control relief and ecosystem restoration. 86134. The sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for a grant to Butte County for capital outlay projects and equipment for emergency preparedness coordination and communications consistent with the California Office of Emergency Services Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). CHAPTER 12. General Provisions. 86151. (a) In projects involving voluntary habitat restoration, water quality improvement and multi- benefit floodplain restoration each agency administering provisions of this division shall encourage interagency coordination and develop and utilize efficient project approval and permitting mechanisms, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code (regardless of whether that chapter is still in effect) and programmatic permits for voluntary habitat restoration, so as to avoid project delays and maximize the amount of money spent on project implementation. (b) Projects designed to primarily protect migratory birds through acquisition, easements, restoration or other projects shall be consistent with the plans and recommendations established by the federal Migratory Bird Joint Venture partnerships that encompass parts of California. (c) Any agency providing funds pursuant to this division to disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas may provide funding to assist these communities in applying for that funding, including technical and grant writing assistance. These funds may be provided to nonprofit organizations and local public agencies assisting these communities. (d) Any agency receiving funds pursuant to this division may contract for the services of resource conservation districts pursuant to Section 9003 of the Public Resources Code. (e) Agencies may count in-kind contributions up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total project cost as part of cost sharing. Agencies may count the value of the donated land in a bargain sale as part of cost sharing. (f) Agencies considering proposals for acquisition of lands shall also consider the ability of the proposed final owner of the land to maintain it in a condition that will protect the values for which it is to be acquired, and to prevent any problems that might occur on neighboring lands if the land is not properly managed. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 829 (g) Trust funds established pursuant to this act shall be managed pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, Part 7 (commencing with Section 18501) of Division 9 of the Probate Code. (h) Projects designed to primarily protect riparian habitat through acquisition, easements, restoration or other projects shall consider the plans and recommendations established by the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program pursuant to Chapter 4.1 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code (commencing with Section 1385). (i) The administering agency shall provide advance payment of 50% of grant awards for those projects that satisfy both of the following criteria: (1) The project proponent is a disadvantaged community or eligible entity as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166, or the project benefits a disadvantaged community. (2) The grant award for the project is less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). (j) Eligible grant costs shall include indirect costs as defined in federal Office of Management and Budget guidelines, as well as reasonable overhead costs. (k) Agencies receiving funds designated for specific programs or grantees shall expedite the expenditure or transfer of those funds with the least amount of process necessary to comply with existing state laws and regulations, and the requirements of this division. It is the intent of this division that the expenditure or transfer of funds shall be efficient, cost-effective, and expeditious, and generally should occur no later than 90 days from demonstrated eligibility by the recipient for the funds requested. 86152. Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, quantify the amount of water generated for human and environmental use resulting from proposed expenditures they make pursuant to this division. Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, quantify the improvement in the quality of water generated for human and environmental use resulting from proposed expenditures they make pursuant to this division. 86153. To the extent consistent with the other provisions of this division, statewide agencies making grants pursuant to this division shall seek to allocate funds equitably to eligible projects throughout the state, including northern and southern California, coastal and inland regions, and Sierra and Cascade foothill and mountain regions. 86154. Applicants for grants pursuant to this division shall indicate whether the grant proposal is consistent with the local Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, if one exists. However, consistency with the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan shall not be required as a condition of any grant, and grant proposals shall not be given lower priority if they are not consistent with Integrated Regional Water Management Plans. 86155. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, a local public agency with a population of less than 100,000 and a median household income of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the state average household income shall be required to provide matching funds of no more than thirty-five percent (35%) for a grant for a project entirely within their jurisdiction. State agencies making grants to these local public agencies may provide funding in advance of construction of portions of the project, if the state agency determines that requiring the local public agency to wait for payment until the project is completed would make the project infeasible. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 830 (b) Nothing in this section prohibits a state agency from making a grant to a disadvantaged community or economically distressed area that does not require cost sharing. 86156. Any repayment of loans made pursuant to this division, including interest payments, and interest earnings shall be deposited in the Fund and shall be available solely for the purposes of the chapter or section that authorized the loan. 86157. (a) Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division shall be responsible for establishing metrics of success and reporting the status of projects and all uses of the funding on the state’s bond accountability Internet Web site. (b) Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division shall do the following: (1) Evaluate the outcomes of projects funded by this division. (2) Include in the agency’s reporting pursuant to Section 86003 the evaluation described in subdivision (a) of this section. (3) Hold a grantee of funds accountable for completing projects funded by this division on time and within scope. 86158. (a) For projects carried out by state agencies pursuant to this division, up to ten percent (10%) of funds allocated for each program funded by this division may be expended for planning, monitoring and reporting necessary for the successful design, selection, and implementation of the projects and verification of benefits. An eligible entity receiving a grant for a project pursuant to this division may also receive sufficient funds for planning, monitoring and reporting necessary for the successful design, selection, and implementation of the projects. This section shall not otherwise restrict funds ordinarily used by an agency for “preliminary plans,” “working drawings,” and “construction” for a capital outlay project or grant project. (b) Permit and plan check fees and reasonable administrative and indirect project fees and costs related to managing construction shall be deemed part of construction costs. Project costs allocated for project planning and design, and direct and indirect administrative costs shall be identified as separate line items in the project budget. 86159. Notwithstanding Section 16727 of the Government Code, funding provided pursuant to Chapters 6 and 8 may be used for grants and loans to nonprofit organizations to repay financing described in Section 22064 of the Financial Code related to projects that are consistent with the purposes of those chapters. 86160. Not more than a total of five percent (5%) of the funds allocated to any state agency under this division may be used to pay for its costs of administering programs and projects specified in this division. 86161. (a) Water quality monitoring data shall be collected and reported to the State board in a manner that is compatible and consistent with surface water monitoring data systems or groundwater monitoring data systems administered by the State board, consistent with Part 4.9 of Division 6. Watershed monitoring data shall be collected and reported to the Department of Conservation in a manner that is compatible and consistent with the statewide watershed program administered by the Department of Conservation. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 831 (b) State agencies making grants or loans pursuant to this division may include specific expenditures for compliance with local, state and federal permitting and other requirements. (c) Up to one percent (1%) of funds allocated for each program funded by this division may be expended for research into methods to improve water supply, water related habitat, and water quality relevant to that program, in addition to any other amounts provided for in this division. 86162. (a) Prior to disbursing grants or loans pursuant to this division, each state agency that receives an appropriation from the funding made available by this division to administer a grant or loan program under this division shall develop and adopt project solicitation and evaluation guidelines. The guidelines shall include monitoring and reporting requirements and may include a limitation on the dollar amount of each grantor loan to be awarded. The guidelines shall not include a prohibition on the recovery of reasonable overhead or indirect costs by local public agencies, Indian tribes or nonprofit organizations. If the state agency has previously developed and adopted project solicitation and evaluation guidelines that comply with the requirements of this division, it may use those guidelines. Overhead or indirect costs incurred by a local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization are eligible for reimbursement and shall not weigh negatively in the evaluation of funding proposals pursuant to this division. (b) Prior to disbursing grants or loans, the state agency shall conduct three regional public meetings to consider public comments prior to finalizing the guidelines. The state agency shall publish the draft solicitation and evaluation guidelines on its website at least 30 days before the public meetings. One meeting shall be conducted at a location in northern California, one meeting shall be conducted at a location in the Central Valley of California, and one meeting shall be conducted at a location in southern California. Agencies without jurisdiction in one or more of these three regions may omit the meetings in the region or regions within which they do not have jurisdiction. Upon adoption, the state agency shall transmit copies of the guidelines to the fiscal committees and the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. (c) At least 45 days prior to soliciting projects pursuant to this division, a state agency administering funds pursuant to this division shall post an electronic form of the guidelines for grant applicants on its website. Project solicitation and evaluation guidelines shall only include criteria based on the applicable requirements of this division. (d) Nothing in this division restricts agencies from enforcing and complying with existing laws. 86163. Each project funded from this division shall comply with the following requirements: (a) The investment of public funds pursuant to this division will result in public benefits that address the most critical statewide needs and priorities for public funding, as determined by the agency distributing the funds. (b) In the appropriation and expenditure of funding authorized by this division, priority will be given to projects that leverage private, federal, or local funding or produce the greatest public benefit. All state agencies receiving funds pursuant to this division shall seek to leverage the funds to the greatest extent possible, but agencies shall take into account the limited ability to cost share by small public agencies, and by agencies seeking to benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas. (c) A funded project shall advance the purposes of the chapter from which the project received funding. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 832 (d) In making decisions regarding water resources pursuant to this division, state and local agencies will use the best available science to inform those decisions. (e) To the extent practicable, a project supported by funds made available by this division will include signage informing the public that the project received funds from the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018. (f) To the extent feasible, projects funded with proceeds from this division shall promote state planning priorities consistent with the provisions of Section 65041.1 of the Government Code and sustainable communities strategies consistent with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code. (g) To the extent feasible, watershed objectives for private lands included in this division should be achieved through use of conservation easements and voluntary landowner participation, including, but not limited to, the use of perpetual conservation easements pursuant to Division 10.2 (commencing with Section 10200) and Division 10.4 (commencing with Section 10330) of the Public Resources Code, voluntary habitat credit exchange mechanisms, and conservation actions on private lands. 86164. Funds provided by this division shall not be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta water conveyance facilities. Those costs shall be the responsibility of the water agencies that benefit from the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of those facilities. 86165. (a) This division does not diminish, impair, or otherwise affect in any manner whatsoever any area of origin, watershed of origin, county of origin, or any other water rights protections, including, but not limited to, rights to water appropriated prior to December 19, 1914, provided under the law. This division does not limit or affect the application of Article 1.7 (commencing with Section 1215) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 2, Sections 10505, 10505.5, 11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and Sections 12200 to 12220, inclusive. (b) For the purposes of this division, an area that utilizes water that has been diverted and conveyed from the Sacramento River hydrologic region, for use outside the Sacramento River hydrologic region or the Delta, shall not be deemed to be immediately adjacent thereto or capable of being conveniently supplied with water therefrom by virtue or on account of the diversion and conveyance of that water through facilities that may be constructed for that purpose after January 1, 2018. (c) Nothing in this division supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the applicability of Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1700) of Part 2 of Division 2, including petitions related to any new conveyance constructed or operated in accordance with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 85320) of Part 4 of Division 35. (d) Unless otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this division supersedes, reduces, or otherwise affects existing legal protections, both procedural and substantive, relating to the State board’s regulation of diversion and use of water, including, but not limited to, water right priorities, the protection provided to municipal interests by Sections 106 and 106.5, and changes in water rights. Nothing in this division expands or otherwise alters the State board’s existing authority to regulate the diversion and use of water or the courts’ existing concurrent jurisdiction over California water rights. (e) Nothing in this division shall be construed to affect the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Chapter May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 833 1.4 (commencing with Section 5093.50) of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code) or the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1271 et seq.) and funds authorized pursuant to this division shall not be available for any project that could have an adverse effect on the values upon which a wild and scenic river or any other river is afforded protections pursuant to the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. (f) Nothing in this division supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Division 35 (commencing with Section 85000)) or any other applicable law, including, but not limited to, Division 22.3 (commencing with Section 32300) of the Public Resources Code. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any agency or nonprofit organization acquiring land pursuant to this division may make use of the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000 (Division 28 (commencing with Section 37000) of the Public Resources Code). Funds appropriate pursuant to this division that are not designated for competitive grant programs may also be used for the purposes of reimbursing the General Fund pursuant to the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000. (h) Funds provided pursuant to this division, and any appropriation or transfer of those funds, shall not be deemed to be a transfer of funds for the purposes of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2780) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. 86166. (a) Applicants eligible to receive grants, loans and contracts pursuant to this division are public agencies, state universities (including university-managed national laboratories), resource conservation districts, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, mutual water companies, public water systems as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, urban water suppliers as defined in Section 10617 of the Water Code, federally recognized Indian tribes, federal agencies owning or managing land in California, and state Indian tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s California Tribal Consultation List. State agencies granting funds pursuant to this division shall give priority to eligible applicants with experience in planning, designing, and developing the types of projects receiving funding from the agencies, or which have access to consulting help in these areas. (b)(1) To be eligible for funding under this division, a project proposed by a public utility that is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, or a mutual water company, shall have a clear and definite public purpose and the project shall benefit the customers of the water system and not the investors. (2) To be eligible for funding under this division, an urban water supplier shall have adopted and submitted an urban water management plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) of Division 6. (3) To be eligible for funding under this division, an agricultural water supplier shall have adopted and submitted an agricultural water management plan in accordance with the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act, Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800) of Division 6. (4) In accordance with Section 10608.56, an agricultural water supplier or an urban water supplier is ineligible for grant funding under this division unless it complies with the requirements of Part 2.55 (commencing with Section 10608) of Division 6. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, agencies receiving funds pursuant to this division may reduce or eliminate cost sharing requirements when making grants of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or less to nonprofit organizations with budgets less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) if May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 834 the agency determines that such grants would be the most effective way to achieve the purposes of this division. 86167. Where feasible, projects funded pursuant to this division may use the services of the California Conservation Corps or certified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code. Public agencies receiving funding under this division shall give additional priority to projects that involve the services of the California Conservation Corps or a certified community conservation corps, or other nonprofit entities that provide job training and education opportunities for veterans, foster care recipients, farmworkers or local youth in conservation or restoration projects. 86168. Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division shall be responsible for establishing and reporting on the state’s bond accountability website each of the following: metrics of success, metrics for benefitting disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas, progress in meeting those metrics, status of projects funded under this division, and all uses of the funding the state agency receives under this division. The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall annually report to the Legislature expenditures made pursuant to this division, and the benefits derived from those expenditures. 86169. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this division (excluding the proceeds of any refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 86192) shall be deposited in the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Fund of 2018, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. 86169.1 Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, moneys in the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Fund of 2018 are continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal year for the purposes of this division in the manner set forth in this division. Funds authorized by, and made available pursuant to this division shall be available and expended only as provided in this division, and shall not be subject to appropriation or transfer by the Legislature or the Governor for any other purpose. 86170. Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the development or implementation of programs or projects authorized or funded under this division. 86171. (a) Funds provided by this division shall not be used to support or pay for the costs of environmental mitigation, except for the costs of environmental mitigation for projects funded pursuant to this division. (b) Funds provided by this division shall be used for environmental enhancements or other public benefits. (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the costs of mitigation of the environmental impacts directly related and limited to expenditures under this division may be paid for by funds provided by this division. (d) Funds available pursuant to this division shall not be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities. 86172. Every entity implementing this division shall give highest priority to funding projects that combine relatively high cost-effectiveness, durability, and enhanced environmental quality. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 835 86174. Acquisitions pursuant to Chapter 6 of this division shall be from willing sellers only. 86177. The requirement that a project be cost-effective does not require a full benefit/cost analysis. 86178. Agencies implementing this division shall give special consideration to projects that employ new or innovative technology or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of multiple strategies and jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water supply, wildfire reduction, habitat improvement, invasive weed control, flood control, land use, and sanitation. 86179. Any contract (including a contract to provide a grant) between a public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization and the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Wildlife Conservation Board for work funded pursuant to this division, or pursuant to Division 26.7 shall be considered a contract subject to the requirements of Section 1501.5 of the Fish and Game Code, and therefor shall not be considered a public work or a public improvement, and is not subject to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code. 86179.1. Priority shall be given to the expenditure of funds on activities that affect the Delta and the species that rely on it that are generally consistent with the report “A Delta Renewed: A Guide to Science- Based Ecological Restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” prepared in 2016 by the San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center. 86179.2. In the awarding of grants to be made by any agency pursuant to this act or Division 26.7 after the effective date of this act, overhead or indirect costs incurred by a local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization are eligible for reimbursement and shall not weigh negatively in the evaluation of funding proposals. Eligible grant costs shall include indirect costs as defined in federal Office of Management and Budget guidelines, as well as reasonable overhead costs. For nonprofit organizations, grants shall provide for reimbursement of indirect costs by applying the organization’s federally negotiated indirect cost rate, if one exists. If a negotiated rate does not exist, the organization may elect to use the default indirect cost rate of 10 percent (10%) of its modified total direct costs as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. 86179.3. No grants made pursuant to this division shall result in an unmitigated increase in a community’s exposure to flood hazards or in a net reduction in flood conveyance capacity of any publicly owned flood protection facility. 86179.4. In awarding grants for land acquisition, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall give preference to organizations that voluntarily pay property taxes. CHAPTER 13. Fiscal Provisions. 86180. (a) Bonds in the total amount of eight billion eight hundred seventy-seven million dollars ($8,877,000,000), or so much thereof as is necessary, not including the amount of any refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 86192 may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carrying out the purposes expressed in this division and to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold, shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the State of California, and the full faith and credit of the State of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on, the bonds as the principal and interest become due and payable. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 836 (b) The Treasurer shall from time to time sell the bonds authorized by the committee pursuant to Section 86182. Bonds shall be sold upon the terms and conditions specified in one or more resolutions to be adopted by the committee pursuant to Section 16731 of the Government Code. 86181. The bonds authorized by this division shall be prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation Bond Law, and all of the provisions of that law, as that law may be amended, apply to the bonds and to this division and are hereby incorporated in this division as though set forth in full in this division, except subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 16727 of the Government Code. 86182. (a) Solely for the purpose of authorizing the issuance and sale pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law of the bonds authorized by this division, the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Finance Committee is hereby created. For purposes of this division, the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Finance Committee is the “committee” as that term is used in the State General Obligation Bond Law. (b) The finance committee consists of the Director of Finance, the Treasurer, and the Controller. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any member may designate a representative to act as that member in his or her place for all purposes, as though the member were personally present. (c) The Treasurer shall serve as chairperson of the finance committee. (d) A majority of the finance committee may act for the finance committee. 86183. The finance committee shall determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized by this division in order to carry out the actions specified in this division and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold. Successive issues of bonds may be authorized and sold to carry out those actions progressively, and it is not necessary that all of the bonds authorized to be issued be sold at any one time. 86184. For purposes of the State General Obligation Bond Law, “board,” as defined in Section 16722 of the Government Code, means the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency. 86185. There shall be collected each year and in the same manner and at the same time as other state revenue is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and every act that is necessary to collect that additional sum. 86186. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, there is hereby appropriated from the General Fund in the State Treasury, for the purposes of this division, an amount that will equal the total of the following: (a) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal of, and interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to this division, as the principal and interest become due and payable. (b) The sum that is necessary to carry out the provisions of Section 86189, appropriated without regard to fiscal years. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 837 86187. The board may request the Pooled Money Investment Board to make a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Account in accordance with Section 16312 of the Government Code for the purpose of carrying out this division less any amount withdrawn pursuant to Section 86189. The amount of the request shall not exceed the amount of the unsold bonds that the committee has, by resolution, authorized to be sold (excluding any refunding bond authorized pursuant to Section 86192) for the purpose of carrying out this division. The board shall execute those documents required by the Pooled Money Investment Board to obtain and repay the loan. Any amounts loaned shall be deposited in the Fund to be allocated in accordance with this division. 86188. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, or of the State General Obligation Bond Law, if the Treasurer sells bonds that include a bond counsel opinion to the effect that the interest on the bonds is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes under designated conditions or is otherwise entitled to any federal tax advantage, the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the bond proceeds invested and for the investment earnings on those proceeds, and may use or direct the use of those proceeds or earnings to pay any rebate, penalty, or other payment required under federal law or take any other action with respect to the investment and use of those bond proceeds, as may be required or desirable under federal law in order to maintain the tax-exempt status of those bonds and to obtain any other advantage under federal law on behalf of the funds of this state. 86189. For the purposes of carrying out this division, the Director of Finance may authorize the withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or amounts not to exceed the amount of the unsold bonds that have been authorized by the committee to be sold (excluding any refunding bond authorized pursuant to Section 86192) for the purpose of carrying out this division less any amount borrowed pursuant to Section 86187. Any amounts withdrawn shall be deposited in the Fund. Any moneys made available under this section shall be returned to the General Fund, with interest at the rate earned by the moneys in the Pooled Money Investment Account, from proceeds received from the sale of bonds for the purpose of carrying out this division. 86190. All moneys deposited in the Fund that are derived from premium and accrued interest on bonds sold pursuant to this division shall be reserved in the Fund and shall be available for transfer to the General Fund as a credit to expenditures for bond interest, except that amounts derived from premium may be reserved and used to pay the cost of bond issuance prior to any transfer to the General Fund. 86191. Pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, the cost of bond issuance shall be paid out of the bond proceeds, including premiums, if any. To the extent the cost of bond issuance is not paid from premiums received from the sale of bonds, these costs shall be shared proportionately by each program funded through this division by the applicable bond sale. 86192. The bonds issued and sold pursuant to this division may be refunded in accordance with Article 6 (commencing with Section 16780) of Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, which is a part of the State General Obligation Bond Law. Approval by the voters of the state for the issuance of the bonds under this division shall include approval of the issuance of any bonds issued to refund any bonds originally issued under this division or any previously issued refunding bonds. Any bond refunded with the proceeds of refunding bonds as authorized by this section may be legally defeased to the extent permitted by law in the manner and to the extent set forth in the resolution, as amended from time to time, authorizing such refunded bonds. 86193. The proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this division are not “proceeds of taxes” as that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and the disbursement of these proceeds is May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 838 not subject to the limitations imposed by that article. SECTION 2. Section 1 of this act shall take effect immediately upon approval by the voters of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018, as set forth in that section at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election. In order to fund a water supply reliability and drought protection program at the earliest possible date, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. SECTION 3. Conflicting Provisions. (a) The provisions and intent of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 shall be given precedence over any state law, statute, regulation or policy that conflicts with this section, and the policy and intent of this act shall prevail over any such contrary law, statute, regulation or policy. (b) If this division is approved by the voters, but superseded by any other conflicting ballot division approved by more voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot division is later held invalid, it is the intent of the voters that this act shall be given the full force of law. (c) If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts of this act shall become operative. SECTION 4. If any provision of this act or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. SECTION 5. Section 2799.7 is added to the Fish and Game Code to read: 2799.7. Subdivision (f) of Section 2787 does not apply to Section 2795. Notwithstanding other provisions of this article and Section 13340 of the Government Code, as of July 2, 2020 funds transferred pursuant to Section 2795 shall be continuously appropriated to the Wildlife Conservation Board for purposes of Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 86120) of Division 38 of the Water Code. SECTION 6. Part 12 is added to Division 6 of the Water Code to read: Section 11860. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including Section 13340 of the Government Code and Sections 39710 through 39723 of the Health and Safety Code), the fees paid, the cost of compliance instruments acquired, and the increased cost of power purchased by the Department of Water Resources, hereafter “Department,” as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the Department from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, and the fees paid, the cost of compliance instruments acquired and the increased cost of power purchased by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Statutes 1969, chapter 209, as amended), hereafter “District,” as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the District from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 839 (b) The funds appropriated to the Department pursuant to this section shall be expended within the State Water Resources Development System, and on consumer water conservation programs within the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Development System. (c) The funds appropriated to the District pursuant to this section shall be expended within the water storage, treatment, conveyance, and distribution system of the District and on consumer water conservation programs within the jurisdiction of the District. (d) Of the consumer water conservation programs authorized by subdivisions (b) and (c), highest priority shall be given to those benefitting disadvantaged communities (as defined subdivision (a) of Section 79505.5, as it may be amended) and economically distressed areas (as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 79702, as it may be amended). (e) All expenditures pursuant to this section shall meet the requirements of Chapter 4.1 of Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. The Department and District will provide an annual report to the Air Resources Board on the prior-year’s project implementation along with a plan for current year implementation. (f) No funds provided by this part shall be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of new Delta water conveyance facilities. No funds provided by this section shall be expended to pay the costs of construction of new surface water storage facilities or to expand the capacity of the California Aqueduct or the Colorado River Aqueduct. Those costs shall be the responsibility of the water agencies that benefit from the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of those facilities. (g) All reasonable and feasible measures shall be taken to reduce, avoid, or mitigate significant negative environmental impacts from projects undertaken pursuant to this section. Section 11861. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including Section 13340 of the Government Code and Sections 39710 through 39723 of the Health and Safety Code), the fees paid, the cost of compliance instruments acquired, and the increased cost of power purchased by the Contra Costa Water District, hereafter “District,” as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the District from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, and the fees paid, the cost of compliance instruments acquired and the increased cost of power purchased by the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority hereafter “San Luis Authority,” as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the San Luis Authority from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code. (b) (1) The funds appropriated to the Contra Costa Water District pursuant to this section shall be expended within the boundaries of the District, and on consumer water conservation programs within the District. (2) The funds appropriated to the San Luis Authority pursuant to this section shall be expended within the water storage, treatment, conveyance, and distribution system of the San Luis Authority and on water conservation, water quality improvement, water treatment, water supply and similar water programs within the jurisdiction of the Authority. (c) Of the funds appropriated pursuant to subdivision (b), highest priority shall be given to those projects May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 840 benefitting disadvantaged communities (as defined subdivision (a) of Section 79505.5, as it may be amended) and economically distressed areas (as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 79702, as it may be amended). (d) All expenditures pursuant to this section shall meet the requirements of Chapter 4.1 of Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. The District and San Luis Authority will provide an annual report to the Air Resources Board on the prior-year’s project implementation along with a plan for current year implementation. (e) All reasonable and feasible measures shall be taken to reduce, avoid, or mitigate significant negative environmental impacts from projects undertaken pursuant to this section. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 841 Comparing the Fall Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act Being Planned for Fall 2018 Ballot With the Park and Water Bond ( SB5) on the June 2018 Ballot- Proposition 68 The California Urban Streams Partnership supports the upcoming proposition 68 which will appear on this June’s ballot. But we are asking you to also endorse the water bond which will likely appear on the Fall 2018 ballot. The June bond act was prepared by the state legislature and while it keeps the grant programs the watershed and streams community uses the most barely alive, it contains a disappointing level of funding for watersheds and streams and won’t come close to sustaining our Bay Area watershed community’s needs. The proposition 68 contains over a $ 130 million dollars for the Los Angeles River watershed alone . While we support our counterparts who are restoring the LA River the bond act is grossly out of geographic balance in allocating funds. In contrast, the citizen written Water Bond which many of us are working on actually serves our Bay Area watershed communities well .The Natural Heritage Institute has submitted over 600,000 signatures to the Secretary of State to qualify for the Fall ballot . For adequate state grants for the Bay Area we seek your endorsement of the Fall 2018 Water Bond : The State Water Supply Infrastructure, Water Conveyance, Ecosystem and Watershed Protection and Restoration, and Drinking Water Protection act of 2018. Comparing the two bond acts Spring Water, Parks Bond Act: Proposition 68. Fall Water Supply and Quality Bond Act Funds available to anyone statewide or SF Bay Area: California Natural Resources Agency River Parkway Program $20 million vs $70 million Ca Dept. of Water Resources Urban streams Restoration Program $10 million vs. $50 million Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Bay Program $60 million vs. $100 million San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority $20 million vs. $200 million May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 842 Department of Conservation Watershed Coordinator Program $00 .00 vs. $10 million State Water Resource Control Board for statewide stormwater management $00.00 vs. $400 million Urban Forestry $15 million vs. $20 million May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 843 Short Summary of major programs in Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018 Safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged communities. $750 million. Provides safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged communities, especially in the Central Valley. Wastewater recycling. $400 million. Recycles wastewater mainly for landscaping and industrial uses Groundwater desalination. $400 million. Converts salty groundwater to usable water supply. Urban water conservation. $300 million. Leak detection, toilet replacement, landscape conversion. Agricultural water conservation. $50 million. Improves inefficient irrigation systems, increasing river flows Central valley flood management, including flood plain restoration. $100 million. Makes farms and communities more flood safe, and makes flood plains for habitat friendly. Additional $50 million for retrofit of a reservoir (probably Bullard’s Bar) for better flood management. San Francisco Bay Wetlands and flood improvements. $200 million. Improves wetlands in San Francisco Bay to provide flood protection and mitigate sea level rise. Data management. $60 million. Better data collection and management: streamflow, etc. Stormwater management $600 million for a variety of state agencies. Capture and treatment of stormwater flows improved river and ocean water quality and increasing water supplies Watershed Improvement $2355 million to a wide variety of state agencies. Pays for better management of watersheds throughout the state to improve water quality and water supply. Includes $150 million for the Los Angeles River, as well as $100 million for the Delta Conservancy, which helps fund the governor’s Eco-Restore program. Includes $80 million for the removal of Matilija Dam, a silted- in dam in Ventura County. $200 million for ecological restoration and dust control at the Salton Sea. Watershed restoration after fires in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere receives $100 million. Funds state conservancies and state parks to better manage watersheds. Land Management for Water Yield. $100 million. Removal of invasive weeds which use excessive amounts of surface and groundwater such as tamarisk, yellow starthistle, and Arundo. Estimates of water savings are in excess of one million acre feet per year. Fisheries restoration. $400 million. Restoring fish habitat. Supplements necessary streamflows. Groundwater. $675 million. Implements the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act., stabilizing groundwater levels in overdraft groundwater basins. Water and specific habitat improvements for fisheries. $500 million. Purchase of water for fish and waterfowl. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 844 Completion of fish screens in Central Valley. $100 million. Will prevent baby fish from being diverted into irrigation systems. San Joaquin River fisheries Restoration. $100 million. Restoration of Spring Run Chinook Salmon downstream of Friant dam. Waterfowl habitat. $280 million. Helps meet waterfowl obligations under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and other waterfowl habitat improvement programs. Bay Area Regional Reliability. $250 million. Improves interconnections between Bay Area water agencies, making it easier to survive droughts. Improvement to Friant Kern Canal and other Friant water interconnections. $750 million. Restores lost capacity to Friant Kern Canal, pays for groundwater recharge programs, water conservation and possibly new water conveyance in the Friant area. Oroville Dam Spillway Repair. $200 million. Makes Oroville Dam more flood safe. The initiative also allows state and federal water contractors to recover the funds they pay in climate change charges due to implementation of AB 32, and use those funds in their own systems for water and energy conservation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 845 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22265 to abolish the Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt (BJD1) (unrepresented) classification and cancel one vacant position No. 5905 in the Animal Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Animal Services Department has been working toward a new organizational structure over the past two years, which has included the establishment of an executive team that supports the Director of Animal Services-Exempt in the overall administration of the Animal Services Department. In the past, this function was carried out solely by the Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt; however, due to increased needs for services in the community, there has been growth in both the workforce of the department and the volume/types of work being performed. The management responsibilities previously performed by the Deputy Director have become too great for one position to perform, so the department has moved to establish new classes to provide operational management over each division (field operations, community APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Ward, (925) 608-8400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Arturo Castillo C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Abolish the Classification of Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 846 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) outreach, medical programs, and administration) in order to keep the department functioning properly. The Board of Supervisors approved the new classification of Animal Services Captain-Exempt on November 14, 2017 and one position was added in the Animal Services Department. The incumbent that previously held the position of Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt was appointed to the new Captain position on January 5, 2018, eliminating the need for the classification of Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The planned transition of an incumbent from the current classification of Deputy Director of Animal Service-Exempt to the Animal Services Captain - Exempt has been completed. If this order is not approved, the department will be required to allocate $189,140 for 2018/19 FY for the vacant Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt position. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22265 ASD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22265 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 847 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22265 DATE 3/22/2018 Department No./ Department Animal Services Budget Unit No. 0366 Org No. 3333 Agency No. 36 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22265 to abolish the Deputy Director of Animal Services- Exempt (BJD1) (unrepresented) classification and cancel one vacant position (#5905) in the Animal Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2018 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT No fiscal impact Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arturo Castillo ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Susan Smith 4/25/2018 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/3/2018 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22265 to abolish the Deputy Director of Animal Services-Exempt (BJD1) (unrepresented) classification and cancel one vacant position No. 5905 in the Animal Services Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Lauren Ludwig 4/3/18 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 848 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/25/2018 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 849 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 850 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22275 to add one (1) Senior Health Education Specialist (VMWE) position at salary plan and grade level TC5-1543 ($5,494 - $6,678) and cancel one (1) vacant Health Education Specialist position #16084 (VMWD) at salary plan and grade level TC5-1207 ($3,939 - $4,788) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this request has an annual cost of approximately $33,339 with pension costs of $8,051 already included. This cost is funded with 50% Family Maternal and Child Health Program funds and 50% Proposition 56 funds supporting the Children's Oral Health Program. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add the Senior Health Education Specialist position and cancel the vacant Health Education Specialist position (#16084) as part of the restructuring to better serve the current needs of the Public Health Division. The new position is allocated to the Children's Oral Health Program within the Family, Maternal and Child APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jo-Anne Linares (925) 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Senior Health Education Specialist position and cancel one Health Education Specialist position in the Health Services Department May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 851 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Health Program. The program provides preventive dental services to children in low-income areas of the County working with schools, preschools, and community partners to increase access to oral health services. The primary duties of the new position includes planning, conducting and evaluating the health education and health prevention aspects with a great degree of independence, in addition to lead responsibilities to direct and coordinate children oral health training activities. The Health Education Specialist position will be cancelled as it no longer meets the operational needs of the division and to partially offset the cost of the new position. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Children's Oral Health Program within Family Maternal and Child Health Program will not have the appropriate level of staffing with lead responsibilities and independence to implement educational and health promotional activities. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22275 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22275 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 852 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22275 DATE 4/17/2018 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 5826 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one Senior Health Education Specialist (VMWE) position at salary plan and grade level TC5-1543 ($5,494 - $6,678) and cancel one Health Education Specialist (V MWD) position #16084 at salary plan and grade level TC5- 1207 ($3,939 - $4,788) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $33,339.00 Net County Cost Total this FY $5,556.00 N.C.C. this FY SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 50% Family Maternal & Child Health fund, 50% Prop 56 funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jo-Anne Linares ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Susan Smith 4/23/2018 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: Approve as recommended by the Departmen t. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 853 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/23/2018 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current j ob 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 854 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 855 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22276 to add one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel-Advanced- Exempt (2ET3) (unrepresented) position at salary level B8B 2297 ($12,354 - $14,685) and cancel one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel-Advanced (2ETK) (unrepresented) vacant position No 14021 at salary level B8B 2297 ($12, 354 - $13,977; $14,685 maximum with performance pay) in the Office of the County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The County Counsel's office no longer hires into the Deputy County Counsel classification, which has been replaced by the Deputy County Counsel-Exempt classification. The purpose of this action is to enable the Office of the County Counsel to hire an attorney who has the specialized training and/or expertise in specified areas of civil law, so that the Office can efficiently and effectively satisfy the County's legal needs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County Counsel will be unable to hire a new attorney into the appropriate classification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Wanda McAdoo, (925) 335-1811 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Wanda McAdoo, Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Deputy County Counsel Advanced - Exempt and Cancel one Deputy County Counsel Advanced May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 856 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 33401 P300 22276 Add and Cancel MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22276 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 857 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22276 DATE 5/1/2018 Department No./ Department Office of the County Counsel Budget Unit No. 0030 Org No. 1735 Agency No. 17 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22276 to ADD one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel - Advanced Exempt (2ET3) (unrepresented) position at salary level B8B 2297 ($12,354.27-$14,685.34) and CANCEL one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel Advanced (2ETK) (unrepresented) vacant position No. 14021 at salary level B8B 2297 ($12, 354-$13,977; $14,685 max with performance pay) in the Office of the County Counsel. Proposed Effective Date: 5/2/2018 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT No fiscal impact - cost neutral Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Sharon L. Anderson ______________________________________ (for) Department Head RE VIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 4/23/2018 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/14/2018 Add one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel-Advanced- Exempt (2ET3) (unrepresented) position at salary level B8B 2297 ($12,354 - $14,685) and cancel one (1) full-time Deputy County Counsel-Advanced (2ETK) (unrepresented) vacant position No 14021 at salary level B8B 2297 ($12, 354 - $13,977; $14,685 max with performance pay) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Lauren Ludwig 4/24/2018 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 858 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/25/2018 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 859 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 860 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease with Cove Investments, LLC, for a term of five years for approximately 1,340 square feet of office space for the Health Services Department - Mental Health CORE Program located at 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 111, Richmond, at an initial annual rent of $37,788 for the first year with annual increases thereafter, with two two-year renewal terms, under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the lease on behalf of Contra Costa County, and any renewal options under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease beyond its initial five-year term. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stacey Sinclair, (925) 313-2130 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:AUTHORIZE a lease with Cove Investments, LLC for office space at 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 111, Richmond for the Health Services CORE Program. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 861 FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Mental Health Services Act funds. The lease will obligate the County to pay rent of approximately $196,000 over the five year term of the lease. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Mental Health, West County Child and Adolescent Services developed a new intensive outpatient program (CORE Program) designed specifically for teens ages 13-18 that have substance abuse and related psychological and behavioral problems. Services will be provided by a multi-disciplinary team, and will include individual, group, and family therapy, and linkage to community services. This space will house 8 staff members (not all full-time) and serve 80 unduplicated clients per year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the lease will result in potential loss of funding for the CORE program if they cannot secure suitable space. ATTACHMENTS Draft Lease Agreement May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 862 WLP191 1 LEASE CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES 1160 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 111 Richmond, California This lease is dated __________2018, and is between Cove Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Lessor”) and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”). Recitals A. Lessor is the owner of that certain premises located at 1160 Brickyard Cove Road (the “Building”). B. Lessor desires to lease to County and County desires to lease from Lessor a portion of the Building consisting of approximately 1,340 square feet of floor space known as Suite 111, as more particularly described in Exhibit A – Floor Plan (the “Premises”) and five non-exclusive parking spaces. The parties therefore agree as follows: Agreement 1. Lease of Premises. In consideration of the rents and subject to the terms herein set forth, Lessor hereby leases to County and County hereby leases from Lessor, the Premises. 2. Term. The “Term” of this lease is comprised of an Initial Term and, at County’s election, Renewal Terms, each as defined below. a. Initial Term. The “Initial Term” is five years, commencing on May 1, 2018 (the “Commencement Date”) and ending April 30, 2023. b. Renewal Terms. County has two options to renew this lease for a term of two years for each option (each, a “Renewal Term”) upon all the terms and conditions set forth herein. i. County will provide Lessor with written notice of its election to renew the Lease thirty days prior to the end of the Term. However, if County fails to provide such notice, its right to renew the Lease will not expire until fifteen working days after County’s receipt of Lessor’s written demand that County exercise or forfeit the option to renew. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 863 2 ii. Upon the commencement of a Renewal Term, all references to the Term of this lease will be deemed to mean the Term as extended pursuant to this Section. 3. Rent. County shall pay rent (“Rent”) to Lessor monthly in advance beginning on the Commencement Date. Rent is payable on the tenth day of each month during the Initial Term and, if applicable, the Renewal Terms, in the amounts set forth below: a. Initial Term Months Monthly Rent 1-12 $3,149 13-24 $3,216 25-36 $3,283 37-48 $3,350 49-60 $3,417 b. First Renewal Term Months Monthly Rent 61-72 $3,484 73-84 $3,551 c. Second Renewal Term Months Monthly Rent 85-96 $3,618 97-108 $3,685 Rent for any fractional month will be prorated and computed on a daily basis with each day’s rent equal to one-thirtieth (1/30) of the monthly Rent. 4. Tenant Improvements. a. Improvements by Lessor. Lessor, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause the following improvements to be made to the Premises prior to the Commencement Date: i. The installation of upper and lower cabinetry with electrical outlets for a refrigerator and microwave. ii. The installation of a sink in the location designated by the County. The Tenant is responsible for all costs associated with the repair and maintenance May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 864 WLP191 3 of the sink and its plumbing if problems arise that are caused by inappropriate use of the sink or inappropriate objects going down the drain. The sink must comply with local and state accessibility requirements and must conform to the final plans approved by the County. b. Improvements by County. The County, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause the data and telecommunication cabling and signage to be installed in the Premises. 5. Use. County may use the Premises for the purpose of conducting various functions of County and any other purpose permitted by law. 6. No Disorderly Conduct. The County will not permit clients or guests who are visiting the Premises to engage in loud or disruptive behavior that disturbs the quiet enjoyment of other tenants of the Building. 7. Obligation to Pay Utilities and Janitorial. Lessor shall pay for all water, sewer, gas, electricity, janitorial cleaning, and refuse collection services provided to the Premises. 8. Maintenance and Repairs. a. Roof and Exterior of Premises. Lessor shall keep the roof and exterior of the Premises in good order, condition, and repair, and shall maintain the structural integrity of the Building, including the exterior doors and their fixtures, closers and hinges, glass and glazing, used in the Premises. Lessor is responsible for all locks and key systems used in the Premises. b. Interior of Premises. County shall keep and maintain the interior of the Premises in good order, condition and repair, but Lessor shall repair damage to the interior caused by its failure to maintain the exterior in good repair, including damage to the interior caused by roof leaks and/or interior and exterior wall leaks. c. Janitorial. Lessor shall provide janitorial services, consisting of emptying trash daily, other than weekends and holidays, and vacuuming the carpets in the Premises once a week, in and about the premises and window washing services in a manner consistent with other comparable buildings in the vicinity of the Building. d. Utilities. Lessor shall repair and maintain the electrical, lighting, water and plumbing systems in good order, condition and repair. e. HVAC. Lessor shall maintain and repair the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. f. Parking; Exterior Lighting. Lessor shall maintain the parking lot and exterior lighting system in good order, condition and repair. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 865 4 g. Services by Lessor. If County determines that the Premises are in need of maintenance, construction, remodeling or similar service that is beyond Lessor’s responsibilities under this lease, at County’s request, Lessor shall perform such service at County’s expense. In performing the service, Lessor shall consult with County and use either licensed insured contractors or employees of Lessor. Lessor shall obtain County’s prior written approval of the scope, terms, and cost of any contracts. County may, by giving Lessor thirty (30) days prior written notice, change the level of service, terminate any or all service, or require that a service be performed by a different contractor. 9. Quiet Enjoyment. Provided County is in compliance with the material terms of this lease, Lessor shall warrant and defend County in the quiet enjoyment and possession of the Premises during the Term. 10. Assignment and Sublease. County has the right to assign this lease or sublease the Premises or any part thereof at any time during the Term to other county entities only 11. Alterations; Fixtures and Signs. a. County Fixtures. Subject to Section 11.b., below, County may (i) make any lawful and proper minor alterations to the Premises and (ii) attach fixtures and signs (“County Fixtures”) in or upon the Premises. Any County Fixtures will remain the property of County and may be removed from the Premises by County at any time during the Term. County is responsible for the cost of all alterations and County Fixtures. b. Installation and Removal of Signs. All signs and graphics of every kind visible in or from public view or corridors, the common areas or the exterior of the Premises (whether located inside or outside the Premises) are subject to Landlord’s prior written approval, in Landlord’s sole and absolute discretion, and are subject to any applicable governmental laws, ordinances, and regulations. County shall remove all of its signs and graphics upon the termination of this lease. The installation and removal of signs and graphics will be done at County’s sole cost and expense and in such manner as to avoid injury or defacement of the Premises or the Building and County shall repair, at County’s sole cost and expense, any injury or defacement, including without limitation, discoloration caused by such installation or removal. Any signs installed by County are to be maintained by County in a neat, clean and professional manner, at County’s sole cost and expense. 12. Prior Possession. Commencing ___________, County has the right to install fixtures, telephones and other items required to prepare the Premises for County’s occupancy and to store furniture, supplies and equipment, provided such work and storage and can be effected without unduly interfering with Lessor’s completion of any tenant improvements. 13. Insurance. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 866 WLP191 5 a. Liability Insurance. Throughout the Term, County shall maintain in full force and effect, at its sole expense, a general self-insurance program covering bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage, including loss of use. County shall provide Lessor with a letter of self-insurance affirming the existence of the aforementioned self-insurance program. b. Self-Insurance Exclusion. County’s self-insurance does not provide coverage for (i) areas to be maintained by Lessor under this lease, or (ii) negligence, willful misconduct, or other intentional act, error or omission of Lessor, its officers, agents, or employees. 14. Surrender of Premises. On the last day of the Term, or sooner termination of this lease, County shall peaceably and quietly leave and surrender to Lessor the Premises, along with appurtenances and fixtures at the Premises (except County Fixtures), all in good condition, ordinary wear and tear, damage by casualty, condemnation, acts of God and Lessor’s failure to make repairs required of Lessor excepted. County is not responsible for painting or for repairing or replacing any floor coverings in the Premises upon the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. 15. Waste, Nuisance. County may not commit, or suffer to be committed, any waste upon the Premises, or any nuisance or other act or thing that may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other occupant of the Building. 16. Inspection. Lessor, or its proper representative or contractor, may enter the Premises by prior appointment between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted, to determine that (i) the Premises is being reasonably cared for, (ii) no waste is being made and that all actions affecting the Premises are done in the manner best calculated to preserve the Premises, and (iii) County is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this lease. 17. Perilous Conditions. If the County’s Director of Public Works becomes aware of a perilous condition on the Premises that, in his or her opinion, substantially and significantly threatens the health and safety of County employees and/or invitees (a “Perilous Condition”), the Director of Public Works, or his or her designee, will immediately notify Lessor of the Perilous Condition and Lessor shall use best efforts to immediately eliminate the Perilous Condition. Lessor shall immediately address any condition reasonably constituting an emergency, whether Lessor learns of the condition through County or otherwise. If Lessor fails to address a Perilous Condition within twenty-four (24) hours after County’s notice or to immediately address an emergency situation, County may attempt to resolve the Perilous Condition or emergency situation. Lessor shall reimburse County for any costs incurred by County in addressing the Perilous Condition or emergency situation promptly upon receipt of County’s invoice. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 867 6 18. Destruction. If damage occurs that causes a partial destruction of the Premises during the Term from any cause and repairs can be made within sixty days from the date of the damage under the applicable laws and regulations of governmental authorities, Lessor shall repair the damage promptly. Such partial destruction will not void this lease, except that County will be entitled to a proportionate reduction in Rent while such repairs are being made. The proportionate reduction in Rent will be calculated by multiplying Rent by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of square feet that are unusable by County and the denominator of which is the total number of square feet in the Premises. If repairs cannot be made in sixty days, County will have the option to terminate the lease or request that Lessor make the repairs within a reasonable time, in which case, Lessor will make the repairs and Rent will be proportionately reduced as provided in the previous paragraph. This lease will terminate in the event of a total destruction of the Building or the Premises. 19. Hazardous Material. Lessor warrants to County that Lessor does not have any knowledge of the presence of Hazardous Material (as defined below) or contamination of the Building or Premises in violation of environmental laws. Lessor shall defend, save, protect and hold County harmless from any loss arising out of the presence of any Hazardous Material on the Premises that was not brought to the Premises by or at the request of County, its agents, contractors, invitees or employees. Lessor acknowledges and agrees that County has no obligation to clean up or remediate, or contribute to the cost of clean up or remediation, of any Hazardous Material unless such Hazardous Material is released, discharged or spilled on or about the Premises by County or any of its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or other representatives. The obligations of this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. “Hazardous Material” means any substance, material or waste, including lead based paint, asbestos and petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereof), that is or becomes designated as a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, hazardous material, toxic substance, or toxic material under any federal, state or local law, regulation, or ordinance. 20. Indemnification. a. County. County shall defend, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from County’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of County, its officers, agents or employees in using the Premises pursuant to this lease, or the County’s performance under this lease, except to the extent caused or contributed to by (i) the structural, mechanical, or other failure of buildings owned or maintained by Lessor, and/or (ii) the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Lessor, its officers, agents, or employees. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 868 WLP191 7 b. Lessor. Lessor shall defend, indemnify and hold County harmless from Lessor’s share of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Lessor, its officers, agents, employees, with respect to the Premises, or Lessor’s performance under this lease, or the Lessor’s performance, delivery or supervision of services at the Premises, or by the structural, mechanical or other failure of buildings owned or maintained by Lessor, except to the extent caused or contributed to by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of County, its officers, agents, or employees. 21. Default. The occurrence of any of the following events is a default under this lease: a. County. i. County’s failure to pay Rent within ten business days after receipt of a written notice of failure (a “Notice”) from Lessor to County; provided, however, that County will have additional time if its failure to pay Rent is due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including, without limitation, failure of the County’s Board of Supervisors to adopt a budget. In no event may such additional time exceed seventy-five days from receipt of a Notice. ii. County’s failure to comply with any other material term or provision of this lease if such failure is not remedied within thirty days after receipt of a Notice from Lessor to County specifying the nature of the breach in reasonably sufficient detail; provided, however, if such default cannot reasonably be remedied within such thirty day period, then a default will not be deemed to occur until the occurrence of County’s failure to comply within the period of time that may be reasonably required to remedy the default, up to an aggregate of ninety days, provided County commences curing such default within thirty days and thereafter diligently proceeds to cure such default. b. Lessor. Lessor’s failure to perform any obligation under this lease if such failure is not remedied within thirty days after receipt of a Notice from County to Lessor specifying the nature of the breach in reasonably sufficient detail; provided, however, if such breach cannot reasonably be remedied within such thirty day period, then a default will not be deemed to occur until the occurrence of Lessor’s failure to perform within the period of time that may be reasonably required to remedy the breach, up to an aggregate of ninety days, provided Lessor commences curing such breach within thirty days and thereafter diligently proceeds to cure such breach. 22. Remedies. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 869 8 a. Lessor. Upon the occurrence of a default by County, Lessor may, after giving County written notice of the default, and in accordance with due process of law, reenter and repossess the Premises and remove all persons and property from the Premises. b. County. Upon the occurrence of a default by Lessor, County may (i) terminate this lease by giving written notice to Lessor and quit the Premises without further cost or obligation to County or (ii) proceed to repair or correct the failure and, at County’s option, either deduct the cost thereof from Rent due to Lessor, or invoice Lessor for the cost of repair, which invoice Lessor shall pay promptly upon receipt. 23. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this lease shall be in writing and sent by overnight delivery service or registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and directed as follows: To Lessor: Cove Investment’s LLC Lessor’s Address To County: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Attn: Real Estate Manager 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Either party may at any time designate in writing a substitute address for that set forth above and thereafter notices are to be directed to such substituted address. If sent in accordance with this Section, all notices will be deemed effective (i) the next business day, if sent by overnight courier, or (ii) three days after being deposited in the United States Postal system. 24. Successors and Assigns. This lease binds and inures to the benefit of the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. 25. Holding Over. Any holding over after the Term of this lease is a tenancy from month to month and is subject to the terms of this lease. 26. Time is of the Essence. In fulfilling all terms and conditions of this lease, time is of the essence. 27. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California govern all matters arising out of this lease. 28. Severability. In the event that any provision herein contained is held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this lease will not in any way be affected or impaired. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 870 WLP191 9 29. Real Estate Commission. In negotiating this lease, Lessor is represented by TRI Commercial and the County represents itself. Lessor shall pay a real estate commission to TRI Commercial pursuant to a separate written agreement. Lessor recognizes and acknowledges that the County is entitled to a real estate commission when it represents itself. The County warrants to Lessor that County’s contact with Lessor in connection with this Lease has been directly with TRI Commercial. Lessor shall pay to County a real estate commission in the amount of Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars ($9,849) (the “County Commission”). Lessor shall pay one-half of the County Commission upon the execution of this lease and the remainder on the Commencement Date. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 871 10 30. Entire Agreement; Construction; Modification. Neither party has relied on any promise or representation not contained in this lease. All previous conversations, negotiations, and understandings are of no further force or effect. This lease is not to be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared it. This lease may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. The parties are executing this lease on the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a COVE INVESTMENTS, LLC political subdivision of the State of California By: _______________________ By: _______________________ Brian Balbas Name and Title Director of Public Works By: _______________________ Name and Title RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: _______________________ Karen Laws Principal Real Property Agent By: _______________________ Stacey Sinclair Senior Real Property Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM SHARON L. ANDERSON, COUNTY COUNSEL By: _______________________ Kathleen M. Andrus Deputy County Counsel H:\Real Estate Services\1160 Brickyard Ste 111 V6.doc May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 872 WLP191 11 EXHIBIT A [Floor Plan] May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 873 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute an agreement with the California Department of Food and Agriculture in an amount not to exceed $23,443 to place and service traps for the detection of the European Grapevine Moth from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The agreement reimburses the department for all associated costs incurred for the implementation of the European Grapevine Moth Program in an amount not to exceed $23,443. There is no County match of funds requirement. This revenue was anticipated in the FY 18/19 departmental budget. BACKGROUND: The County Department of Agriculture will provide all trapping materials, training of trappers, and deploy appropriate traps and service them at regular intervals according to the Insect Trapping Guide provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). If European Grapevine Moth (EGVM) is detected it will be delimited and controlled/eradicated. Costs will be reimbursed by CDFA in an amount not to exceed $23,443. EGVM and it's vectors are a clear and present danger to Contra Costa County's agricultural commodity of grapes. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 646-5250 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:17-0549-022SF European Grapevine Moth Program May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 874 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this agreement will result in lost revenue for the department and a possible threat to the agricultural grape industry in Contra Costa County. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 875 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $3,540,487 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families for Early Head Start supplemental funding for the term of September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: If awarded, the County would receive supplemental revenues in an amount not to exceed $3,540,487. The County, as Grantee, would be required to generate a 20% non-federal in-kind match in an amount not to exceed $885,122 (see calculation below). The match will be met through collaboration with State Child Development programs and the volunteer hours accrued by Head Start parents and community partners. CFDA # 93.708 Match Calculation Federal $3,540,487 = 80% Match (In-Kind) $885,122 = 20% Total $4,425,609 = 100% In-Kind match is 20% of total funding APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Christina Reich, Haydee Ilan C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:2018-19 Early Head Start Childcare Partnerships Grant Supplemental Funds May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 876 BACKGROUND: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) routinely provides expanded funding opportunities throughout the program year. The Office of Head Start recognizes that grantees will identify needs for additional funding during the initial implementation phase that were not apparent at the time of the initial award. The Employment and Human Services Department has identified the need for additional funds to address health and nutrition, disabilities and mental health, safety, and professional development for Early Head Start staff. The Board approved submission of a grant application to ACF for Early Head Start Childcare Partnership grant funds on August 16, 2016 (C.37). As a result, the County was awarded funding in an amount not to exceed $6,250,000. The Board approved the submission of a supplemental grant application for a final 6 month budget period of March 1, 2018 through August 31, 2018 through the Early Head Start Childcare Partnership Program #2 on December 5, 2017 (C.51). This board order is to approve the submission of an application for continued funding under this program. The application submittal was approved by the Head Start Policy Council on April 18, 2018 and will be submitted to ACF on June 1, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, supplemental funding to operate the Early Head Start program will not be received. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Community Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department’s Head Start program supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (3) Families that are Economically Self-sufficient; and (4) Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing. These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS Budget Narrative Grant letter May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 877 2018 Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Supplemental Budget 16-Point Narrative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INCOMING FUNDS NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1. PROJECT/PROGRAM TITLE. Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership #2 Funding Application for Budget Period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. 2. FUNDING AGENCY. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Head Start (OHS). 3. SUBMITTAL STATUS. This is a submission of application for Early Head Start Child Care Partnership #2 grant funding for FY 2018- 2019. 4. PROPOSED TERM. Funding must be requested annually. The standard one year budget period is from September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. The budget summary is below. 5. CURRENT FUNDING. Funding for Early Head Start Child Care Partnership #2 is provided by federal dollars. Contra Costa County, as Grantee, is required to generate a 20% non-federal match of the total project budget, which may be in cash or in-kind contributions, fairly valued. 6. FUTURE FUNDING. An application for continuation grant funding must be submitted each year. 7. BUDGET SUMMARY 8. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS. As Grantee, Contra Costa County operates the Head Start Program, which is administered and staffed by the Employment & Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. Budget Categories: FY 2018-2019 EHS Child Care Partnership #2 Operation Personnel $ 551,105 Fringe Benefits $ 354,609 T & TA $ 86,354 Travel $ - 0 - Supplies $ 56,000 Contractual $ 791,000 Other $ 1,569,705 Sub-Total of Direct Charges $3,408,773 Indirect Costs $ 131,714 Total Federal Amount Being Requested $3,540,487 Non-Federal Share $ 885,122 Total Federal and Non-Federal $4,425,609 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 878 2018 Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Supplemental Budget 16-Point Narrative 2 9. PROGRAM NEED. The Community Services Bureau serves the needs of low- income children (3-5 years of age under Head Start, and prenatal - 3 yrs under Early Head Start) and their families, by providing quality childcare, child development, and other services such as medical, mental health and dental needs. 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS. The Community Services Bureau’s Head Start program combines Federal Head Start and State Child Development funding into one cohesive program. The Bureau also has strong collaborations with other departments within the County and partners with community based organizations, local private businesses, schools, non-profits, and volunteer organizations. 11. PROJECT GOALS. (Same goals and objectives for both Head Start and Early Head Start) Goal 1: Goal 1: Through the use of multiple technologies, CSB will develop systems to enhance staff and client communication while coordinating program -wide approaches to effective data management and ensuring high quality service delivery. Goal 2: Due to an 84% increase in Early Head Start slots (from 311 to 573) in two years, CSB will enhance its Early Head Start programming through a multi-faceted approach. Goal 3: CSB will implement a “Grow Our Own” approach to hiring, developing, and retaining a robust staff across all service areas that are responsive to the clients and intrinsically motivated to be the best they can be through a variety of supports and services. Goal 4: CSB will implement data-driven Parent, Family and Community Engagement (PFCE) services that embrace the PFCE framework and result in measurable impacts that achieve the mission of the organization. 12. STATED OBJECTIVES.  By June 30, 2018, CSB will have interactive self-service kiosk stations at large centers and the administrative building.  By June 30, 2018, CSB will have an interactive web-portal and mobile application to improve communication between client and staff.  By June 30, 2018, CSB will implement an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and Short Message System (SMS) that allows a computer to interact with clients through the use of voice and/or text and to input via keypad on their land line or mobile device.  By June 30, 2018, CSB will have computer stations set up for parents at 4 designated centers. By July 2017, CSB will enhance its violence prevention and safety program for children, families, and staff.  By June, 2018, CSB will implement its Early Head Start Program for Infant Toddler Caregiving (PITC) Training Matrix 2017-18 for all Early Head Start teachers.  By December 31, 2018, CSB will implement a comprehensive material and equipment purchasing plan to optimize the quality of the Early Head Start environment. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 879 2018 Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Supplemental Budget 16-Point Narrative 3  By December 31, 2018, CSB will provide families with education on safe sleep practices to reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and other sleep- related causes of infant death.  By December 31, 2018, CSB will ensure curriculum implementation fidelity through its enhanced education monitoring tool.  By December 30, 2018, CSB will enhance its Bright Futures Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) Implementation through adaptations to systems, services and community partnerships.  By December 31, 2018, CSB will collaborate with SEIU Local 1021, the YMCA of the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Trade-Tech College in the California Apprenticeship Initiative to engage participants in the early care and education field.  December 31, 2018, CSB will partner with California Head Start Association and local educational institutions to provide training and education to meet the credentialing/certification requirements for “Family Services staff” in the Head Start Performance Standards.”  By December 31, 2018, CSB, in collaboration with First 5 and the Alliance to End Abuse, will implement a Trauma 2.0 Curriculum for Early Educators in a train-the- trainer model that includes extensive coaching and support by a consultant.  By December 31, 2018 will re-design its Family Partnership Agreement to include measureable family outcomes that demonstrate the effectiveness of program services and supports.  By December 31, 2018 CSB implement the Make Parenting a Pleasure curriculum at all of its centers.  By June 2017, CSB parents will enhance their parenting skills to be more positive with their children and will have developed self-reliant abilities.  By June 30, 2018, CSB, in collaboration with REadingADvantage will implement two family literacy programs: Parent Power! for parents of preschoolers and Itsy Bitsy (Read Me a Story) for parents of infants and toddlers. 13. ACTIVITY SUMMARY. Program continues to provide high-quality services. 14. EVALUATION METHOD(S). Measurable, results-based child and family outcomes have been implemented, such as the required State of California’s Desired Results Developmental Profile, for programs providing services through collaboration with the State of California Department of Education. 15. CHANGES COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR (if any). Goals and Objectives cover FY 2018 – FY 2022. Policy Council has been involved in the development, review and evaluation process of the goals and objectives. 16. POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. None. Public perception of the Head Start and Early Head Start programs remain positive. The Policy Council will approve submission of this grant at their April 18, 2018 meeting. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 880 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 881 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 882 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $12,000 from the City of Brentwood to provide economic development advising, training, and outreach services to Brentwood businesses for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $12,000 from the City of Brentwood Economic Development Grant that is funded from its business license revenues. The grant requires a 1-to-1 cash or in-kind match up to the full grant amount awarded, not to exceed $12,000. The SBDC's federal Small Business Administration funds qualify as match. BACKGROUND: The City of Brentwood Economic Development Grant has the explicit purpose of business promotion and institutional advertisement for the City of Brentwood. As part of that effort, City of Brentwood offers grants for local marketing, events, and business development projects. The Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center (SBDC) proposes to actively support economic development in the City of Brentwood by supporting staff on business outreach walks, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:City of Brentwood Grant Funding May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 883 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) attending events and delivering group training for business models, and individualized advising with the overreaching goals of business/job retention, new business startups, increased revenues, debt/equity investments and job creation. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, economic development services in the Brentwood business community would be curtailed. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 884 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract and accept reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $15,000 from Mount Diablo Unified School District, for the provision of food services at the Crossroads High School childcare program for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no net County costs associated with this agreement. Mount Diablo Unified School District has agreed to reimburse the County up to the limits of the California Child and Adult Food Program, for all food service expenses related to this contract. The program may provide up to 5,040 meals at $3.00/meal. BACKGROUND: In order to further support the childcare service partnership with Crossroads High School and to ensure the success of food and nutrition goals within these programs, the Department provides the daily meals at selected childcare sites. The meals are provided to program eligible children co-enrolled in the California Child and Adult Food Program and the Contractor's education programs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will be unable to provide food services to its childcare partner. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Nelly Ige, Sam Mendoza, Velma Braggs C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:2018-19 Food Services Agreement with Mt. Diablo Unified School District / Crossroads High School May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 885 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: Children Ready for and Succeeding in School” Outcome 3: Families that are Economically Self-sufficient, and Outcome 4: Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing. These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS Food service agreement May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 886 Number: 39-584-6 1 Agency County STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR FOOD SERVICE / VENDING This Agreement is entered into on this first day of July 2018 by and between Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Crossroads High School, hereinafter referred to as the Agency and Contra Costa County through and by its Employment & Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau hereinafter referred to as the Vendor. THE VENDOR AGREES TO: 1. Prepare and supply the meals, inclusive of milk, to Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Crossroads High School at 2701 Willow Pass Road, Concord, CA 94519 by 11:00 a.m. each day of Vendor operation, Monday through Friday in accordance with the number of meals requested and at the cost(s) per meal listed below. FY 2018-19 rates noted below. For Toddler children ages 18-36 months: Breakfast $ n/a Each Lunch $ 3.00 Each Supplement/Snack (PM) $ n/a Each Supper $ n/a Each 2. Provide the Agency the menu for each month at least five (5) days prior to the beginning of the month to which the menu applies. 3. Assure that each meal provided to the Agency under this contract meets the minimum nutritional requirements as defined by the California Child and Adult Care Food Program. 4. Maintain on a daily basis an accurate count of the number of meals by meal type, prepared for the Agency. Meal count documentation must include the number of meals requested by the Agency. 5. Allow the Agency to increase or decrease the number of meal orders, as needed when the request is made within one (1) business day of the schedule delivery time. 6. Present to the Agency an invoice accompanied by reports no later than the 20th day of each month that itemizes the previous month’s delivery. The Vendor agrees to forfeit payment for meals that are not ready within one (1) hour of the agreed upon delivery time, are spoiled or unwholesome at the time of delivery, May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 887 Number: 39-584-6 2 Agency County are short of components, or do not otherwise meet the meal requirements contained in this agreement. 7. Provide the Agency with a copy of current health certifications for the food service facility in which it prepares meals. The Vendor shall ensure that all health and sanitation requirement of the California Retail Food Facilities Law, and chapter 4 of the California Health and Safety Code, are met all times. 8. Not subcontract for the total meal, with or without milk, or for the assembly of the meal. 9. As required by the State Drug-Free workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code §8350 et.seq.) and the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implementing regulations, Vendor certifies that it will continue to provide a drug- free workplace. THE AGENCY AGREES TO: 1. Notify Vendor of necessary increases or decreases in number of meal orders within eight (8) hours of the scheduled delivery time. Errors in meal order counts made by the Agency shall be the responsibility of the Agency, and Agency shall pay Vender for all meals ordered even if Agency erroneously ordered an excess number of meals. 2. Ensure that an Agency representative is available at each delivery site, at the specified time on each specified delivery day to receive, inspect and sign for the requested number of meals. This individual will verify the temperature, quality, and quantity of each meal service delivery. The Agency assures the Vendor that this individual will be trained in health and sanitation practices. 3. Provide personnel to serve meals, clean the serving and eating areas, and assemble transport carts and auxiliary items for pick-up/delivery by the Vendor no later than twenty-four (24) hours following the delivery of such carts. 4. Notify the Vendor within ten (10) days of receipt of the next month’s proposed menu of any changes, additions, or deletions that will be required in the menu request. 5. As required by the State Drug-Free workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code §8350 et. seq.) and the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implementing regulations, Agency certifies that it will continue to provide a drug- free workplace. 6. Pay the Vendor by the thirtieth (30th) day of each month the full amount presented in the monthly itemized invoice. The Agency agrees to notify the Vendor within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of any discrepancy in the invoice. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 888 Number: 39-584-6 3 Agency County 7. Agency shall defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless Vendor and it’s officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, sickness, death or injury to person(s) or property, including without limitation all consequential damages, from any cause whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from or connected with the operations or services of Agency or its agents, servants, employees or subcontractors hereunder, save and except claims or litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of Vendor or its officers or employees. Agency will reimburse Vendor for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney fees, Vendor may make by reason of the matters that are the subject of this indemnification, and if requested by Vendor, will defend any claims or litigation to which this indemnification provision applies at the sole cost and expense of Agency. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT: The effective date of this Contract is July 1, 2018. It terminates on June 30, 2019. This contract may be terminated by either party, in its sole discretion, upon thirty-day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be cancelled immediately by written mutual consent. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 889 Number: 39-584-6 4 Agency County IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DATES INDICATED BELOW: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE By: Designee COUNTY COUNSEL Approved as to Form: By: Deputy CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEMNT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT By: Director/Designee Department Director Title Telephone Date MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CROSSROADS HIGH SCHOOL By: Official Signature Title Telephone Date Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Approval via Board Order (attached) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 890 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Maintenance and Support Agreement with Gemalto Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed, $454,772 for the purchase of Livescan specific hardware, implementation services, and support of the software, for a five-year period beginning January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: No County Cost. $454,772.00 from CAL ID Funds. BACKGROUND: The California Identification System (Cal-ID) is the automated system maintained by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for retaining fingerprint files and identifying latent fingerprints. Cal-ID monies are collected from the fees from each vehicle registered, two dollars for non-commercial vehicles and four dollars from commercial vehicles, and are used to fund programs that enhance the capacity of the state and local law enforcement to provide automated mobile, fixed Livescan fingerprint capture stations and Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) that allow identification of individuals involved in motor vehicle crimes. The California Department of Justice has established the Remote Access Network (RAN), which is a uniform statewide network APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Gemalto Cogent Incorporated - Livescan May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 891 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of equipment and procedures allowing local law enforcement agencies direct access to the Cal-ID System. The Contra Costa County local RAN board determines the placement of RAN equipment within the County, and coordinates the acceptance, delivery, and installation of RAN equipment. Acting as the local RAN board, mobile fingerprint identification hardware has been distributed to local law enforcement agencies within the County pursuant to the criteria specified in the Penal Code. Under the proposed contract, maintenance and support for the Livescan will be purchased to provide support and hardware replacement so that local law enforcement agencies can continue to capture arrest data and booking related fingerprints. The Livescans are a high-use device and parts wear out frequently. If maintenance and support is not obtained, replacement of the hardware and updates to the software will no longer be supported. The Gemalto Cogent Livescans provide the mechanism for the capture of fingerprints, photos and charge information as state and federally mandated for arrest reporting to the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The maintenance and support agreement will provide 24/7 support and hardware replacement to keep the Livescans in working order. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Office of the Sheriff is not allowed to contract with Gemalto Cogent for the Livescan Maintenance and Support for the Livescan fingerprint capture stations, agencies in the county will experience extended downtime preventing officers from capturing the requisite fingerprint and arrest/booking data required by the state and federal mandates. This may lead to the release of wanted subjects from booking facilities because they have not been identified. Some subjects may be wanted for a more serious offense under another name. In addition, the lack of ability to identify an arrested subject may detain an individual that is not the person sought in a warrant or an investigation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 892 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute Agreement #18-73-06-0251-RA with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $40,649 to provide wildlife damage management for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded with Unclaimed Gas Tax revenue (60%) and County General Fund (40%). It has been anticipated and budgeted for FY 2018/19. BACKGROUND: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) is a federal agency with a broad mission that includes carrying out wildlife damage management activities. In recent years, the United States Department of Agriculture- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (USDA-APHIS) has maintained an effective Integrated Wildlife Damage Management Program (IWDM) to resolve conflicts with wildlife throughout the County. APHIS-WS overall goal is to maintain a biologically sound IWDM program to assist property owners, businesses, private citizens, and governmental agencies in resolving wildlife damage problems and conduct control activities in accordance with applicable Federal, State APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 646-5250 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:APHIS-WS Integrated Wildlife Management Program 18-73-06-0251-RA May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 893 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and local laws and regulations. Assistance may be in the form of providing (1) technical assistance through demonstration and instruction of wildlife damage prevention and/or control techniques; (2) predator identification and removal when livestock, crop or natural resource damage is verified; (3) nuisance wildlife technical assistance including removal, if necessary, when property damage is identified; (4) removal of wildlife displaying aggressive behavior or causing actual injury to County residents. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will restrict the Department in providing wildlife damage management and taking corrective actions on existing wildlife damage problems for the residents of the County. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 894 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a software and licensing agreement, including modified indemnification language, with Shotcaller Global, Inc., in an annual amount of $25,500 for the "GunOps" crime tracking system software tracking system for the period April 17, 2018 and renewed annually unless canceled by either party. FISCAL IMPACT: $25,500 Grant Funded. No county funds. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff’s Crime Lab has been on the forefront of assisting Law Enforcement investigators with real time results and actionable intelligence. GunOps provides real-time linkages between three databases already in the Sheriff’s Office domain through state-of-the art GPS technology. GunOps offers a superior product that will enable the Sheriff’s Office to better detect and deter future gun-related crimes. The board will need to approve the agreement due to change in indemnification language. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action will result in the inability of the Sheriff’s Office to better detect and deter future gun-related crimes. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Shotcaller Global Inc. - GunOps May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 895 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 896 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 897 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Language Line Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will increase department expenditures by $1,250,000 to be funded with 10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal revenue. BACKGROUND: Language Line Services, Inc. provides telephone interpretation, on-site interpretation, and document translation services to the Employment and Human Services Department and to the clients served by the Employment and Human Services Department. Services are provided to the County adult population, children, families, and employment and training program related clients throughout the County. State and Federal regulations require the County to provide public information materials to potential, present and past recipients regarding client services in any non-English language that is prevalent within the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 8-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Language Line Services, Inc. for Interpretation and Translation Services May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 898 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Employment and Human Services would be unable to meet requirements for the administration of State and Federal programs. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 899 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #27-842-3 with Contra Costa Hearing Aid Center, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $250,000, to provide audiology and hearing aid services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 27, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-842-2 with Contra Costa Hearing Aid Center, Inc. for the provision of audiology and hearing aid services to CCHP members, for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2018. Approval of Contract #27-842-3 will allow the contractor to continue to provide audiology and hearing aid services for CCHP members through April 30, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-842-3 with Contra Costa Hearing Aid Center, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 900 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialty health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 901 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #27-599-14 with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide claims processing and negotiation services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a contingency fee contract. Contractor receives a percentage of the savings received from their actions. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-599-13 with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc. for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018 for claims processing and negotiation services for CCHP including: acting as billing agent to negotiate discounted rates, reviewing the documentation of medical claims, and electronically transmitting claims from out-of-network medical providers. Approval of Contract #27-599-14 will allow the contractor to continue to provide services through May 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, (925) 313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-599-14 with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 902 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan will not have access to the contractor’s negotiation, claims processing and price factoring services. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 903 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #77-022-1 with California Center for Behavioral Health, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide outpatient psychiatry services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In April 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Manager executed Contract #77-022 with California Center for Behavioral Health, for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018, for the provision of outpatient psychiatry services for CCHP members. Approval of Contract #77-022-1 will allow the contractor to continue to provide outpatient psychiatry services for CCHP members through May 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, (925) 313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-022-1 with California Center for Behavioral Health May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 904 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialty health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 905 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #74-233-3 with Estelita Marquez-Floyd, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $266,240, to provide outpatient psychiatric services at the East County Mental Health Clinic, for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 20, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-233-2 with Estelita Marquez-Floyd, M.D., for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to children and adolescents at the East County Mental Health Clinic, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Approval of Contract #74-233-3 will allow the contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services at the East County Mental Health Clinic through June 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White, M.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-233-3 with Estelita Marquez-Floyd, M.D. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 906 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to the contractor’s psychiatric services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 907 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Risk Management to execute a contract amendment with BSI EHS Services and Solutions to increase the payment limit by $508,600 to a new total payment limit of $1,727,400 for additional Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) compliance support during the term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: Additional cost of $508,600 will be paid through the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund. BACKGROUND: BSI EHS Services and Solutions assists in dealing with Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) compliance inspections and responses on behalf of all County departments. Since the inception of this contract, additional services have been needed for Public Works asbestos sampling, Contra Costa Fire asbestos sampling, ADA pubic access compliance and the desktop alert emergency notification system. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not be able to ensure OSHA and CalOSHA compliance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord, 925 335-1450 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Brian Balbas, Public Works Director C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment for BSI EHS Services and Solutions May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 908 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Men and Women of Purpose in an amount not to exceed $191,650 for the provision of mentoring and placement services to assist adult inmates transitioning back into the community for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: $191,650; 100% 2018/19 AB109. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Contract is to implement the Jail to Community Program as part of the County's AB109 public safety realignment plan. In order to implement the Jail to Community Program, the Men and Women of Purpose(MWP) and the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner will commit to an ongoing collaboration to strengthen and develop a multi-disciplinary approach to serve adult offenders inside the County's West County Detention Facility, Martinez, Detention Facility, and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. Those incarcerated and in the custody of the County's Sheriff-Coroner would need to meet certain criteria to be among the AB 109 re-entry population. Some of the services MWP provides are initial assessments, recommending treatment plans, developing support APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Men and Women of Purpose May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 909 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) groups, and assisting participants with the recovery of their California Driver's License, Social Security Card and Green Cards for the re-entry population. MWP will provide participants online access and print outs of the County's 211 information services and participant services to each of its Outpatient and Day Treatment programs after the participant is released. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action would result in the incarcerated not having an improved chance to not re-offend and return to the detention facility resulting in an increased fiscal impact and continued overcrowding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 910 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Chaplains, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $156,100 for chaplaincy services for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: $156,100; Budgeted, 100% Inmate Welfare Fund. BACKGROUND: The Bay Area Chaplains, Inc., provide clergy to meet the diverse spiritual needs of inmates and their families housed in the Office of the Sheriff's adult detention facilities in Contra Costa County. Clergy of all denominations provide counseling, religious materials and literature, bible studies, worship services, and respond to crisis and emergencies involving inmates or staff. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Chaplaincy services within the three adult detention facilities will discontinue after July 1, 2018. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:CHAPLAIN SERVICES FOR ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 911 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #23-591-2 with Archer Business Solutions, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $145,000, to provide technical support and consulting services for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 13, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-591-1 with Archer Business Solutions, LLC, for the provision of technical support, consulting, training and project management for the Department’s Information Systems Unit, in regards to the implementation of PeopleSoft data analytics and reporting system for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Approval of Contract #23-591-2 will allow the contractor to continue to provide technical support and consulting through June 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Bud DeCesare, 925-957-5429 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-591-2 with Archer Business Solutions, LLC May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 912 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not have access to the contractor’s expert technical assistance, support, and optimization skills for its Information Systems Unit. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 913 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #74–358–9 with Contra Costa Crisis Center, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $310,685, to provide prevention and early intervention services pursuant to the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2019, in an amount not to exceed $155,342. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act. (3% Cost of Living Adjustment) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing a nationally-certified 24-hour suicide prevention hotline that lowers the risk of suicide at a time when people are most vulnerable, enhances safety and connectedness for suicidal individuals, and builds a bridge to community resources for at-risk persons. On June 6, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-358-8 with Contra Costa Crisis Center for the provision of MHSA prevention and early intervention services for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mathew White M.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: L Walker , M Wilhelm C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–358–9 with Contra Costa Crisis Center May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 914 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 915 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #74–358–9 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the contractor will not be able to provide suicide prevention hotline services to non-English speaking callers. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 916 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-549-3 with Yana Wirengard, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $467,000, to provide general surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 20, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-549-2 with Yana Wirengard, M.D., to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, including clinic coverage, surgical procedures, on-call and administrative support services, through June 30, 2018. Approval of Contract #76-549-3 will allow the contractor to continue to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through June 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-549-3 with Yana Wirengard, M.D. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 917 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring general surgery services at CCRMC and Health Centers will not have access to the contractor’s services. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 918 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24–933–36 with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., a corporation, effective May 1, 2018, to amend Contract #24–933–35 to increase the payment limit by $1,006,976, from $7,383,000 to a new payment limit of $8,389,976 with no change in the term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 92% Mental Health Realignment and 8% Mental Health Services Act funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population in that it provides subacute skilled nursing care services for County’s Severe and Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI) and neurobehavioral clients. On July 11, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-933-35 with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 for the provision of subacute skilled nursing care for SPMI and neurobehavioral clients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mathew White M.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: L Walker , M Wilhelm C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #24–933–36 with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 919 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #24-933-36 will allow the contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Behavioral Health Services Division/Mental Health places clients at contractor's facilities which is licensed for various levels of care. If the contract is not approved, a significant number of mentally ill young adults and adults may be displaced to the community without the mental health services they require. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 920 RECOMMENDATION(S): RESCIND Board Action of February 13, 2018 (C.52) and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Services Agreement with Gemalto Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed, $120,000 for the services and maintenance enhancement of a dedicated on-site support engineer for a term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 with no change in payment limit. FISCAL IMPACT: No County Cost. $120,000.00 from CAL ID Funds. BACKGROUND: The California Identification System (Cal-ID) is the automated system maintained by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for retaining fingerprint files and identifying latent fingerprints. Cal-ID monies are collected from the fees from each vehicle registered, two dollars for non-commercial vehicles and four dollars from commercial vehicles, and are used to fund programs that enhance the capacity of the state and local law enforcement to provide automated mobile, fixed Livescan fingerprint capture stations and Cogent Automated Biometric Identification System (CABIS), formerly known as Cogent Automated Fingerprint Identification System (CAFIS), that allow APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Gemalto Cogent Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 921 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) identification of individuals involved in motor vehicle crimes. The California Department of Justice has established the Remote Access Network (RAN), which is a uniform statewide network of equipment and procedures allowing local law enforcement agencies direct access to the Cal-ID System. The Contra Costa County local RAN board determines the placement of RAN equipment within the County, and coordinates the acceptance, delivery, and installation of RAN equipment. Acting as the local RAN board, mobile fingerprint identification hardware has been distributed to local law enforcement agencies within the County pursuant to the criteria specified in the Penal Code. Under the proposed contract, a dedicated support engineer will provide to Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and its client agencies high availability of support for the Cogent Automated Fingerprint Identification System ( CAFIS), the mugshot server, Latent Gateway, WebID, 31 Livescans, and the 350 Mobile ID devices throughout the county. A dedicated support engineer will provide continuity to the support needs, develop more personalized technical support relationships with users, perform proactive maintenance to reduce technical problems and downtimes minimizing disruption to the daily business for the law enforcement officer. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Office of the Sheriff is not allowed to contract with Gemalto Cogent for the dedicated support engineer, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and its client agencies will experience support engineers that are not familiar with the configurations and components of our systems which slows the support response. In addition, Contra Costa County and its agencies vie for support time with the Gemalto Cogent support engineers with many other counties and police departments throughout Northern California. Delayed support response can translate into the inability to identify unknown subjects on the street with Mobile ID or the inability to capture fingerprints at booking facilities with a Livescan for mandated reporting to the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The delay to fix failures of the aforementioned systems could lead to the release of subjects on the street or from booking facilities because they have not been identified and may be wanted for a more serious offense under another name. In addition, the lack of ability to identify an arrested subject may detain an individual that is not the person sought in a warrant or an investigation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 922 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with CocoKids, Inc., effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $40,000 to a new payment limit of $120,000 and to extend the term ending date from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018 to provide ongoing Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Services. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will increase expenditures by $40,000 and is funded 30% by County and 70% by State Family Preservation revenues. BACKGROUND: This Contractor was selected through the competitive bid process, Request For Proposals (RFP) 1135 by Employment and Human Services, Children and Family Services Bureau (CFS). RFP 1135 requested community-based and/or faith-based organizations to provide Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) services in Contra Costa County. The purpose of PSSF services is to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families, improve the quality of care and services to children and their families, and to ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with their parents, by adoption, or by another permanent living arrangement. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 8-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with CoCoKids for Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Services May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 923 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This amendment and extension will ensure Contractor continues to provide the following services while a Request For Proposal can be processed by the County; support services to parents and families in the Family Together Program to improve parenting skills, provide case management, parent education, parent and child enrichment activities and information about and referrals to other relevant community resources and services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Parents and families in the Family Together Program will not receive services to improve parenting skills, parent education, and parent and child enrichment activities and information. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five community outcomes: 1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3) Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient; 4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families, by providing resources and referrals to support self-sufficiency. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 924 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet, effective May 1, 2018, to increase the payment limit by $36,964 to a new payment limit of $155,311 and to extend the ending term date from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018, to provide ongoing outreach, advocacy, and support to adoptive families. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment will increase expenditures by $36,964 and will be funded 100% by Federal Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program revenue. BACKGROUND: Aspiranet is one of several agencies selected as a result of a competitive bidding process for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) funding. The primary goals of the PSSF Program are to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families, improve the quality of care and services to children and their families, and ensure permanency for children by reuniting them with their parents, by adoption, or by another permanent arrangement. PSSF funding is used to support services to strengthen parental relationships and may be used to remove barriers that impede the process of adoption when children cannot APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 8-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Aspiranet for Outreach, Advocacy, and Support to Adoptive Families May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 925 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) be safely reunited with their families and to address the unique issues adoptive families and children may face. This extension ensures Aspiranet provides the following ongoing services while a Request For Proposal (RFP) can be processed; REACH Contra Costa (Reaching Out to Assist Post-Adoption Families by Providing: Resources, Education, Advocacy, Crisis Counseling, and Hope – REACH) services through Contra Costa County; community outreach; advocacy; and parent and family support. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Comprehensive, no-cost, adoption outreach and advocacy, information and referral, crisis intervention, case management, and socialization services will be unavailable to Contra Costa County's adoptive families. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County's community outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (3) Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families by providing services to maintain the adoptive family unit. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 926 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County as follows: (1) Cancellation Agreement #74-479-4 with D R Ruecker, M.D., Inc., a corporation, effective on the close of business on April 30, 2018; and (2) Contract #74-479-5 with David Robert Ruecker, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $300,800, to provide outpatient psychiatric care for seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) children and adolescents in Central Contra Costa County for the period from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 26, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-479-3, with D. R. Ruecker M.D., Inc., for the provision of outpatient psychiatric care services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to, SED children and adolescents in Central Contra Costa County, for the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White M.D., 925-370-5891 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancellation Agreement#74-479-4 and Contract #74-479-5 with David Robert Ruecker, M.D. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 927 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The contractor has changed his legal status from a corporation to an individual. Therefore, in accordance with General Conditions Paragraph 5 (Termination), of the Contract, the Department and D. R. Ruecker, M.D., Inc., have agreed to a mutual cancellation of Contract #74-479-3, effective at the close of business on April 30, 2018. Cancellation Agreement #74-479-4 will accomplish this termination. Approval of Contract #74-479-5 will allow David Robert Ruecker, M.D. to continue providing outpatient psychiatric care, under his legal status as an individual, through April 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to contractor’s outpatient psychiatric care. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 928 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Paul Gibson, LCSW, to increase the payment limit by $52,500 to a new payment limit of $145,300 to provide Clinical Supervision Services to Children and Family Services Bureau staff seeking licensure, effective July 1, 2018 with no change to the original contract term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract amendment will increase department expenditures by $52,500. The funds allocated for this contract are 100% State 2011 Realignment and are included in the FY 2018/19 department budget. BACKGROUND: In order to meet the standards of the Board of Behavioral Science Examiners (Board) to be licensed as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) or Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT), staff with advanced degrees must register as interns with the Board. Interns are required to accumulate a specified number of individual supervision hours through their clinical practice. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Paul Gibson for Clinical Supervision Services May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 929 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In addition to group clinical supervision, Contractor will provide supervision and training that will include, but not be limited to, case-specific consultation, guidance, and support to Employment and Human Services Department Children and Family Services staff with the focus on providing supervisees with hours towards their licensures. A certificate of completion for fifteen (15) hour clinical supervisor courses and copies of current Board of Behavioral Sciences license will be provided to supervisees who meet the required accumulated hours. The original contract had a payment limit of $92,800 with a term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, valuable training and information will not be provided to Employment and Human Services Department staff. It could also impact staff's ability to properly assess and provide services to youth and families. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 2) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 3) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families, by providing child welfare staff with the tools needed to deliver services to youth and families. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 930 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #24-681-2(35) with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $358,800 to provide augmented board and care services for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County's population by providing augmentation of room and board, and twenty-four hour emergency residential care and supervision, to eligible mentally disordered clients, who are specifically referred by the Mental Health Program staff and who are served by County Mental Health Services. On June 20, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-681-2(33) [as amended by Amendment Agreement #24-681-2(34)] with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. for the provision of augmented board and care services for County-referred mentally disordered clients for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White M.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: L Walker , M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-681-2(35) with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 931 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #24-681-2(35) will allow the contractor to continue providing augmented board and care services through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, augmented board and care services will not be provided to County-referred mentally disordered clients by this Contractor. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 932 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide Resource Family Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The funds allocated for this agreement are $22,500 (75%) Federal and $7,500 (25%) State, and are included in the FY 2018/19 department budget. BACKGROUND: Resource Family Approval (RFA) was enacted by legislation in 2007 and expanded through Senate Bill 1013 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2012). The statute requires the California Department of Social Services, in consultation with county child welfare agencies, including Juvenile Probation, foster parent associations and other interested community parties, to implement a unified, family friendly and child-centered resource family approval process. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District - Diablo Valley College Campus for Resource Family Pre-Approval Training May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 933 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The RFA program has a single approval standard that replaces the existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, approving relatives and non-relative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving families for legal guardianship or adoption. In compliance with state mandates, Contra Costa Community College District - Diablo Valley College will provide caregivers of foster children six 12-hour training sessions, locate and hire independent training consultants, and provide appropriate instructional materials to each training participant. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires that all currently licensed foster family homes, approved relative caregivers, or non-relative extended family members must convert to the Resource Family Approval program no later than December 31, 2019. If the caregiver does not obtain resource family approval by December 31, 2019, all licenses and prior approvals shall forfeit on that date. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This agreement supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; 4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families, by preparing families to better meet the needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows seamless transition to permanency. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 934 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-475-19(12) with Ena Rios, LCSW (dba Ena Rios Corporation), a corporation, effective May 1, 2018, to amend Contract #74-271-19(11), to increase the payment limit by $130,000, from $100,000 to a new payment limit of $230,000, with no change in the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In October 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-271-19(11), with Ena Rios, LCSW (dba Ena Rios Corporation) for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the contract was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White, M.D., 925-370-5891 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Curotto, Marcy Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-271-19(12) with Ena Rios, LCSW (dba Ena Rios Corporation) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 935 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Amendment Agreement #74-271-19(12) will allow the contractor to provide additional mental health services through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 936 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-341-70(6) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc., a corporation, effective May 1, 2018, to amend Contract #74-341-70(5), to increase the payment limit by $100,000, from $700,000 to a new payment limit of $800,000, with no change in the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 13, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-341-70(5) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc. for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White, M.D., 925-370-5891 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Curotto, Marcy Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-341-70(6) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 937 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the utilization during the term of the contract was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-341-70(6) will allow the contractor to provide additional mental health services through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 938 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Family Support Services, in an amount not to exceed $360,317 to provide comprehensive respite services to foster parents and relative caregivers for the period of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The funds allocated for this contract are 79% State 2011 Realignment ($283,569) and 21% County ($76,748), and are included in the FY 2018/19 department budget. BACKGROUND: This contract allows Family Support Services to provide comprehensive high quality in-home, out-of-home and site based respite services to support the relative caregivers and foster parents in their full-time role as caregivers. Family Support Services supports foster caregivers throughout Contra Costa County, most of which foster drug-exposed and medically fragile children. Respite services are available 24-hours a day, seven days a week. The program is designed to: improve the safety, permanence and well-being of the children receiving services; allow the primary caregiver(s) time for necessary self-care and to keep medical and other APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Family Support Services for Comprehensive Respite Services for Foster Parents May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 939 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) personal appointments; reduce stress, improve family stability; and ensure families are able to access a range of resources that support permanence, stability and self-sufficiency. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, foster caregivers will not have the opportunity to receive respite services for the children in their care, including those who are drug-exposed and medically fragile. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Respite services support four of Contra Costa County's community outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. Respite services may be used during times of crisis when a caregiver needs to be away from home or when parents or relative caregivers must pursue other activities that temporarily take them away from children whose special needs require ongoing care. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 940 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Risk Management to execute a contract amendment with Ah Hing (dba Risk Management Outsourcing, LLC), increase the payment limit by $59,494 to a new payment limit of $178,482 and extend the term from June 30, 2018 to December 31, 2018 to continue providing risk management services on behalf of Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs for risk management related services are charged out to operating departments through the Self-Insurance Internal Service Funds. BACKGROUND: Risk Management Outsourcing, LLP, has been providing expert services needed to: 1) develop self-insured workers' compensation and liability premium charges for Departments based on payroll and losses; 2) obtain and organize data for actuarial reviews of the County's self-insurance program; 3) develop insurance requirements, indemnification and other provisions to protect the County in contracts with Departments; 4) work with Departments and public contracting parties to develop reasonable alternatives to standard APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord, (925) 335-1450 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment/Extension with Ah Hing dba Risk Management Outsourcing LLC May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 941 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) form contract insurance requirements; 6) obtain and organize underwriting information required by the County's excess property, general liability, medical malpractice, bonding, aircraft, and workers' compensation insurance carrier; 7) prepare forms for filing of risk management information required by state and federal regulatory agencies. These services need to continue until a position to handle these functions can be filled. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not be able to ensure compliance with risk management and safety information required by state and federal regulatory agencies. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 942 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or his designee to execute a contract between the County and Steckbauer Weinhart, LLP, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, for legal services in the area of tax-related bankruptcy matters for the period from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: Bankruptcy claims have become more complex and beyond the expertise of the Treasurer-Tax Collector and, at times, County Counsel’s staff. The need for external legal services and legal representation in tax related bankruptcy matters is necessary to preserve the County’s interest in taxes owed by debtors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s ability to collect unpaid taxes from a taxpayer’s bankruptcy estate may be diminished, resulting in less tax revenue to the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Brice Bins, (925) 957-2848 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Steckbauer Weinhart, LLP, for Legal Services May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 943 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, to pay $16,465.69 to Concord Yellow Cab, Inc. for non-emergency transportation services to County clients and patients with HIV disease for services rendered to Contra Costa County residents for services provided between November 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 100% State funds. BACKGROUND: In July 2017, County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services manager executed Contract #72-100 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #72-100-1) with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., to provide non-emergency transportation services for County residents with HIV disease. On July 26, 2017, Public Health Clinic Services requested a reallocation of $16,465.69 for medical appointments, mental health appointments, wellness and prenatal checkup, for non-emergency transportation services to County clients and patients with HIV disease additional transportation services were requested by County and provided by the contractor in good faith. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Payments for Services #72-100-3 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 944 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) contractor is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of its services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. That theory provides that where a contractor has been asked to provide services without a valid contract, and the contractor does so to the benefit of the County, the contractor is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those services. The contractor has provided services at the request of the County after the original contract payment limit had been reached. The department cannot pay contractor for services rendered that exceed the contract limits. As such, the department recommends that the Board authorize the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment not to exceed $16,465.69 to Concord Yellow Cab, Inc. for services provided between November 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Board Order is not approved, the contractor will not be paid for services requested by County staff and provided by the contractor. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 945 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board action of February 13, 2018 (Item C.51), which authorized the Purchasing Agent to execute a purchase order with Beckman Coulter, Inc. in the amount of $253,395 for the purchase of the CellaVision DM9600 for the clinical laboratory at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, to reflect the correct payment limit of $264,009. FISCAL IMPACT: Funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On February 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved the Purchase Order with Beckman Coulter, Inc. in the amount of $253,395 for the purchase of the CellaVision DM9600 in order to process blood smears and body fluids. The purpose of this board order is to correct an administrative error in the total payment limit which should have read in an amount of $264,009 instead of $253,395. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the correction to the purchase order is not approved, CCRMC will not be able to purchase the CellaVision DM9600 to process blood smears and body fluids for the laboratory. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Margaret Uitti C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct February 13, 2018 Board Order item # C.51 with Beckman Coulter, Inc. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 946 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #24-628-18 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $332,800, to provide outpatient psychiatric services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients, for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 24% Mental Health Services Act, 38% State Mental Health Realignment, and 38% Federal Medi-Cal. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-628-17 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D, for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic training to clinical staff, for the intensive early psychosis intervention (First Hope) Program, located in Concord, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Approval of Contract #24-628-18 will allow contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services through June 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Matthew White, M.D., 925-957 5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-628-18 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 947 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not have access to the contractor’s outpatient psychiatric services. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 948 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #76-617 with Antoine Samman, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $240,000, to provide neurology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #76-617, the contractor will provide neurology services at CCRMC and Health Centers including clinic coverage, consultation, on-call coverage, training, and medical procedures, for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring neurology services at CCRMC and Health Centers will not have access to the contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-617 with Antoine Samman, M.D. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 949 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. AUTHORIZE initiation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) process to consider changing the General Plan land use designation from "Multiple-Family Residential-Very High Density" (MV) to "Multiple-Family Residential-Very High Special Density" (MS) for a group of five parcels totaling 2.48 acres located at the intersection of Del Hombre Lane and Roble Road in the Contra Costa Centre area, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 148-170-001, -022, -037, -041, and -042. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that granting this authorization does not imply any sort of endorsement for the application to amend the General Plan, but only that the matter is appropriate for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: None. If authorization is granted, the project applicant will pay application fees to cover the cost of processing the GPA. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Scott Youdall of The Hanover Company (applicant) requesting a GPA for an assemblage of five parcels located at the intersection of Del Hombre Lane and Roble Road in the Contra Costa Centre area (see Attachment A). The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: (925) 674-7791 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:General Plan Amendment Request for Contra Costa Centre Multi-Family Project May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 950 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) subject parcels are designated MV on the General Plan Land Use Element Map and zoned Planned Unit District (P-1) and Single-Family Residential District (R-15). The letter requests that the General Plan land use designation for the parcels be changed from MV to MS to allow development of a multiple-family residential project including up to 297 apartments. If the Board authorizes initiation of the GPA process, the applicant will then file Rezoning and Final Development Plan applications to allow review of the project’s design and layout, as well as its potential environmental impacts. The subject site is essentially square, flat, and occupied by two single-family residences. The site abuts multiple-family residences on its north, east, and south sides. Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail are immediately west. Attachments B and C are, respectively, a map showing the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations and an aerial photo of the site and its surroundings. The proposed GPA warrants further consideration. The subject site is located directly across from the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station and is ideal for high-density, transit-oriented multiple-family housing. Perhaps more importantly, the proposal provides a unique opportunity to consolidate the five small parcels comprising the site into one project, allowing for much more efficient use of the land than could occur if each parcel was developed separately. For these reasons, staff recommends authorization to proceed with the GPA process. Staff emphasizes, however, that authorization to proceed with the GPA process does not imply the Board's support or endorsement for the application to amend the General Plan, but only that this matter is appropriate for further consideration. Staff notes that if authorized by the Board, the application for a GPA will be administratively closed after one year if the associated Rezoning and Final Development Plan applications have not been submitted. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not authorize initiation of the GPA process, then an application to amend the General Plan cannot be filed and the subject site will retain its MV land use designation. The proposed multi-family residential project could not move forward at the density proposed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Letter from The Hanover Company Requesting General Plan Amendment Feasibility Study Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map Attachment C - Aerial Photo May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 951 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 952 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 953 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 954 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 955 SL MV M-3 MH OF MM OF PS M-3 OS PR M-3 M-3 Walnut Creek Walnut Creek O a k R d Treat BlvdOak RdTreat BlvdCoggins DrLas Juntas Way Jones RdS a n t o s L n Ch e r r y L n Roble Rd Alderwood LnSunne LnDel Hombre LnHoney Trail Harvey DrIronHorseLnWayneDrWayne CtDos Robles CtLeigh Ct I r onHorseTrailMap Created 4/10/2018by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0360720180Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Multiple APNs Contra Costa Centre / Pleasant Hill BART AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP18-0002) MS SL MVM-3 M-3 MH OF MM OF M-3 M-3 PS OS M-3 PR PS M-3 PS Walnut Creek Walnut CreekTreat Blvd O a k R d Treat BlvdOak RdCoggins DrLas Juntas Way Jones RdS a n t o s L n Ch e r r y L n Roble Rd Alderwood LnSunne LnDel Hombre LnHoney Trail H arvey D rIronHorse L n WayneD r Wayne CtDos Robles CtLeigh Ct I r onHorseTrailCurrent General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE Project Site Parcels City of Walnut Creek General Plan Designations SL (Single Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) OF (Office) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 956 Treat BlvdTreat Blvd Jones RdLas Juntas Way Roble RdCoggins DrSunne LnDel Hombre LnHoney Trail W a y n e D r Harvey DrIron Horse LnBarclay DrS a n t o s L n Anthony WayCoggins DrWalnut Creek Map Created 3/14/2018by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI018036090Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Multiple APNs Contra Costa Centre / Pleasant Hill BART AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP18-0002) City of Walnut Creek BART Station Project Site Project Site May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 957 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e) representing an accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is an informational report. BACKGROUND: Penal Code Section 4025(e) states that money and property deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund shall be expended by the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of inmates may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, including but not limited to education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the Sheriff. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the Board of Supervisors. This APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Liz Arbuckle, 925-335-1529 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Office of the Sheriff Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditure Report May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 958 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 959 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) fund received the majority of its revenues from inmate telephone commissions and commissary sales. The Director of Inmate Services, working with the public members of the Inmate Welfare Committee, manages the delivery of professional services, establishes an annual budget and oversees expenditures for the Sheriff. The Inmate Welfare Fund continues to provide valuable professional, educational, and recreational services to persons in custody at the Martinez Detention Facility, West County Detention Facility, and the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will be out of compliance with Penal Code section 4025(e). CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS FY 2016-17 Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditures May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 960 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 961 May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 962 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian to close the Kensington Library from June 4, 2018 through and including June 12, 2018 in order to repaint the interior, upgrade the employee work area and replace furniture in the public area. FISCAL IMPACT: The Library Fund will be contributing $25,000 and Kensington Library Friends will be contributing $11,000 to this planned refresh for repainting and the upgraded employee work area. BACKGROUND: This is a planned refresh of the Kensington Library. The Library will be paying for the painting, installation of ergonomic furniture in the employee work space and the reconfiguring of that space. The Friends of the Kensington Library will be paying for some furniture in the public area. The library will close on June 4th and reopen on June 14th (Wednesday the 13th is a regularly scheduled closed day). The book drop will not be open during the closure. Holds will not be available for pick up during the closure. Users needing library services during the closure can visit the nearby El Cerrito Library or any other Contra Costa County Library. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Walt Beveridge (925) 608-7730 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Planned Refurbishment of the Kensington County Library May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 963 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Kensington Library will not be closed to the public, which means the planned refresh will not occur. May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 964 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1802, entitled "Los Medanos Community Healthcare District" (attached), and FORWARD to the County Administrator for response. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2018 the 2017/18 Civil Grand Jury filed the above referenced attached report. Per standard procedures, this action alerts the Board of Supervisors that the report has been received and directs appropriate staff to review the report, provide the Board of Supervisors with an appropriate response, and forward that response to the Superior Court no later than July 18, 2018 (90 days). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: No immediate consequence. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/01/2018 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 1, 2018 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 1, 2018 Contra Costa County Subject:Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1802, "Los Medanos Community Healthcare District" May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 965 ATTACHMENTS Grand Jury Report No. 1802 "Los Medanos Community Healthcare District" May 1,2018 Contra Costa County BOS Minutes 966 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes967 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes968 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes969 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes970 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes971 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes972 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes973 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes974 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes975 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes976 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes977 May 1,2018Contra Costa County BOS Minutes978