Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11192019 -D R A F T 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 JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, VICE CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH 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. AGENDA November 19, 2019            9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) 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)) Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association v. Contra Costa County, David O. Livingston, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N19-0097 1. 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "When we give cheerfully and accept gratefully, everyone is blessed." ~Maya Angelou 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 Mary Ann Mason, Assistant County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.55 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 Contra Costa Television (CCTV) on its 25th anniversary. (Susan Shiu, Director of Communications and Media)     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 PRESENTATION recognizing November 17-23, 2019 as "United Against Hate Week" in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Gioia)    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 PRESENTATION recognizing Donald L. Bouchet for his years of service on the Treasury Oversight Committee. (Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector)    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 DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Item C.13 was removed to allow for public commentary and subsequently adopted as presented. Item C.52   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)   D.3 HEARING to consider approving the Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site General Plan Amendment authorizing future high-density senior housing on Willow Avenue and adopting a mitigated negative declaration, Rodeo area. (John Kopchik, Conservation and Development 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 D.4 CONSIDER approving an increase in solid waste collection rates of up to 4.63% for residential customers in the unincorporated County area served by Richmond Sanitary Service under the County’s Franchise Agreement, effective January 1, 2020, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Deidra Dingman, Conservation and Development Department)        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 recommendations on the scoring and ranking of commercial cannabis proposals, and FIX    D.5 CONSIDER recommendations on the scoring and ranking of commercial cannabis proposals, and FIX December 10, 2019 as the date for a Board decision on which proposals to invite to apply for a land use permit. (John Kopchik and Ruben Hernandez, Department of Conservation and Development)      D. 6 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no Closed Session announcements.   ADJOURN   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE the Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project, ADOPT a mitigated negative declaration, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Concord and Pacheco areas. (89% Federal Highway Bridge Program, 11% 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 C. 2 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2019/4489 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles on a portion of Driftwood Drive, as recommended by the Public Works Director, 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 Engineering Services   C. 3 APPROVE the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Dougherty Valley Maintenance County Service Area M-29 budget totaling $24,761,768, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% County Service Area M-29 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 Special Districts & County Airports   C. 4 APPROVE the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program project and ADOPT a mitigated negative declaration, Brentwood area. (100% Reimbursement Revenue)        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. 5 APPROVE the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, ADOPT a mitigated negative declaration, and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to advertise the Project, Martinez area. (45% San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Grant, 30% Flood Control Zone 3B Funds, 9% Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Improvement Grant, 9% Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Grant, 7% California Wildlife Conservation Board Grant)       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. 6 DENY claims filed by Matthew Caruso, Henry P. Giovannetti, Haleigh Parkinson, Katherine Denise Russo, Vine Hill Hardware, Inc. dba Bill's Ace Hardware, and Brian Dale Wilson. DENY late claim filed by Karla-Monique Veal.        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 Statutory Actions   C. 7 ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for October 2019.       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. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/641 recognizing Donald L. Bouchet for his years of service on the Treasury Oversight Committee, as recommended by the Treasurer-Tax Collector.       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. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/638 designating November 17-23 as "United Against Hate Week" in Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       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. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/640 recognizing Contra Costa Television (CCTV) on its 25th Anniversary, as recommended by the County Administrator.        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 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/649 recognizing Rachel Hurd as San Ramon Citizen of the Year, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        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 Ordinances Ordinances   C. 12 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-33 calling a special election for voter approval of a 35-year countywide transportation transaction and use tax and consolidating the special election with the statewide primary election on March 3, 2020 as requested by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Authority 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. 13 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-34 to prohibit the sale of tobacco vaping products, flavored tobacco products, and menthol cigarettes, and to prohibit the sale or delivery of cannabis vaping products. (Dan Peddycord, Public Health 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. 14 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-32, establishing the times when late fees accrue on unpaid animal license fees. (100% Revenue)        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. 15 APPOINT in lieu of election Smith Cunningham and Kevin Finta to the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) for a term of four years, as recommended by the County Administrator.       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 Appropriation Adjustments   C. 16 Environmental Health Division (0452) / Fleet ISF (0064): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5015 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $31,280 from the Environmental Health Division (0452) to ISF Fleet Services (0064) for the purchase of one vehicle for use with solid/medical waste inspection and enforcement activities. (100% Environmental Health 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 Personnel Actions   C. 17 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22520 to add one Library Services Manager (unrepresented) position to the Library Department. (100% Library 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. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22555 to increase the hours of one Mental Health    C. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22555 to increase the hours of one Mental Health Clinical Specialist position (represented) and decrease the hours of one Mental Health Clinical Specialist position (represented). (Cost neutral)       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. 19 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22554 to add one full-time Legal Assistant (represented) position, one full-time Administrative Services Assistant III (represented) position, and one full-time Public Defender Client Services Specialist (represented) position in the Public Defenders Office. (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. 20 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22553 to cancel one Departmental Fiscal Officer (unrepresented) position in the Employment and Human Services Department, Administrative Services Bureau. (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 Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 21 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education, to increase the payment limit to pay County by $121,732 to a new payment limit of $3,855,946 for general childcare and preschool development program services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (No County match)      C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Victim Services Branch for the Elder Abuse Program, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. (80% Federal, 20% In-Kind 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. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit a funding application to the National Association of County and City Health Officials, in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for emergency preparedness and training for the Contra Costa Medical Reserve Corps Non-Competitive Capacity Building Grant Project for the period February 1, 2020 through August 31, 2020. (No 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. 24 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., to pay County an amount not to exceed $85,901 for the County’s participation in the California Emerging Infections Program to study foodborne bacteria for the period September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2020. (No 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. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education, to increase the amount to pay County by $305,652 to a new payment limit of $11,118,905 for state preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (No 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. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $1,017,763 for the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Program to provide permanent supportive housing and support services for homeless individuals for the period March 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021. (94% Federal, 6% 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. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of Walnut Creek, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $6,000 for operation of the Adult Interim Housing Program to provide emergency housing and supportive services for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (No 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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Epic Systems, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $4,900,000 to a new payment limit of $11,900,000 for the purchase of annual maintenance, training, and additional modules with no change in the term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. (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. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Jon Whalen, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $360,960 to provide outpatient psychiatric services to minors for the period February 1, 2020 through January 31, 2021. (50% Mental Health Realignment Fund, 50% 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. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide telepsychiatry services to children and adolescents seen in children's clinics for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. (50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor  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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Mental Health Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,136,653 to provide Mental Health Services Act assisted outpatient treatment and assertive community treatment for eligible adults in Contra Costa County for the initial period of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 and a subsequent six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. (81% State Mental Health Services Act,19% 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. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Richard D. Baldwin, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $264,960 to provide geriatric psychiatric services for seriously and persistently mentally ill older adults at County's Adult Mental Health Clinics for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. (100% Mental Health Realignment 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. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mental Health Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,050,375 to provide mental health services including outpatient treatment, assertive community treatment and crisis intervention for adults in central Contra Costa County for an initial period of November 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 and a subsequent six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. (66% State Mental Health Services Act, 20% Mental Health Realignment, 14% 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. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Ray A. Morgan Company, LLC in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to provide the County with document imaging and records management services for the period of November 12, 2019 through October 31, 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. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to execute a contract amendment effective December 2, 2019 with Bibliocommons, Inc., to address the integration of third party technologies and deployment of mobile applications, with no change to the payment limit of $632,000 or term expiration of December 31, 2020. (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. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Kirsten Schick, D.C., in an amount not to exceed $403,200 to provide chiropractic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. (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 with    C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to coordinate the services of a Fire Services Emergency Medical Services Medical Director for the period December 15, 2019 through December 14, 2020. (100% Measure H 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. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Nova Care Home Health Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $280,000 to provide home health care services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. (100% 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. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Lincoln, effective November 1, 2019, to decrease the payment limit by $20,000 to a new payment limit of $5,626,310 in order to re-allocate funds for non-Medi-Cal services with no change in the term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, and to decrease the automatic extension payment limit by $10,000 to a new payment limit of $2,813,155 through December 31, 2020. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 35% Mental Health Realignment; 11% Antioch/Pittsburg Unified School Grant; 4% The Tides Foundation Grant)       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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Support4Recovery, Inc., effective November 1, 2019, to increase the payment limit by $134,400 to a new payment limit of $202,400 to provide specialty housing for adults participating in substance use disorder treatment for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (100% Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant)        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 Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Watermark Medical, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $526,000 for the rental of monitors, related patient supplies, and on-line management of sleep study results for the Cardiopulmonary Unit of the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2021. (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. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the County Librarian, a purchase order with Baker & Taylor in an amount not to exceed $322,927 for book rental for the Contra Costa County Library, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2020. (100% Library 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 Other Actions   C. 43 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/579 authorizing the execution and delivery of a First Amendment to    C. 43 ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/579 authorizing the execution and delivery of a First Amendment to the Facility and Site leases related to the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds to substitute certain real property owned by the County as leased assets for the bonds and take related actions. (No fiscal impact) (Consider with C. 44)        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 Acting as the Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority, ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/580 authorizing the execution and delivery of a first amendment to the Facility and Site leases related to the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds to substitute certain real property owned by the County as leased assets for the bonds and take related actions. (No fiscal impact) (Consider with C. 43)        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 with Louisiana State University to provide supervised field instruction to medical students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024. (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. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to close the Prewett Library in Antioch on Friday, November 29, 2019 and December 23, 26 & 27, 2019 to coincide with the holiday closure of the Antioch Community Center for annual maintenance projects. (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. 47 REFER to the Sustainability Committee a proposal by the Sustainability Commission that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Climate Emergency Resolution, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (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. 48 ACCEPT the monetary donation report from the Animal Services Department from July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019. (100% Animal Benefit 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. 49 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (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. 50 APPROVE the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan priorities for the federal Community Development    C. 50 APPROVE the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan priorities for the federal Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnerships Act, Emergency Solutions Grant, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS programs serving lower income persons/families, as recommended by the Affordable Housing Finance Committee, Finance Committee and Family and Human Services Committee. (100% federal 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. 51 ACCEPT the Contra Costa County Public Law Library Board of Trustees Fiscal Year 2018/19 report, as recommended by the County Administrator.        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 Public Works Director, or designee, to execute an amendment to an option agreement between the County and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District to extend the term of the District’s option to purchase County-owned property located at 1750 Oak Park Blvd and 75 Santa Barbara Road., Pleasant Hill. (100% Library 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. 53 APPROVE the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan as amended and restated, effective January 1, 2020, and AUTHORIZE the Plan Administrator to take all necessary actions to implement the revised plan. (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. 54 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on October 16, 2019, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (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. 55 ACCEPT quarterly report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body, as recommended by the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body.        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 REFER to the Public Protection Committee the matter of a Draft Racial Equity Plan for 2019-2024, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.        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 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. 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 See above Family & Human Services Committee See above Finance Committee See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee See above Internal Operations Committee See above Legislation Committee See above Public Protection Committee See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee 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 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 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 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site General Plan Amendment ("Project"), RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before the County (Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553), including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment and that the August 22, 2019, Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. 3. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program for the Project. 4. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. 5. ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/633, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Commercial ("CO") to Multiple-Family Residential Very High - Special ("MS") (County File #GP18-0007). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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, AICP (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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:General Plan Amendment – Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 6. APPROVE the Project findings and conditions of approval. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The Contra Costa Housing Successor Agency has covered costs associated with processing the proposed Project. BACKGROUND: COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING On October 23, 2019, the County Planning Commission heard and unanimously recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment. There was no public testimony. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project intends to amend the County General Plan to change the project site’s current land use designation from “Commercial” to “Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special” (“MS”). The project will potentially allow for future development of additional senior housing (consistent with neighboring property’s use) and a senior center available for public use. The project does not include any actual development of the subject site at this time. Any proposal for future development of the subject site will require County review and approval. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The project site is located in unincorporated Rodeo, on the 700 block of Willow Avenue, approximately 350 feet southwest of the San Pablo Avenue/Willow Avenue intersection. The site was acquired, along with the site of the existing senior housing development to the north, by the Redevelopment Agency in 2001. At that time the parcel was subdivided for the development of the 50-unit Rodeo Senior Apartments and the subject site remained as a future development site. The County, in its capacity as Housing Successor to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, is the owner of the site. The project site is an approximately 0.98 acre, relatively flat triangular lot. The area consists of primarily residential land uses. The project site’s west property line is also the City of Hercules’ jurisdiction boundary. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Initial Study was prepared for the project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The public review comment period for the Initial Study extended from August 22, 2019 until September 19, 2019. Comments were received from East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (“EBMUD”) and EAH Housing (property owners to the north). Below is a summary of the comments received and staff’s responses. The IS/MND was revised in response to EBMUDs comments, however the IS/MND was not recirculated for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines as the revisions were not substantial. EAH’s comments did not indicate inadequacies with the IS/MND and therefore do not have corresponding staff responses. On September 13, 2019, EBMUD provided a letter recommending specific minor corrections to the IS/MND: Comment(s): Under the “Hydrology and Water Quality” section, the IS/MND incorrectly states the subject site is within the EBMUD service area for storm water or flood control services. Staff Response: The IS/MND has been revised to state the subject site is within the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (Drainage Area 31, Flood Control Zone 8A). In the same section, the IS/MND incorrectly states the subject site is within the EBMUD East Bay Subbasin and subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act’s (“SGMA”) requirements, including implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan. This statement is deleted in the revised IS. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The current General Plan land use designation for the subject property is CO. The project involves an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation from CO to MS. The intent of the MS General Plan Land Use Designation is to promote the orderly establishment of high-density residential housing. This designation allows between 45 and 99.9 multiple-family units per net acre. Sites can range up to 967 square feet. With an average of 2.0 persons per unit, population densities would normally range from about 90 to about 200 persons per acre. Future development of the 0.98-acre property would result in a density of 90 units per net acre, which falls within the density range for the proposed MM designation. The subject property is located within the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and is consistent with the following policies of the Land Use Element: Countywide Policies Policy 3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that would prematurely extend development into areas lacking requisite services, facilities, and infrastructure shall be opposed. In accommodating new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant or under-used sites within urbanized area, which have the necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. Policy 3-22: Housing opportunities for all income levels shall be created. Fair affordable housing opportunities should exist for all economic segments of the county. Policy 3-28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. Policies for the Rodeo Area Policy 3-147: Direct the major portion of new residential development towards infilling and redevelopment of Rodeo proper. The subject property is vacant and under-utilized. A high-density residential project would be appropriate as it is an infill project in an already-developed area among single- and multiple-family residential uses. Additionally, all necessary utilities will be available for the subject site. As shown in the IS/MND, the proposed project would not create unmitigated adverse impacts on the environment or the existing community. The project is also consistent with the County’s Housing Element. GOAL 8: Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. Policy 8.3: Enhance the opportunity for seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, single parents, persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with mental illness, and farm workers to have access to housing of their choice. Goal 8 of the County’s Housing Element identifies the need to promote access to equal housing opportunities for Contra Costa residents. The proposed project will provide that opportunity on a property that is underutilized under the current General Plan Land Use Designation. The subject site is also adjacent to, and would serve, a similar development, and is within close proximity to public spaces, public transit and commercial uses. Overall, the proposed project substantially complies with the applicable General Plan policies. ZONING COMPLIANCE The subject property is located within the Rodeo Planned Unit District (“P-1”). Zoning standards are provided by the Rodeo Redevelopment Area Planned Unit Development Zoning Code and Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”) (2005). The Guidelines’ Development Standards Matrix provides standards for various land uses, including multiple-family high-density development. The proposed project would allow for the development of multifamily high-density development which is consistent with the Guidelines. Additionally, the subject property is vacant. Future site improvements will be designed to conform precisely to the Guidelines and County Code Standards. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current CO General Plan Land Use designation would remain and would not allow for the project site’s highest and best use. Additionally, approving the proposed project supports state and regional housing goals. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/633 Findings and COAs Maps CEQA Initial Study CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program 11-19-19 General Plan Amendment-Rodeo Sr Housing Successor Site Powerpoint THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/19/2019 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2019/633 Approving a General Plan Amendment (County File #GP18-0007) for the Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site General Plan Amendment. WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on November 12, 2019, to consider the Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site General Plan Amendment ("Project"), proposed for the Rodeo area. The Project includes the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and a General Plan Amendment (County File #GP18-0007). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the Project reclassifies land from Commercial ("CO") to Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special (“MS”). WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment Findings: a) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be consistent with the provisions of the County’s Urban Limit Line? Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) would be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”). The subject site is located inside the ULL, and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designation, Multiple-Family Residential Very High-Special (“MS”), is urban. No changes to the ULL boundary are proposed and the project does not involve extension of urban services beyond the ULL. b) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment result in a violation of the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Standard? Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, etc. The existing land use designation for the subject site, Commercial (“CO”), is an urban land use designation. No non-urban land use designations are present on-site. As the proposed MS land use designation is also an urban designation, there will be no change in the percentage of land devoted to urban and non-urban uses. c) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be consistent with the provisions of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority resolutions? The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) resolutions. Adoption of the proposed GPA would change the subject site’s maximum development potential from Commercial (0.1-1.0 Floor Area Ratio and 40% lot coverage) to 45-99.9 multiple-family residential units per net acre. The project would allow for future development of additional senior housing, similar to the use of the adjacent site. Implementing this use would result in traffic generation below the Measure J threshold for studying the proposed GPA’s potential impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. below the Measure J threshold for studying the proposed GPA’s potential impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. d) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent, in violation of Government Code Section 65300.5? Adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated areas. Although the proposed GPA involves a change in land use intensity at the subject site, the MS designation is consistent with the policies for the Rodeo Area, amongst others, and the site will remain consistent with the local land use context. e) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a)? The General Plan contains policies related to providing an adequate supply of housing and encouraging infill development on under-utilized sites within urbanized areas where necessary utilities are already installed. It is in the public interest to adopt the proposed GPA because the project is consistent with these policies and will increase the supply of affordable housing units. According to the Contra Costa Count 2017 General Plan Annual Progress Report (submitted to Board of Supervisors on March 27, 2018), only 3 permits were issued in 2017 for units which would be affordable to very low- or low-income households (income at 51 to 80 percent of the area median income [“AMI”] for Contra Costa County). While the County is well on its way toward meeting its total RHNA share, 84.2 percent of new housing production has been in the above-moderate income category and less than 1 percent has been in the very-low and low-income categories. The proposed project will allow for the construction of additional very low income housing units (30% to 50% of area median income), similar to what was approved on the adjacent senior housing site. f) Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment result in an exceedance of the annual limit on amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b)? The mandatory elements of the General Plan may be amended up to four times each calendar year. The proposed GPA would be the second for 2019. 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment (County File #GP13-0001) to reclassify the Land Use Designation of the subject property from Single Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) to Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density, and ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment, County File #GP13-0001, as the second General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2019, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Jamar Stamps, AICP (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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY (APPLICANT & OWNER); COUNTY FILE #GP18-0007 I. FINDINGS A. General Plan Amendment 1. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be consistent with the provisions of the County’s Urban Limit Line? Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) would be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”). The subject site is located inside the ULL, and therefore may be developed with “urban” or “non-urban” uses, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designation, Multiple-Family Residential Very High-Special (“MS”), is urban. No changes to the ULL boundary are proposed and the project does not involve extension of urban services beyond the ULL. 2. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment result in a violation of the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Standard? Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), originally approved by County voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be developed with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be preserved for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, wetlands, etc. The existing land use designation for the subject site, Commercial (“CO”), is an urban land use designation. No non-urban land use designations are present on-site. As the proposed MS land use designation is also an urban designation, there will be no change in the percentage of land devoted to urban and non-urban uses. 3. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be consistent with the provisions of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority resolutions? The project complies with the objectives and requirements of Measure J-2004, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program, and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) resolutions. Adoption of the proposed GPA BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 2 of 8 would change the subject site’s maximum development potential from Commercial (0.1-1.0 Floor Area Ratio and 40% lot coverage) to 45-99.9 multiple-family residential units per net acre. The project would allow for future development of additional senior housing, similar to the use of the adjacent site. Implementing this use would result in traffic generation below the Measure J threshold for studying the proposed GPA’s potential impacts on Routes of Regional Significance. 4. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent, in violation of Government Code Section 65300.5? Adoption of the proposed GPA will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing development in the unincorporated areas. Although the proposed GPA involves a change in land use intensity at the subject site, the MS designation is consistent with the policies for the Rodeo Area, amongst others, and the site will remain consistent with the local land use context. 5. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment be in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a)? The General Plan contains policies related to providing an adequate supply of housing and encouraging infill development on under-utilized sites within urbanized areas where necessary utilities are already installed. It is in the public interest to adopt the proposed GPA because the project is consistent with these policies and will increase the supply of affordable housing units. According to the Contra Costa Count 2017 General Plan Annual Progress Report (submitted to Board of Supervisors on March 27, 2018), only 3 permits were issued in 2017 for units which would be affordable to very low- or low- income households (income at 51 to 80 percent of the area median income [“AMI”] for Contra Costa County). While the County is well on its way toward meeting its total RHNA share, 84.2 percent of new housing production has been in the above-moderate income category and less than 1 percent has been in the very-low and low-income categories. The proposed project will allow for the construction of additional very low income housing units (30% to 50% of area median income), similar to what was approved on the adjacent senior housing site. BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 3 of 8 6. Would adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment result in an exceedance of the annual limit on amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b)? The mandatory elements of the General Plan may be amended up to four times each calendar year. The proposed GPA would be the second for 2019. B. Growth Management Findings 1. Traffic: Policy 4-c of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan requires a traffic impact analysis of any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more additional AM or PM peak-hour trips. The proposed project would allow for a residential density of 45-99.9 units per net acre. Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a project of this scale would not generate more than 100 peak-hour trips, and therefore, would not be required to have a project-specific traffic impact analysis. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on traffic in the local area. 2. Water: The project site is in the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) water service area. Future development proposals shall be submitted to and reviewed by EBMUD, and, by meeting the development standards of EBMUD, the project is expected to be accommodated without expansion of the existing system. Accordingly, the impact of providing water service to the proposed project would be less than significant. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The project site is served by the Rodeo Sanitary District (“RSD”). RSD will review future development proposals to provide comment and verify wastewater services are available. By meeting the development standards of RSD, future development is expected to be accommodated without expansion of the wastewater treatment system. Thus, no significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region are expected. 4. Fire Protection: Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project site and area are provided by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District (“RHFPD”). The closest fire station to the subject property is Station #75 located approximately less than one mile north of the subject site at 326 Third Street in Rodeo. Any proposed building plans would be reviewed and approved by the RHFPD to verify compliance with requirements for fire lane delineation, water supply, fire hydrants, amongst other items. As a result, there BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 4 of 8 is no significant increase in demand for fire services expected as a result of the project. 5. Public Protection: Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office (Bayo Vista Housing Substation) located approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site on Mariposa Avenue. Public protection standards under Policy 4-c of the Growth Management Element (“GME”) of the County General Plan state a Sheriff facility standard of “155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.” The proposed project would not induce a significant population increase within the County that would equal or exceed 1,000 persons. The project would potentially allow up to 90 multi-family units to be constructed, which may increase the area population by an estimated 257 residents, based on the U.S. Census Bureau rate of 2.86 persons per household (2013-2017)1 in Contra Costa County. The collected tax money will be used to augment existing police services to accommodate for the incremental increase in population as a result of the subdivision. 6. Parks and Recreation: As the project will add to the County’s population, future development will be required by the conditions of approval to pay applicable Park fees per unit. The Park Impact fee collected will be used for acquisition of parkland and development of parks and recreational facilities. The Park Dedication requirement allows the developer of land for residential use to dedicate land, pay an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The General Plan Growth Management Element requires major new development to finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. The property is generally level and slopes slightly toward Willow Avenue. Future site improvements should not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation. Future development plans will be submitted with a preliminary Storm Water Control Plan that provides the required storm drain systems and bioretention facilities for review and approval by the County Public Works Department (“PWD”). 1 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/contracostacountycalifornia BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 5 of 8 Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm water to an adequate natural watercourse. A preliminary SWCP will be reviewed by the PWD for adequacy. Review of a final SWCP is required prior to construction of improvements. Conformance of future development with this requirement would ensure that there would not be any significant risk due to an increase in project-related volume of runoff that would result in onsite or off-site flooding. C. Housing Element (SB 166) Finding 1. Required Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863(a), each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). At no time, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), shall a city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households. 2. Project Finding: A component of preparing the County’s Housing Element for the General Plan is the identification of vacant and underutilized sites suitable for residential development and an evaluation of the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the County’s share of the regional housing needs as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments. This property is identified in the County’s Housing Element site inventory with a unit potential of 15 very low income units. The County’s Housing Element site inventory currently has a surplus of approximately 266 lower income units. The proposed project will not exacerbate the County’s unmet share of the regional housing need for this cycle of the Housing Element. BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 6 of 8 II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #GP18-0007 Cultural Resources 1. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (“SCA”) and/or the Register of Professional Archeologists (“RPA”), and Wilton Rancheria, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. (MM CUL-1) 2. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a 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 property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should 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 should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. (MM CUL-2) Geology/Soils 3. With respect to paleontological resources, there is a possibility that buried archaeological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Standard Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development practice is to require that work shall stop if such materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite earthwork until a certified archaeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation as deemed necessary. Nevertheless, the included mitigation measures (CUL-1 and CUL-2) will address any unexpected discovery or find which may occur during the construction phase of the project. BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 7 of 8 Noise 4. To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the project, and shall be stated on the face of all construction plans (MM Noise-1):  The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties. This shall be communicated to all project- related contractors.  The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible.  Large trucks and heavy equipment are subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.  All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (certain low-impact, innocuous construction activities (e.g. interior work, painting, etc.) may be allowed during Saturdays after written approval by the Zoning Administrator), and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) BOS – November 12, 2019 County File #GP18-0007 Findings and COAs Page 8 of 8 o Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2019.asp California: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml Tribal Cultural Resources 5. The proposed project was distributed to Wilton Rancheria of the Department of Environmental Resources. There is a possibility that buried archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains could be present and accidental discovery could occur during future site development activities (e.g. grading and other earthwork), resulting in a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on tribal cultural resources. As a result, the applicant is required to implement mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts from accidental discovery to less than significant levels.         Maps  1) Parcel Page  2) Existing General Plan  3) Existing Zoning  4) Aerial  0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.070 1:4,514 Existing General Plan (Commercial) Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple 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) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) 0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.070 1:4,514 Existing Zoning (P-1, Planned Unit District) Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -SD-1 (Single Family Residential - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) R-6 -TOV -K (Single Family Residential - Tree Obstruction of View Ordinance and Kensington Combining District) R-6, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Two Family Residential - Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Planned Unit - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:4,514 Notes0.10.07 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.1 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Rodeo GPA Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations 1 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment – Rodeo Senior Housing Successor Site 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jamar Stamps, AICP, Senior Planner (925) 674-7832 4. Project Location: 700 Block of Willow Avenue, Rodeo Assessor’s Parcel Number: 357-120-074 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Successor Agency 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial (“CO”) 7. Zoning: Planned Unit District (“P-1”) 8. Description of Project: The Project Sponsor intends to amend the County General Plan to change the project site’s current land use designation from “Commercial” to “Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special” (“MS”). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in unincorporated Rodeo, on the 700 block of Willow Avenue, approximately 350 feet southwest of the San Pablo Avenue/Willow Avenue intersection. A Redevelopment Agency-acquired site (senior apartments, built in 1996) is on the immediately adjacent lot to the north. The project site is an approximately 0.98 acre, relatively flat triangular lot. The area consists of primarily residential land uses. The project site’s west property line is also the City of Hercules’ jurisdiction boundary. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement: None. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was sent on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 to Wilton Rancheria, the California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), Wednesday, April 24, 2019, Wilton Rancheria formally requested consultation for this project within the 30-day period afforded to them. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3 1. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact – According to the 2005-2020 County General Plan, the subject property is located in an urban area and not on a designated scenic route. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? No Impact – The subject property is not located near a scenic highway. Nor are ridge and rock outcroppings or historic buildings within the project area. Therefore, proposed project would have no impact on the aforementioned resources. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact – The subject property is located in an urbanized area. The proposed General Plan Land Use designation (Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special (“MS”)) provides for uses that are consistent with existing, surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on regulations governing scenic quality. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4 d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact – The subject property is located near Interstate 80 and surrounded by residential land uses. The site would potentially allow for multi-family housing, which is consistent with surrounding land uses with similar light emittance. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect nighttime views. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES – 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? SUMMARY: a-e) No Impact – The 2012 San Francisco Bay Area Important Farmland Map lists the project site as being “Urban and Built-Up Land.” The project will not affect prime, unique or any farmland of statewide importance. According to County records, no Williamson Act Contract is applicable to the subject parcel. The project site is currently zoned Planned Unit District (“P-1”) with a proposed General Plan designation of Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special (“MS”). The project site is in an urbanized area with no forestland near the vicinity. Therefore, no impact to agricultural or forestland will occur. Sources of Information Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map 2008, prepared by the California Department of Conservation Contra Costa County Code – Title 8 Zoning Ordinance Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6 3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? SUMMARY: a-b) Less Than Significant Impact – Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay air basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”). BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (“Plan”) focuses on two closely-related goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to bring the air basin into compliance with the requirements of Federal and State air quality standards. The Plan offers a long-range vision of how the Bay Area could look and function in a year 2050 post-carbon economy, and describes a comprehensive pollutant control strategy that the Air District will implement over the next three to five years to protect public health and protect the climate, while setting the region on a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. Three control strategies consistent with the proposed project, transportation, buildings and energy, describe specific actions to reduce emissions of air and climate pollutants. The relatively small scale and scope of the proposed project, or any potential future development allowed at the site should the General Plan Land Use designation change, would not preclude implementation or reduce the effectiveness of these control strategies. c-d) Less Than Significant Impact – The Plan contains screening criteria (derived using the Urban Land Use Emissions Model or “URBEMIS”) to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. The proposed project would change the subject site’s General Plan Land Use Designation from “Commercial” to “Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special,” and could potentially yield up to 90 multi-family dwelling units. This is well below the Plan’s operational (487 dwelling units) and construction-related (114 dwelling units) criteria air pollutant screening size. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Sources of Information Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Clean Air Plan (2017) Bay Area Air Quality Management District – California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (2017) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – 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 Game 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SUMMARY: a-f) No Impact – According to the 2005-2020 County General Plan, the subject property is located in an urban area and not located within any designated significant ecological/protected wildlife and plant species areas. The subject site is also not within the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”) boundary. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact biological resources. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Open Space Element East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SUMMARY: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? No Impact – The subject site is a vacant lot in an urban area; suitable for in-fill development. The subject site is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, nor is there any record of human remains at the site. The County General Plan – Open Space Element’s Figure 9-2 (Archaeological Sensitivity Map) indicates the subject site is in a “largely urbanized area.” The project site contains no cultural or historic resources, therefore the proposed project or any future development would result in no impact. b-c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation – According to the Archaeological Sensitivity map (Figure 9-2) of the County General Plan, the subject site is described as “largely urbanized areas and publicly owned lands excluded from archaeological sensitivity survey. However, there are also significant archaeological resources within the area.” Although unlikely, there is a possibility that buried archaeological or paleontological resources, or human remains, could be present and an accidental discovery could occur during any future site improvement activities (i.e. grading, other earthwork and future development) on the project site. The mitigation measures identified in this section will provide excavation crews with information needed to identify any potential undiscovered resources and reduce the potential impact of any find to less than significant levels. In addition, the proposed project was distributed to Wilton Rancheria (April, 23, 2019) of the Department of Environmental Resources. At their request (April 24, 2019), the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development will remain in consultation with Wilton Rancheria regarding this project. (CUL-1, CUL-2). Potential Impact: Potential future site improvement activities will result in ground disturbance at the subject property. This ground disturbance has the possibility for disturbing underground cultural resources that may not have been identified to date. Therefore, staff recommends that the following mitigations be incorporated at the project level to ensure that if cultural resources are discovered during future ground disturbance, that the proper actions are taken to ensure that any impacts to those resources are reduced to a less than significant level. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 Cultural Resources 1 (CUL-1): If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (“SCA”) and/or the Register of Professional Archeologists (“RPA”), and Wilton Rancheria, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. Cultural Resources 2 (CUL-2): If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a 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 property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should 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 should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Open Space Element California Register of Historical Resources (Webpage): http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 6. ENERGY – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? SUMMARY: a-b) Less Than Significant Impact – The subject site is within the service boundaries of energy (Pacific Gas & Electric or “PG&E”), water and wastewater utilities (East Bay Municipal Utility District or “EBMUD”). The proposed project is consistent with the land use context of the surrounding area. The project sponsor would be required to comply with conditions of approval regarding construction activity restrictions that outline best management practices to ensure that construction activities are conducted in the most efficient and least impactful way possible (e.g. limiting idling time for vehicles and equipment). The proposed project will be required to meet all energy efficiency standards outlined in the most recent California Building Code when designing any proposed buildings. Meeting or exceeding these energy efficiency requirements would ensure that the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact energy resources or conflict with state or local plans for renewable and/or efficient energy systems. Sources of Information Contra Costa County “CCMAP” Geographic Information System Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? SUMMARY: a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i-iii) Less Than Significant Impact – According to the County General Plan – Safety Element, the subject site is not located along a mapped earthquake fault. Estimated seismic ground response (Figure 10-4) for the subject site rates at “Moderate damage susceptibility. Local ground conditions vary. Sounds structures on firm, dry alluvium typically perform satisfactorily. Water saturated areas are potentially hazardous.” iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact – According to the County General Plan – Safety Element, the subject site is described as “Quaternary Alluvium” (Figure 10-1) which includes “Consolidated and unconsolidated sediments. Localized problems for building include expansive clays, hillside earthflows and unstable cut slopes.” The subject site has a Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 generally flat topography. Future site development would not require hillside manipulation or cut slopes. Building foundations will be designed in compliance with all required codes and standards to address the potential for expansive clays. Additionally, the General Plan maps geological hazards (Figure 10-6); the subject site is not located in a reclaimed or landslide deposit areas. Project impacts would be less than significant. b-e) Less Than Significant Impact – The County General Plan – Conservation Element, Figure 8-5 indicates the subject site is within “Lowland Soil Associations, The Soil Conservation Service recognized six central lowland soil associations. Most of these soil associations are slowly to very slowly permeable, highly expansive and corrosive with slight erosion hazards.” Conversion of agricultural lands to housing or other development typically temporarily renders exposed soil vulnerable to erosion. This condition improves and stabilizes following construction, if proper construction drainage and landscaping practices have been followed. However, given the subject site was not previously used for agricultural purposes, compromised soil stability is far less likely and impacts are considered less than significant. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant With Mitigation – With respect to paleontological resources, there is a possibility that buried archaeological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Standard Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development practice is to require that work shall stop if such materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite earthwork until a certified archaeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation as deemed necessary. Nevertheless, the included mitigation measures (CUL-1 and CUL-2) will address any unexpected discovery or find which may occur during the construction phase of the project. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Conservation Element Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Open Space Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – 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? SUMMARY: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact – Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change. Greenhouse gases include gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various fluorocarbons commonly found in aerosol sprays. Typically, a single residential or commercial construction project in the County would not generate enough greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions to substantially change the global average temperature; however, the accumulation of GHG emissions from all projects both within the County and outside the County has contributed and will contribute to global climate change. The future construction and operation of multi-family residences on the subject site will generate some GHG emissions; however, the amount generated would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. This determination has been made using the screening criteria provided in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Air Quality Guidelines (2017) as a guide, which specifies 94 dwelling units as the operational greenhouse gas screening size. If the project does not exceed the screening criteria, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to GHG emissions b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact – In December 2015, the County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. This Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) demonstrates Contra Costa County’s commitment to addressing the challenges of climate change by reducing local GHG emissions while improving community health. Additionally, this CAP meets the CEQA requirements for developing, and is consistent with the BAAQMD guidance on preparing, a qualified GHG reduction strategy. The strategies include measures such as implementing standards for green buildings and energy-efficient buildings, reducing vehicle and transit-related emissions, and reducing waste disposal. The proposed project, if approved, would institute a General Plan land use designation that could allow for the construction of up to 90 multi-family units. While this would generate some GHG emissions, it would not generate GHG emission levels that would result in a conflict with any Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 policy, plan, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Other than energy- efficient buildings, the Contra Costa County CAP does not include goals, policies or implementation strategies for residential development. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the County CAP and therefore have a less than significant impact. Sources of Information Bay Area Air Quality Management District – California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (2017) Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines May 2017 Part I: Thresholds of Significance & Project Screening Section 3.1 SCREENING CRITERIA, Table 3-1 Land Use Type Operational Criteria Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG Screening Size Construction-Related Screening Size Retirement community 487 du (ROG) 94 du 114 du (ROG) ROG = Reactive Organic Gasses Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? SUMMARY: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project does not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Over the long term, it can be anticipated that the use of chemicals by future residents would be typical (e.g. cleaning and gardening products). Accordingly, the risks of creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are considered to 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 likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact – As described above, the proposed project does not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Over the long term, it can be anticipated Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 that the use of chemicals by future occupants would be typical of residences (e.g. cleaning and gardening products). Additionally, a review of regulatory databases maintained by County, State, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the subject property. Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), the subject property is not identified as a hazardous materials site. Accordingly, the impact of a release of hazardous materials on the site would 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? No Impact – There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed project. 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? No Impact – A review of regulatory databases maintained by County, State, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the subject property. Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), the subject property is not identified as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact – The subject property is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as shown in Figure 5-5 of the County General Plan. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that would result in a substantial safety risk. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact – The subject property is a vacant lot located on Willow Avenue in Rodeo, CA. Any buildings or improvements proposed for the site will be required to provide a fire safety and emergency evacuation plan, in accordance with the California Fire Code, for future occupants. Willow Avenue is directly accessible from Interstate Highway 80 (“I-80”). Future proposed improvements must comply with the Hercules-Rodeo Fire Projection District’s Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 requirements for fire lane delineation, water supply and fire hydrants. While the proposed project has potential to increase the local population and induce demand on existing emergency services, the project is consistent with the County’s General Plan – Growth Management Element standards for emergency services and would therefore have a less than significant impact on any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact – The subject site is not located within or adjacent to wildland areas. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed project. Sources of Information California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Figure 5-5 Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Growth Management Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact – The new impervious surface, grading and excavation that could occur with future development of the subject site would be regulated pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) program. The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a statewide General Permit that applies to most storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Pursuant to the General Permit, if the proposed construction activity would disturb more than one acre of land, an applicant would be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) that includes Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through both construction and the life of the project. In addition, the proposed project must comply with applicable Contra Costa County C.3 requirements. The County has the authority to enforce compliance with its Municipal Regional Permit authority in its adopted C.3 requirements. The C.3 requirements stipulate that projects Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 creating and/or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet (5,000 square feet for projects that include parking lots, restaurants, automotive service facilities and gas stations) of impervious surface shall treat storm water runoff with permanent storm water management facilities, along with measures to control runoff rates and volumes. Compliance with the aforementioned regional and local standards ensures that the water quality effects of future development at the subject site will be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact – The subject site is within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) service area and water service for any future development would be authorized and regulated by the agency. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to the groundwater basin. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i-iii) Less Than Significant Impact – The General Plan Growth Management Element requires major new development to finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. The property is generally level and slopes slightly toward Willow Avenue. Future site improvements should not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation. Future development plans will be submitted with a preliminary Storm Water Control Plan that provides the required storm drain systems and bioretention facilities for review and approval by the County Public Works Department (“PWD”). Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm water to an adequate natural watercourse. A preliminary SWCP will be reviewed by the PWD for adequacy. Review of a final SWCP is required prior to construction of improvements. Conformance of future development with this requirement would ensure that there would not be any significant risk due to an increase in project-related volume of runoff that would result in onsite or off-site flooding. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact – The subject site is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact – The subject site is within the Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“GSA”) service area. Future development at the subject site would be regulated by the Contra Costa County Water Agency. Future development of the subject site would have no impact on the implementation of the subbasin’s sustainable groundwater management plan. Sources of Information Contra Costa County Geographic Information System Contra Costa County Code – Title 9 East Bay Municipal Utility District (Webpage): https://www.ebmud.com/ Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? SUMMARY: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact – The subject property is a less than 1-acre “in-fill” site set within an already established residential neighborhood. The potential uses for the subject site under the proposed General Plan land use designation (Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special) would be consistent with the land use setting. Therefore, the proposed project nor future development of the subject site as a result of the proposed project would cause physical community division. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact – The proposed project includes changing the subject site’s General Plan land use designation from “Commercial” to “Multiple-Family Residential Very-High – Special.” Such a change is consistent with the Rodeo Specific Plan, existing zoning and area land use context. Therefore, the proposed project would not produce impacts as a result from conflicts with existing land use plans, policies or adopted regulations. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Land Use Element Contra Costa County Geographic Information System Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 12. MINERAL RESOURCES – 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 of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SUMMARY: a-b) No Impact – According to the County General Plan – Conservation Element, Figure 8-4 the subject site is not within a significant mineral resource area. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Conservation Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 13. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant With Mitigation – Future development at the subject site is not expected to expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of the Community Noise Exposure Levels shown on Figure 11-6 of the General Plan – Noise Element. Figure 11-6 shows that levels of 65 decibels (“dB”) or less are normally acceptable and 70 dB or less are conditionally acceptable. According to Figure 11-5A of the Noise Element, the property is not located within an area potentially exposed to day/night average sound level (“DNL”) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) noise levels exceeding 60 A-weighted decibels (“dBA” or average sound levels). As noise levels at the property are not expected to exceed 60 dBA, the noise levels are considered “normally acceptable,” and the applicant would not be required to implement noise-reducing mitigations to reduce noise levels. In addition, Policy 11-4 of the Noise Element and Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations require that interior noise levels in new multi-family residences meet a DNL of 45 dBA. All new multi-family residences are required by the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division to provide a Title 24 report that includes building materials that will satisfy the required interior noise levels at a DNL of 45 dBA. Therefore, no additional mitigations would be required for interior noise levels. Finally, grading and construction activities related to future development of the site may induce periods of loud noise from construction equipment, vehicles, and tools. Although grading and construction activities would be temporary, such activities could have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact during project construction. Consequently, the applicant is required Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 to implement the noise mitigation measures to bring potential noise impacts to a less than significant level (Noise-1). Potential Impact Construction and grading-related activities for future development as a result of the proposed project has the potential to impose significant, albeit temporary (construction), noise-related impacts on the surrounding neighborhood if not mitigated. Mitigation Measure Noise-1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans.  The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors.  The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible.  Large trucks and heavy equipment are subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.  All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (certain low-impact, innocuous construction activities may be allowed during Saturdays after written approval by the Zoning Administrator), and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 o Day after Thanksgiving (State) o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction period noise impacts to a less than significant level. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact – Future use (residential) of the project site would not generate significant ground borne vibration. Also, the proposed project does not include, nor would it yield potential for, any future site development with components (e.g., pile driving) that would generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on ground-borne vibration or noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? No Impact – The subject property is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as shown in Figure 5-5 of the County General Plan. There are no established private airstrips within two miles of the subject site. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Transportation and Circulation Element Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Noise Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SUMMARY: a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would change the General Plan land use designation of the subject property from “Commercial” to “Multiple-Family Residential Very High – Special” (“MS”), which may increase the population (up to 257 residents using U.S. Census Bureau rate of 2.86 persons per household (2013-2017) in Contra Costa County) by implementing an estimated 90 units at the currently vacant site. The County General Plan’s Growth Management Plan standards generally consider an increase of 1,000 people as the threshold of significance. Therefore, the impact of adding 90 units to the area would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact – The subject property is currently a vacant lot and surrounded by residential and public/semi-public uses. The proposed project would allow for multi-family residential development. Since the subject property is undeveloped, a reduction in the number of housing units in the area would not occur. Rather, with the proposed General Plan land use designation the site could yield up to an additional 90 new living units. Therefore, the project would not have a negative effect on existing housing. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Land Use Element United States Census Bureau (Webpage): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/contracostacountycalifornia Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 15. PUBLIC SERVICES – 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: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? SUMMARY: 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: a) Fire Protection? Less Than Significant Impact – Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project site and area are provided by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District (“RHFPD”). The closest fire station to the subject property is Station #76 located approximately 2.1 miles south of the subject site at 1680 Refugio Valley Road in Hercules. Any proposed building plans would be reviewed and approved by the RHFPD to verify compliance with requirements for fire lane delineation, water supply, fire hydrants, amongst other items. As a result, potential impacts of the proposed project on fire protection services would be less than significant. b) Police Protection? Less Than Significant Impact – Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office (Martinez) located approximately 12.2 miles east of the project site. Public protection standards under Policy 4-c of the Growth Management Element (“GME”) of the County General Plan state a Sheriff facility standard of “155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.” The proposed project would not induce a significant population increase within the County that would equal or exceed 1,000 persons. The project would potentially allow up to 90 multi-family units to be constructed, which may increase the area population by an estimated 257 residents, based on the U.S. Census Bureau rate of 2.86 persons per household (2013-2017) in Contra Costa County. Therefore, the proposed project will not induce significant demand on existing Sheriff or support facilities such that expansion of said facilities would be required. c) Schools? Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 Less Than Significant Impact – Public education services for students from the area are provided by the John Swett Unified School District. For each new residential unit, the applicant would be required to pay the state-mandated school impact fees. Payment of the fees pursuant to State regulations for school services would reduce school impacts to less than significant levels. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact – Parks and recreation standards under the GME require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. The proposed project would not induce a significant population increase within the County that would equal or exceed 1,000 persons. Ninety multi-family residential units may be constructed under the proposed General Plan Land Use designation, which may directly increase the area population by an estimated 257 residents, based on the U.S. Census Bureau rate of 2.86 persons per household (2013-2017) in Contra Costa County. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay a Park Impact Fee for each new residence, which is used to acquire parkland and develop parks and recreation facilities to serve new residential development in the unincorporated areas of the County. Thus, there would be a less than significant impact from this project on the use of the local public parks and recreational facilities by residents of the Rodeo area. e) Other public facilities? Libraries: Less Than Significant Impact – Contra Costa Library operates 35 facilities in Contra Costa County. The closest facility is the Rodeo Library, which is approximately 0.8 miles north of the subject property. The Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local property taxes, with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. Accordingly, there would be a less than significant impact created by proposed project or future development at the subject site to the public libraries utilized by Contra Costa residents. Health Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact – Contra Costa County Health Services District (“CCCHSD”) operates a regional medical center (hospital) and 11 health centers and clinics in the County. County health facilities generally serve low income and uninsured patients. CCCHSD is primarily funded by federal and state funding programs, with additional revenue from local taxes. The proposed project may result in new residential development which would increase local tax revenues that support health care facilities. Thus, there would be a less than significant impact created by the proposed project or future development at the subject site to public health facilities utilized by Contra Costa residents. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Growth Management Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 United States Census Bureau (Webpage): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/contracostacountycalifornia Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Fire Stations (Webpage) http://www.cccfpd.org/station- address.php Contra Costa County Sheriff, Patrol Division (Webpage) http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/208/Patrol- Division Contra Costa Library (Webpage) http://ccclib.org/locations/index.html Contra Costa Health Services (Webpage) https://cchealth.org/centers-clinics/ Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 16. RECREATION 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, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SUMMARY: 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? Less Than Significant Impact – As discussed in the “Public Services” section of this Initial Study, parks and recreation standards under the General Plan Growth Management Element (“GME”) require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. Under the proposed General Plan land use designation, up to 90 multi-family units may be constructed at the subject site but would not induce a substantial population increase within the County. Thus, there would be a less than significant impact from the proposed project or future development to local public parks and recreational facilities utilized by Rodeo residents. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact – Potential future multi-family development at the project site would not result in a substantial increase in residential population. Parks and recreation standards under the GME require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. Thus, there would be no impact as a result of the proposed project, or any future development, requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Growth Management Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact – The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA” or “Authority”) is the County Congestion Management Agency (“CMA”). As the CMA, the Authority must, under State law, prepare a Congestion Management Program (“CMP”) and update it every two years. The CMP is meant to outline the CMA’s strategies for managing the performance of the regional transportation system within its county. Each CMP must contain several components, including: traffic level-of-service standards for State highways and principal arterials, and multi-modal performance measures to evaluate the current and future system. In addition, CCTA develops the Countywide Transportation Plan, which contains the Subregional Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (“RRS”). A RRS includes all portions of an Interstate or State highway, as well as major arterial roadways, that serve one or more of the following functions: connects two or more “regions” of the County, crosses County boundaries, carries a significant amount of through traffic, or provides access to a regional highway or transit facility (e.g., a BART station or freeway interchange). The Action Plans are intended to reduce the impact of new development on freeways, arterials, transit and major trails through establishing multi-modal transportation service objectives (“MTSOs”). Lastly, in collaboration with the cities and unincorporated County, CCTA develops the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (“CBPP”). The CBPP lays out the policies and actions to support and increase alternatives to driving alone like walking and bicycling in Contra Costa. The nearest RRS to the subject site is San Pablo Avenue (370 feet to the north). The Level of Service (“LOS”) monitoring report for the CMP analyzes 65 intersection locations throughout the County. The LOS standard for San Pablo Avenue is LOS E. All CMP-monitored intersections on San Pablo Avenue operate at LOS E or better (closest intersection to project is San Pablo Avenue/John Muir Parkway, which operates at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak period). Willow Avenue (project site frontage) is a four-lane arterial with sidewalks and Class II (striped) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 bicycle lanes. Future development of the subject property would provide similar frontage improvements. Potential future development at the site could yield up to 90 multi-family units under the proposed General Plan land use designation. However, the relatively small scale of such a project would not create traffic volumes that could conflict with the aforementioned programs and plans. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? No Impact – The County nor CCTA currently have adopted thresholds of significance for vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). Therefore, there would be no impact based on applicable VMT thresholds. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact – There are no increased hazards due to a design feature such as curves or intersections. The ingress/egress to the subject property will be placed along Willow Avenue consistent with General Plan policy, and new sidewalks will be provided on the project frontage. The Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District will review future improvement plans for conformance with the applicable standards, which include emergency access. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact – As previously mentioned, the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District will review future improvement plans for conformance with the applicable standards, which include emergency access. In addition, the subject site is vacant/unimproved; future improvements can be designed precisely to standard. Sources of Information CCTA Congestion Management Program (2017) CCTA Level of Service Monitoring Report (2015) CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018) Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Transportation and Circulation Element Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – 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: a) 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)? b) 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? SUMMARY: 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: a) 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)? No Impact – As discussed in “Cultural Resources” Section 5.a of this Initial Study, the California Public Resources code defines a historical resource as one that has been listed or is eligible for listing on the California Historical Register of Historical Resources, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in a historical survey meeting the requirements of the Public Resources Code. As there are no buildings or structures on the vacant project site listed on Contra Costa County’s Historic Resources Inventory, on California’s Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic places, the project site would not be considered a historical resource. Therefore, there would be no impact from the proposed project, or future development, to tribal cultural resources resulting in an adverse change of said historical resource. b) 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Less Than Significant With Mitigation – The proposed project was distributed to Wilton Rancheria of the Department of Environmental Resources. As discussed in “Cultural Resources” Sections 5.b, and 5.c of this Initial Study, there is a possibility that buried archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains could be present and accidental discovery could occur during future site development activities (e.g. grading and other earthwork), resulting in a Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 potentially significant adverse environmental impact on tribal cultural resources. As a result, the applicant is required to implement mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts from accidental discovery to less than significant levels. Sources of Information Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Open Space Element California Register of Historical Resources (Webpage): http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SUMMARY: a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact – The subject property is a vacant 0.98-acre lot within in an existing urban (primarily residential) area. Approval of the proposed project could yield future development of up to 90 multi-family units. None of the project characteristics could cause a reasonably foreseeable relocation or construction of new utilities or municipal service infrastructure. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is within the service area of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (“EBMUD”). Future development plans shall be submitted to and reviewed by EBMUD and, by meeting the development standards of EBMUD, the proposed project would be expected to be accommodated by existing water facilities without expansion of the existing system. Accordingly, the impact of providing water service to future development would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 c) 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? Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is within the Rodeo Sanitary District (“District”) service area. Future development plans shall be submitted to and reviewed by Rodeo Sanitary and, by meeting the development standards of the District, the proposed project would be expected to be accommodated by existing waste water treatment facilities without expansion of the existing system. Accordingly, the impact of serving future development would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would generate construction solid waste and post-construction residential solid waste. Construction waste in Contra Costa County is diverted away from landfills and recycled through the three established transfer stations in the County. Construction on the project site would be subject to the CalGreen Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Program administered by the County Department of Conservation and Development at the time of application for a building permit. The Debris Recovery Program would eliminate the construction debris headed to the landfill by diverting materials that can be recycled to appropriate recycling facilities. With respect to residential solid waste, the receiving landfill is the Keller Canyon Landfill, located at 901 Bailey Road in Bay Point. Keller Canyon is estimated to be at 15 percent of capacity. Residential waste from the proposed project would incrementally add to the operational waste headed to the landfill; however, the impact of the project-related residential waste is considered to be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact – The proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws related to solid waste. The project would institute the possibility of establishing multi-family residential land uses. However, this land use type would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste. Furthermore, compliance with CalGreen’s solid waste requirements, such as the Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Program, will ensure the project complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws related to solid waste Sources of Information Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 Contra Costa County Geographic Information System East Bay Municipal Utility District (Webpage): https://www.ebmud.com/ CalGreen/Construction & Demolition Debris Recovery Program (Webpage): http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/4746/CalGreen-Construction-Demolition-Debris- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SUMMARY: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a-d) No Impact – The subject site is not within or near CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State Responsibility Area lands. Sources of Information CAL FIRE (Webpage): https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 39 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project includes a proposed General Plan amendment from “Commercial” to “Multi-Family Residential Very High – Special,” which could potentially yield a buildout on the subject site of up to 90 multi-family residential units. With incorporating the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project (including the relatively small scale of the potential future “in-fill” development the proposed project could yield), location in an area that has been previously built-out, and the fact that the allowed land uses under the proposed project are consistent with existing improvements and environmental conditions, the potential for the proposed project to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat, threaten wildlife, or eliminate examples of California history is less than significant. Proposed mitigation measures in this Initial Study will be conditions of approval and the applicant will be responsible for their implementation. 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.) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 40 Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not create substantial cumulative impacts. The project site is located within the Urban Limit Line in an area that is primarily residential and public/semi-public land (e.g. schools, trails, parks, etc.). The proposed project would be consistent with the existing surrounding land use setting. In addition, there will be no significant increase in the demand for public services such as water, sewage disposal, or solid waste disposal that would require new or expanded infrastructure improvements that could impact the environment. In other words, the proposed project is of a nature and scale that has minimal impacts in areas such as population, traffic, public utilities, and aesthetics, which can often cause an impact to the environment when viewed cumulatively over various projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact – This Initial Study has disclosed impacts that would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. All identified mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the proposed project, and the applicant will be responsible for implementation of those measures. As a result, there would not be any environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 41 REFERENCES In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez, CA 94553) were consulted: 1. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 2. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (Title 8) 3. Contra Costa County Code (Title 9) 4. Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map 2008 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Clean Air Plan (2017) 6. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan 7. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Open Space Element 8. California Register of Historical Resources (Webpage): http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 9. Contra Costa County “CCMAP” Geographic Information System 10. Bay Area Air Quality Management District – California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (2017) 11. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines May 2017 12. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) 13. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 14. East Bay Municipal Utility District (Webpage): https://www.ebmud.com/ 15. United States Census Bureau (Webpage): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/contracostacountycalifornia 16. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Fire Stations (Webpage) http://www.cccfpd.org/station-address.php 17. Contra Costa County Sheriff, Patrol Division (Webpage) http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/208/Patrol-Division 18. Contra Costa Library (Webpage) http://ccclib.org/locations/index.html 19. Contra Costa Health Services (Webpage) https://cchealth.org/centers-clinics/ 20. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 – Growth Management Element 21. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) Congestion Management Program (2017) 22. CCTA Level of Service Monitoring Report (2015) 23. CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018) 24. California Register of Historical Resources (Webpage): http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 25. East Bay Municipal Utility District (Webpage): https://www.ebmud.com/ 26. CalGreen/Construction & Demolition Debris Recovery Program (Webpage): http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4746/CalGreen-Construction-Demolition-Debris- 27. CAL FIRE (Webpage): https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Existing General Plan MS (Multiple-Family Residential Very High-Special) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) Mitigation Monitoring Program County File #GP18-0007 700 Block of Willow Avenue Rodeo, CA 94572 APN: 357-120-074 October 23, 2019 Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (“COA”) GP18-0007 Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) Public Works Department (“PWD”) Page 2 of 6 SECTION 5: CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impacts: Construction activities on the project site could (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 geologic feature, and (d) disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation Measure(s): Cultural Resources-1 (CUL-1): If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (“SCA”) and/or the Register of Professional Archeologists (“RPA”), and Wilton Rancheria, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. Cultural Resources-2 (CUL-2): If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a 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 property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should 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 should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: During construction activities. Responsible Department or Agency: Project proponent and DCD. Compliance Verification: Submit reports to DCD for review and approval if there is a qualifying find on-site. SECTION 7: GEOLOGY/SOILS Potentially Significant Impact: Construction activities on the project site could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure(s): Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (“COA”) GP18-0007 Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) Public Works Department (“PWD”) Page 3 of 6 Geology/Soils-1 (GEO-1): With respect to paleontological resources, there is a possibility that buried archaeological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Standard Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development practice is to require that work shall stop if such materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite earthwork until a certified archaeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation as deemed necessary. Nevertheless, the included mitigation measures (CUL-1 and CUL-2) will address any unexpected discovery or find which may occur during the construction phase of the project. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: During construction activities. Responsible Department or Agency: Project proponent and DCD. Compliance Verification: Submit reports to DCD for review and approval if there is a qualifying find on-site. SECTION 12: NOISE Potentially Significant Impact: Construction activities on the project site could (a) expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies, and (d) generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measure(s): Noise-1: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the project, and shall be stated on the face of all construction plans:  The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors.  The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible.  Large trucks and heavy equipment are subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.  All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (certain low-impact, innocuous construction activities may be allowed during Saturdays after written approval by the Zoning Administrator), and are prohibited on state and Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (“COA”) GP18-0007 Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) Public Works Department (“PWD”) Page 4 of 6 federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to DCD approval of construction documents and throughout construction-related activity. Responsible Department or Agency: Project proponent, DCD and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: DCD ongoing monitoring of project compliance, and PWD implementation of traffic calming measures. SECTION 17: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact: Construction activities on the project site could (a)(ii) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource Mitigation Measure(s): Tribal Cultural Resources-1 (TCR-1): The proposed project was distributed to Wilton Rancheria of the Department of Environmental Resources. There is a possibility that buried archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains could be present and accidental discovery could occur during future site development activities (e.g. grading and other earthwork), resulting in a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on tribal cultural resources. As a result, the applicant is required to implement mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts from accidental discovery to less than significant levels. Implementing Action: COA Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (“COA”) GP18-0007 Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) Public Works Department (“PWD”) Page 5 of 6 Timing of Verification: During construction activities and throughout operations. Responsible Department or Agency: Project proponent and DCD. Compliance Verification: Submit archaeological report to DCD for review and approval if there is a qualifying find on-site. General Plan AmendmentRodeo Senior Housing Successor SiteCounty File#: GP18-0007Applicant/Owner: Contra Costa County Housing Successor Agency Board of Supervisors, November 19, 20191 BackgroundOriginally an approximately two acre parcel; subdivided into two parcels in 1998.Site rezoned to “Planned Unit District” (“P-1”)50-unit senior housing complex approved in 1998; construction completed in 2002. Pre-19982 Project Description700 Block of Willow Ave“Commercial” (“CO”) to “Multiple-Family Residential Very High –Special” (“MS”)Potential for future development of additional senior housing and a senior center. 3 Match LineMatch Line 4 Environmental ReviewCEQA Initial Study potentially significant impacts: Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The public review comment period: August 22, 2019 to September 19, 2019. Comments from EBMUD and EAH Housing (property owners to the north). 5 Staff AnalysisThe proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and land uses in the surrounding area. Existing CO General Plan no longer viable.Consistent with State and Regional housing goals. Less than significant environmental impacts. October 23, 2019, the County Planning Commission heard and unanimously approved the Project. There was no public testimony. 6 Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors:ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (“MMP”);APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP18-0007).Questions?Staff Contact: Jamar Stamps, AICP, Senior Plannerjamar.stamps@dcd.cccounty.us7 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT report from Crowe Horwath LLP dated November 7, 2019 regarding review of the Base Year Rate Application submitted by Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS), attached as Exhibit A. APPROVE an increase in the maximum solid waste collection rates in the amount of 4.63% for residential customers in the unincorporated County area served by RSS under the County’s Franchise Agreement, effective January 1, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. The costs for County staff time spent administering the Franchise Agreement and any related consulting services are covered by solid waste/recycling collection franchise fees. BACKGROUND: In October 1993, the County entered into a Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS), which was subsequently amended in 1994 and 2013. The Franchise Agreement grants RSS the exclusive privilege and duty to collect solid waste, recyclables and organics routinely generated by residential and commercial customers within the designated RSS service area (also known as the “Franchise Area”). The RSS Franchise Area covers the following eight (8) unincorporated communities, which are all located in APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Deidra Dingman, (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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Solid Waste Collection Rates in the Unincorporated West County Areas Served by Richmond Sanitary Service Under the County's Franchise Agreement BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Supervisorial District I, with the exception of Alhambra Valley located in District V: 1. Alhambra Valley (western portion) 2. Bayview 3. East Richmond Heights 4. El Sobrante 5. Montalvin Manor 6. North Richmond 7. Rollingwood 8. Tara Hills The County establishes and regulates Collection Rates that RSS is allowed to charge for residential collection services provided in their Franchise Area. These rates are established in accordance with the adopted rate setting methodology set forth in the “Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Solid Waste Charges As Applied to Richmond Sanitary Service a division of Republic Services, Inc.” (Rate Setting Methodology Manual). The County adopted methodology details rate setting process involving: (a) Base Year rate reviews that occur every four (4) years based on data submitted in detailed rate applications and accompanying audited financial statements; (b) Annual Interim Year rate adjustments calculated based on a weighted increase in controlled and uncontrolled costs and Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, alternatively in the intervening years between audited rate applications the Franchise allows adjustments which do not exceed the change in CPI without approval from the County Board of Supervisors (Interim Years); and (c) provides for the recovery of the reasonable costs incurred by RSS in performing services under the Franchise Agreement as well as allowable profit. Unlike the other County Franchise Agreements, the total monthly rate charged to ratepayers is comprised of both a Collection and Post-Collection Rate. The County only approves the Collection Rate charged to residential customers in the RSS service area. HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENTS SINCE THE PRIOR BASE YEAR Below is a brief summary of the rate adjustments approved by the County over the past four (4) years in the RSS Franchise Area: 2016: Base Year Rate Change – Rate increase of 2.19% was approved but not passed through to customers. Rate stabilization funding was used to offset the deferred 2.19% increase through 2019, so rates charged to customers in 2016 remained stable. 2017: Interim Year Rate Change – Annual CPI adjustment of 3.05%, however the increase was not passed through to ratepayers in 2017. Rate Stabilization funding was used to offset the deferred CPI increase in 2017. 2018: Interim Year Rate Change – Annual CPI adjustment of 3%, however rates were increased by 5% in order to pass through a portion of the deferred 2017 CPI increase. Rate Stabilization funding was used to offset the remainder of the 2017 CPI increase (approximately 1.05%) through 2019. 2019: Interim Year Rate Change – Annual CPI adjustment of 4.27% was passed through to ratepayers. 2020 BASE YEAR RATE REVIEW – RICHMOND SANITARY SERVICE (RSS) COLLECTION RATES To determine a Base Year Rate change for calendar year 2020, the County requested technical assistance from Crowe Horwath (consultant) to review the Base Year Rate Application submitted by RSS. The result of Crowe Horwath’s review is contained in their report dated November 7, 2019, which is attached as Exhibit A. Crowe Horwath conducted their review consistent with the County’s Rate Setting Manual for use in the service area and the recommendations resulting from the detailed review are contained in the attached report. The Base Year Rate setting process requires that a detailed rate change application be submitted by the Contractor along with an audited financial statement and supplemental financial and operational information. Using the detailed financial data provided, Crowe Horwath reviews several cost categories to determine the appropriate rate adjustment. The major cost categories include: 1. Direct Labor Costs 2. Corporate and Local General and Administrative Costs 3. Trucking and Equipment 4. Allowable Profit 5. County Franchise Fee The Rate Change Application submitted by RSS proposes a rate increase of 9.33%, which corresponds with a monthly increase of $2.36 in the residential Collection Rate for the 35 gallon cart, the most common service level in this Franchise area. Crowe Horwath reviewed the Application submitted by RSS for consistency with the Manual, County policies, and waste management industry practices. Their analysis did a comparison on year-to-year changes in revenues and costs for reasonableness and solicited explanations from RSS for material changes. This included the examination of actual data results for 2018, estimated results for 2019, and projected results for 2020. Using this methodology, Crowe Horwath’s 2020 Base Year rate review analysis concluded that adjustments are warranted for various cost categories, as summarized in the attached report. RECOMMENDED RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR 2020 The attached Final Report (Exhibit A) recommends that residential rates be increased by 4.63%, which is 4.7% less than was originally requested by RSS. This increase corresponds with a monthly increase of $1.17 in the most common (35-gallon cart) Collection Rate. Actual resulting monthly increases as well as the new increased monthly Collection Rates for all residential cart sizes in 2020 are shown in Table 1 of Exhibit B. Collection Rates are intended to be set on the same annual schedule as the Post-Collection Rate adjustments which take effect on January 1st in order to avoid having the rates billed to customers change more than once per year. The RecycleMore Board of Directors has not yet approved the Post-Collection Rates that will go into effect on January 1, 2020. The RecycleMore Board is scheduled to consider approving a 7.4% Post-Collection Rate increase at their November 14, 2019 meeting. The proposed 7.4% Post-Collection Rate increase for the most common service level (35-gallon cart) equates to $0.70 per month. The proposed monthly increases as well as the corresponding new monthly 2020 Post-Collection Rates for all residential cart sizes are shown in Table 2 of Exhibit B. When combining the proposed 2020 Post-Collection Rate increase (not yet approved by RecycleMore), with this recommended 4.63% increase to the Collection Rate (subject to approval by the County), the total monthly residential rate will increase by 5.4% for all cart sizes except the smallest 20-gallon cart which will increase by 5.2%. The combined Total Monthly Rate increase for the most common residential service level (35-gallon cart) equates to $1.87 per month. Total combined monthly increases and the corresponding new Total Monthly Rates for all residential cart sizes are shown in Table 3 of Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the recommendations are not approved by the Board of Supervisors, the maximum residential Collection Rates would remain unchanged. According to the terms of the County’s Franchise Agreement, RSS is potentially entitled to annual rate adjustments. The County is obligated to set rates in a manner consistent with the Rate Setting Methodology Manual pursuant to the terms of the Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service. The Rate Setting Methodology Manual provides the basis for determining what rate adjustments are warranted to generate adequate ratepayer revenue to cover RSS’ reasonable costs and allowable profit. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: 2020 Base Year Rate Review Report Exhibit B: 2020 Rate Tables for RSS Franchise Crowe LLP Independent Member Crowe International 575 Market Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, California 94105-5829 Tel 415.576.1100 Fax 415.576.1110 www.crowe.com November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman Conservation Programs Manager Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Community Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94553-4601 Subject: Analysis of 2020 Richmond Sanitary Services Rate Application Dear Ms. Dingman: This letter report represents results of Crowe LLP’s (Crowe) analysis of the 2020 rate application submitted by Richmond Sanitary Service to Contra Costa County (County). The County has a franchise with Richmond Sanitary Services (RSS, a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc.) to provide refuse and recycling collection services in unincorporated areas in western Contra Costa County. This letter report is organized into nine (9) sections as follows: A. Purpose of Analysis B. Summary C. Project Background D. Goals and Objectives of Rate Analysis E. Scope of Rate Analysis F. History of Collection Portion of the Rate G. 2020 Base Year Rate Application H. Analysis of 2020 Base Year Rate Application I. Comparison of Rates and Services to Other Neighboring Communities There are three (3) attachments to this report, as follows: A. Rate Application and Audited Financial Statements B. Adjusted Base Year Rate Model C. Comparative Rate Survey A. Purpose of Analysis The purpose of the 2020 Base Year Rate Analysis of RSS (Analysis) is to assist the County and RSS with establishing rates for refuse and recycling collection with RSS in accordance with the County’s Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Residential Solid Waste Charges (Manual), dated October 2014. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 2 November 7, 2019 The information in this Analysis is based on estimates, assumptions and other data developed by Crowe from information provided by RSS, knowledge of and participation in other studies, data supplied by the County, and other sources deemed to be reliable. Over the course of preparing this Analysis, we have not conducted an audit, review, or compilation of any financial or supplemental data used in the accompanying Analysis. We have made certain projections of calculations based on projected data which may vary from actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected and such variances may be material. We have no responsibility to update this Analysis for events or circumstances occurring after the date above. Our procedures and work product are intended for the benefit and use of the County. This engagement was not planned or conducted in contemplation of reliance by any other party or with respect to any specific transaction and is not intended to benefit or influence any other party. Therefore, items of possible interest to a third party may not be specifically addressed or matters may exist that could be assessed differently by a third party. B. Summary In its Application, RSS requested a rate increase, for the collection portion of the rate, of 9.33 percent for 2020. We recommend a rate increase of 4.63 percent for the collection portion of the rate for 2020. The collection portion of residential service rates would increase by between $1.06 and $3.36 per customer, per month, depending on the residential service level as shown in Table 1. For the most common 35- gallon cart residential service, the recommended collection rate would be $26.43 per customer, per month. Corresponding commercial collection rates (without the post-collection portion of the rate) are shown in Table 2. Finally, total residential rates, inclusive of both the collection and projected potential post-collection rate components are shown, by residential rate category, in Table 3.   Table 1 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County – Residential Collection Rates Recommended 4.63 Percent Collection Rate Increase for 2020, Per Customer, per Month  Service Level 2019 Collection Rate Rate Change 2020 Collection Rate 20 Gallon $22.97 $1.06 $24.03 35 Gallon $25.26 $1.17 $26.43 65 Gallon $48.89 $2.26 $51.15 95 Gallon $72.64 $3.36 $76.00 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 3 November 7, 2019 Table 2 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County - Commercial Collection Rates Selected Recommended 4.63 Percent Collection Rate Increase for 2020, Per Customer, Per Month  Service Level Current Once per Week Collection Rate Rate Change Potential New Once per Week Collection Rate 1-Cubic Yard $191.97 $8.89 $200.86 2-Cubic Yard $300.42 $13.91 $314.33 3-Cubic Yard $400.04 $18.52 $418.56 4-Cubic Yard $495.30 $22.93 $518.23 5-Cubic Yard $588.02 $27.23 $615.25 6-Cubic Yard $679.53 $31.46 $710.99 7-Cubic Yard $770.33 $35.67 $806.00 Table 3 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County – Total Residential Rates Recommended Total Residential Rate Increases for 2020 (Collection Plus Projected Post Collection), Per Customer, per Month Service Level Collection Rate (4.63% Increase) Projected Post Collection Rate (7.4% Increase)1 Total Rate 20 Gallon $24.03 $5.80 $29.83 35 Gallon $26.43 $10.17 $36.60 65 Gallon $51.15 $18.91 $70.06 95 Gallon $76.00 $28.37 $104.37 C. Project Background RSS has an exclusive franchise with the County to collect, and remove for disposal and recycling, residential, commercial, and light industrial solid waste and recyclable materials. RSS originally had a twenty (20) year franchise with the County, beginning October 12, 1993 and ending October 11, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors approved a Second Amendment to the County/RSS Franchise Agreement and determined that RSS’s performance had been satisfactory, which allowed RSS to exercise its option to extend the franchise term an additional ten (10) years through October 11, 2023. The RSS franchise includes the following eight (8) service areas in unincorporated Western Contra Costa County: 1. Bay View 2. East Richmond Heights 3. El Sobrante 4. Montalvin Manor 1 Final 2020 Post Collection rates have not yet been approved by the RecycleMore Board of Directors as of October 31, 2019, therefore the recommended rates expected to be presented for approval by RecycleMore’s Board on November 14, 2019 are used in Table 3. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 4 November 7, 2019 5. North Richmond 6. Rollingwood 7. Tara Hills 8. Western Portion of Alhambra Valley. Exhibit 1 below shows approximate boundary of RSS’ service area, including the Unincorporated West County area served under the County’s Franchise as well as the following four cities franchised separately: City of Hercules City of Pinole City of Richmond City of San Pablo. Exhibit 1 Map of West Contra Costa County Area Served by RSS Rollingwood Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 5 November 7, 2019 Table 4 and Table 5 below show current residential and commercial rates for the unincorporated West County territory included in the County/RSS Franchise service area. The County only regulates the “Collection” portion of monthly rates (Collection Rate). The remaining portion of the monthly rate, representing post collection activities, is regulated by the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA, also referred to as RecycleMore). Post collection activities include transfer, landfilling, materials processing, and composting. RSS consolidates refuse collected from unincorporated West County areas at the Golden Bear Transfer Station and Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) and transports refuse to Keller Canyon Landfill near Pittsburg in unincorporated Contra Costa County for disposal. Table 4 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Existing Total Residential Rates per Customer, per Month Service Level Collection Rate Post Collection Rate 2 Total Rate (2019) 20 Gallon $22.97 $5.40 $28.37 35 Gallon $25.26 $9.47 $34.73 65 Gallon $48.89 $17.61 $66.50 95 Gallon $72.64 $26.42 $99.06 Table 5 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Selected Total Commercial Rates per Customer, per Month (Existing as of October 4, 2019) Service Level One Pickup per Week Two Pickups Week 1-Cubic Yard $233.92 $411.61 2-Cubic Yard $384.32 $703.73 3-Cubic Yard $525.89 $979.05 4-Cubic Yard $663.10 $1,246.46 5-Cubic Yard $797.77 $1,509.92 6-Cubic Yard $931.23 $1,771.64 7-Cubic Yard $1,063.98 $2,032.43 2 Final 2019 Post Collection Rates approved by the RecycleMore Board of Directors in November 2018. Crowe LLP Independent Member Crowe International 575 Market Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, California 94105-5829 Tel 415.576.1100 Fax 415.576.1110 www.crowe.com RSS provides curbside recycling service services to unincorporated West County areas. RSS accepts the following recyclable material types: Aluminum (cans, foil, and trays) Aerosol cans Cardboard Glass bottles, jars, beverage and food containers Milk and juice cartons Mixed paper (chipboard, computer paper, junk mail/envelopes, white/colored paper, magazines, catalogs, paper bags, cereal and shoe boxes, and telephone books) All mixed rigid plastics (does not include polystyrene) Mixed rigid plastic packaging and plastic #1 through #7 food containers Newspaper Plastic bags and film (properly bagged) Plastic bottles (types #1 through #7), soda and water bottles, milk and juice jugs and bottles Scrap metal Steel and tin food and beverage cans. Residential customers commingle all of their recyclable materials into one 64-gallon cart. RSS collects residential curbside recyclables each week. RSS takes recyclable materials to the IRRF where they are separated on a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line. Republic Services owns and operates the IRRF. RSS collects organics every week in a 64-gallon cart. RSS collects foodwaste, food-soiled paper, and green waste within the organics container. Organics are composted at the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill site. RSS shifted from bi-weekly recycling and organics collection programs to weekly service on March 1, 2015. D. Goals and Objectives of Rate Analysis The Manual specifies that the primary goal of the rate setting process and methodology is to determine fair and equitable residential refuse collection charges that provide a reasonable profit level to RSS. Fairness is demonstrated through a rigorous review of RSS’s actual revenues and expenses. Residential charges also must be justifiable and supportable. Rate setting is prospective. The County sets rates in advance of when actual results occur. The County must therefore base rates on careful projections. To set rates, the County reviews trends in prior, current, and projected revenues, costs, and profits. The County sets rates that are intended to cover RSS costs of operations and allow a reasonable profit. The County uses the operating ratio (OR) method to project the profit level allowed to RSS in a base year. The actual OR level received by RSS in a base year, and in subsequent interim years, is not however, guaranteed. E. Scope of Rate Analysis The County based the scope of work for this analysis on the requirements in the Manual. The base year process has seven (7) steps, five (5) of which are the County’s responsibility. RSS is responsible for the other two (2) steps. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 7 November 7, 2019 Crowe, as the Consultant, assisted the “County” with five steps in the rate review process (#2 through #5). We carefully analyzed the 2020 rate application. We conducted our work in accordance with procedures described in the Manual. We completed the following activities: Verified the application was complete3 Determined data presented in the application were mathematically correct and consistent Reconciled calendar year 2018 financial information provided in the application to the 2018 financial audit4 Compared actual 2018 results with estimated 2019 and projected 2020 financial results Analyzed significant historical fluctuations in major cost categories Examined the relationships between financial and operating information for reasonableness Assessed RSS franchise fees payments to the County Conducted a survey of rates in other similar neighboring communities. We submitted a formal data request to RSS on September 9, 2019. We received RSS responses on September 18, 2019. We met with RSS management on September 19, 2019, to ask remaining follow-up questions and provide RSS with an opportunity to provide additional context regarding the rate application. F. History of Collection Portion of the Rate As specified in the Agreement, the County directly regulates the collection portion of the residential rate. Collection rate changes, since the County adopted the Manual in 2003, increased on a compounded basis by 2.52 percent per year over the thirteen years since 2003 and are shown in Table 6. In August 2003, following the base year review, the County approved an increase in the service portion of the 35-gallon cart rate to $17.50 per month. As of October 2019, the service portion of the 35-gallon cart rate was $25.26 per month. Over this period, the collection portion of the 35-gallon cart rate increased 44.3 percent. The difference between the August 2019 CPI (295.490) and the August 2003 CPI (196.30) was 50.5 percent, higher than the actual change in the service portion of the 35-gallon cart rate.5 The effective collection portion of the rate, not including the program changes resulting from the post- collection agreement in 2014 (see footnote 7 on page 9), as of 2019 equals $21.71 per month for the 35 gallon service level ($25.26 less $3.55 per month). This $21.71 amount represents an increase of 24.1 percent since 2003, well below the 50.5 percent increase in the CPI for this period. G. 2020 Base Year Rate Application The County received RSS’s Base Year Rate Change Application (Application) on July 24, 2019. A copy of the Application is provided in Attachment A, at the end of this report. RSS used year-to-date information (i.e., first quarter) to estimate 2019 financial results. Year 2020 results are projected in the Application. RSS requested a 9.33 percent service rate increase effective January 1, 2020. This request corresponds to a $2.36 per customer, per month, increase in the collection portion of the 35-gallon rate, the most common County service level. 3 We submitted a letter of completeness to RSS on September 9, 2019. 4 Our review did not represent a financial audit of RSS. Armanino LLP completed a 2018 financial audit of all RSS operations, including the County (provided in Attachment A). For purposes of preparing the 2018 cost data for the Application, RSS allocated County costs from total audited RSS costs. 5 The applicable comparable consumer price index is the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index, all urban consumers. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 8 November 7, 2019 Table 6 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Historical Residential Collection Rate Changes: 2003 to 2019 (Not Including Post Collection) Year Collection Portion of the Rate (35G Customer, Per Month) Percent Change in Collection Portion of the Rate 2003 $17.50 4.15%6 2004 $17.50 0.00% 2005 $17.85 2.00% 2006 $18.35 2.95% 2007 $19.25 5.04% 2008 $19.25 0.00%7 2009 $19.25 0.00%4 2010 $19.25 0.00%8 2011 $19.61 2.00% 2012 $19.61 0.00% 2013 $19.61 0.00% 2014 $23.169 10.6% to 18.00% 2015 $23.04 ~0.00% 2016 $23.04 0.00%10 2017 $23.04 0.00%10 2018 $24.19 5.00%11 2019 $25.26 4.27% 6 Rate increase implemented August 1, 2003. 7 In December 2007, the County Board of Supervisors deferred implementation of the recommended 4.39 percent decrease as a means of stabilizing rates while generating revenue the County could use to aid in the prevention or abatement of illegal dumping within the County franchise area served by RSS. RSS was authorized to continue charging customers the same service rates through December 31, 2008 and directed to provide County with the surplus revenue collected from customers in 2008 (approximately $111,378). This surplus amount was no longer collected in 2009. 8 Rates were left unchanged in 2010. A recommended 4.11 percent reduction was treated as a credit to offset the interim year rate change for 2011. 9 In 2014, RecycleMore negotiated a new post collection agreement with Republic Services. At that time, certain costs formerly included as part of the post-collection charge were shifted to the collection portion of the rate. Though the collection portion of the residential rate increased 11 to 18 percent, there was an equally offsetting reduction in the post collection portion of the rate. Thus, total County residential rates did not change in 2014. The County also implemented new enhanced services at this time. The rate increases for these new services were $0.95 for 20 gallon, $1.67 for 35 gallon, $3.11 for 65 gallon, and $4.66 for 95 gallon residential services. The 2014 rate increase also included a rate stabilization adjustment for the purpose of offsetting potential future rate increases or supplementing amounts used for additional new services. For residential services, this rate stabilization amount was as follows: $1.07 (20 gallon), $1.88 (35 gallon), $3.49 (65 gallon), and $5.24 (95 gallon). 10 Rates were left unchanged in 2016 and 2017. The County Board of Supervisors utilized rate stabilization off-sets to defer pass- through of the recommended 2.19 percent base year increase in 2016 and the 3.05 percent interim year increase in 2017. 11 Rate increase includes the 3% increase for 2018 as well as a portion of the 3.05 percent interim year increase that was deferred in 2017. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 9 November 7, 2019 H. Analysis of 2020 Base Year Rate Application This section details findings from Crowe’s analysis of RSS’s 2020 Application. We identified the impact of each finding in terms of a dollar value increase or a decrease in the “revenue requirement” identified in the Application. The revenue requirement is the amount of revenue that RSS needs to collect, through rates charged to customers, to cover costs of providing the service plus a reasonable financial return. Increasing the revenue requirement results in an increase in rates and decreasing the revenue requirement results in a decrease in rates. Crowe assessed the Application for consistency with the Manual, County policies, and waste management industry practices. We compared year-to-year changes in revenues and costs for reasonableness and solicited explanations from RSS for material changes. We examined actual results from 2018, estimated results for 2019, and projected results for 2020. Our adjusted rate model is provided in Exhibit B-1, of Attachment B. 1. RSS Financial and Operating Results Since the 2012 Base Year In Table 7, we compare West County approved service rate changes with changes in residential revenues and residential accounts. Residential revenues increased 6.19 percent between 2016 and 2018. This increase is supported by the compound impact of (1) the total rate increases and (2) the increase in number of residential accounts. In Table 8, we compare West County approved service rate changes with changes in commercial service revenues and tons. From the time series, we find that service rates increased 6.14 percent between 2016 and 2018, commercial tonnage decreased by 2.9 percent, contributing to the overall estimated 8.7 percent increase in commercial revenues. Table 7 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Comparison of Residential Rate Increases with Changes in Residential Revenues and Accounts Year Rate Increases Change in Residential Accounts Change in RSS Residential Collection Revenues 2016 to 2018 5.00% 0.32% 6.19% Table 8 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Comparison of Commercial Rate Increases with Changes in Commercial Revenues and Tonnage Year Rate Increases Change in Commercial Tons Change in RSS Commercial Collection Revenues 2016 to 2018 6.14% -2.9% 8.7% For the above comparison, in addition to rate changes, we used the number of accounts as a proxy for changes to residential revenues while we used tonnage as a proxy for changes to commercial revenues. Tonnage is more applicable for the commercial sectors as businesses are more inclined than the residential sector to adjust their service level based on tonnage changes. Between 2016 and 2018, RSS County revenues and costs increased at different rates, as shown in Table 9. RSS costs increased 13.0 percent, while RSS revenues increased 6.9 percent. During this same 2016 to Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 10 November 7, 2019 2018 period, RSS’s actual operating ratio increased from 89.3 to 95.5 percent.12 This period of relatively higher costs was primarily driven by high labor costs and increased corporate allocation of G&A costs. RSS experienced high turnover amongst its drivers in 2017 due to the availability of similar positions with higher pay in the San Francisco area, which forced the company to pay overtime to its remaining drivers to maintain its service levels. Table 9 Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Change in RSS Revenues and Costs (2016 to 2018) Description Percent Change Revenues 6.9% Costs 13.0% 2. Method for Allocating RSS Costs to West County Areas In addition to unincorporated West County, RSS includes the following other service areas in their total consolidated RSS financial statements, provided in Attachment A: Hercules Pinole Richmond Rodeo San Pablo In Table 10, we provide the methods used by RSS to allocate total consolidated costs to unincorporated West County areas. RSS allocated nearly all West County costs from total consolidated RSS costs using its route allocation method. Table 10 Richmond Sanitary Service Methods Used to Allocate Consolidated Costs To Each Jurisdiction Served Cost Allocation Method13 Labor Route Allocation Corporate and Local General and Administrative Costs Route Allocation Depreciation and Other Operating Costs Route Allocation Trucking and Equipment Route Allocation Franchise Fees Direct 12 The County’s target operating ratio during base years is 90 percent. A smaller operating ratio represents a larger return. 13 Note that the company incorrectly identified its use of other allocation methods on page 2 of 6 of the Application (e.g., accounts, direct) to allocate the County’s share of total costs. The company used the route allocation methodology to allocate all of its costs other than franchise fees. We do not think that this alternative allocation methodology had a negative impact on unincorporated West Contra Costa County. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 11 November 7, 2019 RSS’s route allocation method is based on time-and-motion analyses for each residential, commercial, and industrial route. For each route, RSS requires its drivers to record start and stop times and various activity times for a sample of actual routes performed during the year. For the residential sector, RSS measures the number of drive-bys, per hour, on routes with West County customers (e.g., for calendar year 2018, 105.25 drive-bys per hour).14 RSS divides the total number of County drive-bys over a given period by the number of drive-bys per hour to determine the total number of hours over that period spent on West County customers. RSS divides the number of hours spent on West County customers by the total number of hours spent on all of its customers to determine the percentage of total residential costs associated with West County operations (for 2018, 17.06 percent). RSS performs a similar analysis for the commercial sector, but instead of drive-bys per hour, RSS uses lifts per hour. For the industrial sector, RSS uses the total number of hours spent on drop box activities. In 2018, the West County’s allocation for the commercial sector was 7.12 percent of total RSS business and the industrial sector was 3.89 percent of total RSS business. In Table 11, we compare County route allocation percentages in 2018, with those from 2014, 2011, and 2006. As shown, for the residential sector the allocation has remained relatively similar over time. However, for the commercial and industrial sectors, the route allocation percentages have declined over time, suggesting that RSS has become more efficient at serving the West County commercial and industrial sectors, relative to how RSS serves its overall commercial and industrial business. For the industrial sector, some of this shift is caused by RSS obtaining more non-unincorporated County business that happens to be farther away from, and requires longer travel distances, to the disposal facility. Table 11 Richmond Sanitary Service County Route Allocation Percentages (Calendar Years 2006, 2011, 2014, 2018) Sector County 2006 Route Allocation (%) County 2011 Route Allocation (%) County 2014 Route Allocation (%) County 2018 Route Allocation (%) Residential (refuse)15 17.6% 17.5% 17.2% 17.1% Commercial 8.3% 7.2% 6.5% 7.1% Industrial 8.8% 6.3% 4.2% 3.9% Total 14.5% 14.2% 13.7% 13.93% RSS maintains operating costs by sector. For 2018, RSS’s operating costs for each sector were as follows: Residential – 72.53% (2014 – 71%, 2011 - 69%, 2006 - 66%) Commercial – 14.91% (2014 – 15%, 2011 - 14%, 2006 - 15%) Industrial – 12.56% (2014 – 14.62%, 2011 - 17.03%, 2006 - 19.88%). To calculate the County’s share of total RSS costs, RSS multiplied the operating cost percentages above by the route allocations in Table 11 for each sector, and summed the three results as follows: 14 In 2014, residential drive-bys, per hour, were 98.16. In 2011, residential drive-bys, per hour, were 99.81. In 2006, residential drive- bys, per hour, were 82.14. 15 Does not include curbside recycling or organics. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 12 November 7, 2019 Residential – 72.53% x 17.06% = 12.38% Commercial – 14.91% x 7.12% = 1.06% Industrial – 12.56% x 3.89% = 0.49% Total = 13.93 percent. For 2018, RSS allocated 13.93 percent of consolidated RSS costs to unincorporated West County (for those cost categories requiring the route allocation method). The route allocation method is acceptable to use to allocate RSS costs to West County areas. This method is consistent with waste management industry practice. The pooled costs that RSS allocates to each jurisdiction, using the route allocation method, also generally do not vary between jurisdictions. 3. Review of RSS Revenues, Costs, and Profits This section describes our analysis of each revenue, cost, and profit category. We identify adjustments to the Application. We express adjustments based on their impact to RSS’s revenue requirement. The revenue requirement is equal to the sum of the following: Total allowable costs Allowable operating profits Total pass through costs. RSS’s requested County revenue requirement, as submitted in the Application, is $4,870,878. This figure is shown on line 32 of the Application in Attachment A. We summarize the impact of our review findings in Exhibit B-1. We show findings as adjustments to the 2020 revenue requirement. Adjustments reduce the RSS 2020 revenue requirement by $199,984. i. Revenues Residential Revenues RSS projected no change in residential revenues between 2019 and 2020. RSS indicated in its Application that residential accounts were relatively unchanged, decreasing by 0.1 percent from 2018 to 2019. RSS expects residential accounts to remain at 2019 levels in 2020. Residential revenues have been relatively stable dating back to 2008. Due to the limited changes in the housing market in the area and the uncertain overall economic climate, we do not project much growth in the residential sector near term. We accepted RSS’s revenue projection for 2020, with one minor $1,263 increase to match the detailed residential revenue figures provided by RSS in support of the projection. Net Impact: [$1,263 increase in residential revenues] Commercial and Light Industrial Revenues RSS projected no change in commercial and light industrial revenues between 2019 and 2020. Commercial and light industrial revenues are projected to decrease slightly in 2019, but in general have been relatively stable since 2008. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 13 November 7, 2019 Similar to the residential sector, due to the current uncertain overall economic climate, we do not project growth in the commercial and industrial sectors near term. We accepted RSS’s commercial and light industry revenues projection for 2020. Net Impact: [No change to the revenues] ii. Costs Direct Labor RSS projected labor costs to increase 5.0 percent for both 2019 and 2020. We reviewed labor agreements between RSS and the Teamsters Local 315 (garbage and recycling drivers). The projected 5.0 percent increases in labor costs for 2019 and 2020 are inconsistent with required combined changes in wages, health and welfare, and pension costs specified in RSS labor agreements. Based on these agreements and current RSS-provided driver allocations, we recommend the county allow a 3.22 percent increase in total driver compensation for 2019 and a 4.46 percent increase for 2020. Using data from RSS’s collective bargaining agreements, Crowe calculated the average annual percent increases in RSS's total compensation cost by annualizing and aggregating the wage and benefit costs for both garbage and recycle drivers. We then calculated a weighted average of these two increases for 2019 (3.22%) and 2020 (4.46%) using RSS-provided driver headcounts as weights. Since the total driver headcount has not changed significantly since 2018 (it had increased by one as of September 25, 2019), the total number of regular and overtime driver hours has probably not changed significantly since 2018 either and is unlikely to change significantly in 2020. Assuming total hours were constant from 2018 to 2020 and given that overtime and benefit costs were included in direct labor costs for 2018, direct labor costs for 2018 in conjunction with the previously described annual increases can be used to estimate direct labor costs for 2019 and 2020. To estimate 2019 direct labor costs, we assumed a 3.22% increase over the actual 2018 direct labor cost. To estimate 2020 direct labor costs, we assumed a 4.46% increase over the estimated 2019 direct labor cost. This method effectively accounts for both overtime labor hours, since these are included in the 2018 direct labor cost, and increases in wage and benefit costs, which occur according to a fixed schedule defined in the collective bargaining agreements. There will not be unforeseen increases in wage, health, welfare, or pension costs per driver until the current collective bargaining agreements expire on March 1, 2022. Net Impact: [Decrease in revenue requirement of $49,714] Corporate and Local General and Administrative Costs The Manual (page 1-14) specifies a cap on corporate and local general and administrative costs equal to 12.2 percent of the total revenue requirement. However, at the time the Manual was written, the model included post collection (or IRRF) costs in the revenue requirement. If we include estimated post collection costs in the adjusted revenue requirement, corporate and local general and administrative costs are 11.7 and 12.1 percent of the revenue requirement for 2015 and 2016 respectively, and within the cap guideline. RSS originally allocated 20.37% of Consulting and Professional Fees to Unincorporated County. Crowe subtracted $55,581 in 2018 lobbying expenses from the $333,405 in 2018 Consulting and Professional Fees, leaving $277,284 in allowable costs. From this amount, we subtracted a $129,000 audit fee expense which was for the required base year audit. In order to spread the expense over the four year cycle until the next Base Year rate setting, an annual allocation amount equal to1/4 of this Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 14 November 7, 2019 $129,000 was used ($32,250). The remaining $148,824 in Consulting and Professional Fees was multiplied by the route allocation base (13.93%) to obtain Unincorporated County’s portion, which was $20,725. The two amounts allocated to Unincorporated County totaled $52,975 ($32,250 audit fees + $20,725 other allocated fees). We then substituted $52,975 into the 2018 Consulting and Professional Fees line item for Unincorporated County, which reduced Total Corporate and Local General and Administrative Costs in 2018 from $688,468 to $673,535, a decrease of $14,933. We accept RSS’s assumption that the year-over-year percent increases between 2018-2019 G&A costs and 2019-2020 G&A costs were 3.165% and 3.000% respectively, as these increases were both less than the respective annual CPI increases. Finally, we applied these annual percent changes to the 2018 cost decrease of $14,933 to obtain the 2020 decrease of $15,866. Net Impact: [Decrease in revenue requirement of $15,866] Depreciation and Other Operating Costs No changes were made to this cost category. Net Impact: [No change to the revenue requirement] Services Provided to County Most costs within the Services Provided to County line item are associated with the disposal of illegally dumped material collected by County Public Works and Housing Authority trucks from publically maintained land in the North Richmond vicinity ($56,181 for 2019). Although there is financial 2019 year to date data supporting the dollar amount, this facility disposal is not a valid collection company expense, nor is this disposal service required by the County’s Franchise Agreement. This disposal expense is a facility operating cost necessary to comply with a requirement imposed as a condition of Republic Services’ Bulk Materials Processing Center land use permit issued by the County. The same condition was included in the use permit issued by the City of Richmond. Republic Services’ facility located at the foot of Parr Boulevard in North Richmond, and not RSS, bears the responsibility for complying with the City and County use permit conditions requiring that City and County trucks be allowed to dispose of illegally dumped material at no charge. A portion of the $56,181 in disallowed disposal costs in the amount of $6,805.90 was deducted from this line item, however the remainder in the amount of $49,376.10 is being included to pay for the existing on- call Bulky Item Pick-up services on an on-going basis. The balance of costs within this cost category ($13,779) was for RSS to provide collection services to specific publicly owned facilities. Of this total, $9,394 was for included for sludge disposal from the West County Wastewater District facility. This sludge disposal expense was removed from this line item since this is not a free service requested or authorized by the County in accordance with the terms of the Franchise Agreement, as amended. The cost of the remaining services provided to the county ($4,385) was for routine services provided for street cans, County library and fire station ($3,009) and providing clean-ups ($1,376). In order to determine whether RSS was appropriately segregating right-of-way dumping removal costs for this Base Year Rate Application, we reviewed the services provided by RSS for on-call right-of-way pick- ups as well as the pick-ups provided by the full-time “Hot Spot Crew” within the North Richmond area. The on-call right-of-way service is called for in the Franchise Agreement, however the services provided by the “Hot Spot Crew” is a requirement from the conditions of approval in two use permits granted by the County and the City of Richmond. The “Hot Spot Crew” expenses are a facility compliance cost, and Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 15 November 7, 2019 therefore not an allowable collection company expense for rate setting purposes. The on-call right-of-way service is only to be treated as allowable for rate setting purposes, if the County chooses not to use another funding source to compensate RSS. Until early 2018, on-call right-of-way pick-ups were funded with efficiency surplus revenue and a new supplemental funding source is intended to be used thereafter. We determined that RSS has specifically been removing these pick-up services from the County route allocation calculations (described in Section 2) and thus they are not including costs associated with these services in the Application. Net Impact: [Decrease in revenue requirement of $16,200] Trucking and Equipment (Allowable) In this category, we reviewed RSS’s recent monthly fuel purchases. We show average 2018 and year-to-date 2019 diesel fuel prices paid by RSS, in Table 12. The relative price change is not significantly different from the change in wholesale diesel prices in California dur ing the same time periods. We accepted RSS’s fuel projection for 2020. Net Impact: [No change to the revenue requirement] Table 12 Richmond Sanitary Service Diesel Fuel Price per Gallon (2018 and 2019) Month Price per Gallon Average 2018 $2.87 Average January through May 2019 $2.99 Trucking and Equipment (Pass Through) We obtained line item detail for trucking costs, of which approximately 65.3% were intercompany equipment rental. After allocating 13.93 percent of trucking and equipment costs to County based on route allocation data, RSS allocated 65.3% of that amount to Trucking and Equipment (Equipment Rental). We accepted RSS’s pass-through cost allocation for 2020. Net Impact: [No change to the revenue requirement] Franchise Fees The County franchise agreement with RSS specifies that the County can establish an amount equal to “a percentage of its [RSS’s] gross annual revenues generated from the performance of such waste collection services under this Agreement,” with the “percentage, time, and frequency of payment to be established by the County.” A summary of franchise fee payments made by RSS to the County is provided in Table 13. Amounts included in RSS’s Application, RSS detailed records, and in County records are similar. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 16 November 7, 2019 The franchise fee is calculated as seven (7) percent of the revenue requirement. With decreases in the revenue requirement noted above, the franchise fee also decreases. Net Impact: [Decrease in revenue requirement of $7,540] Table 13 Richmond Sanitary Service Comparison of Franchise Fees (Calendar Years 2017, 2018 and 2019) Calendar Year Application RSS Detailed Monthly Payment Records County Reports 2017 $305,666 $305,666 $305,666 2018 $317,274 $317,274 $317,274 2019 (Jan-July) N/A $188,580 $188,580 Rate Stabilization Fund In the application, RSS included an amount of $102,278 to fund past costs intended to be paid for with supplemental funding source (line 25 of the Application). Therefore, we removed this $102,278 contribution to mitigate the impact of the 2020 rate change. Net Impact: [Decrease in 2020 revenue requirement of $102,278] iii. Profits With the adjustments identified in this section, total allowable costs for the projection year 2020 are $3,377,757. The Manual (Item E.3 page 1-16) specifies that should the operating ratio for the base year fall between 88 percent and 92 percent, rates would remain unchanged in the base year. Table 14 shows the operating ratio calculation for 2020. Without any changes to rates, the company would receive an operating ratio of 96.02 percent. In accordance with the Manual, because this operating ratio falls outside the 88 to 92 percent range, rates are reset for a 90 percent operating ratio.16 The operating ratio calculation is as follows: Operating Ratio (OR) = Total Allowable Costs Total Allowable Costs + Allowable Operating Profit The OR calculation is shown in Table 15, following Table 14. We calculate allowable profit of $375,306 at the allowable 90 percent operating ratio. This allowable profit represents a reduction of $9,087 from the $384,393 in profit requested in the Application for 2020. Net Impact: [Decrease in 2020 revenue requirement of $9,087] 16 Source: Rate Setting Manual, page I-14. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 17 November 7, 2019 Table 14 Richmond Sanitary Service Calculation of Actual Operating Ratio (Projected 2020 Base Year) Description Amount Total Revenues (line 21) $ 4,279,532 Plus Credit for Enhanced Services (Line 12)17 295,599 Less Total Allowable Costs (line 7) (3,377,757) Less Franchise Fees (line 23) (334,122) Less Pass-Through Costs (685,987) Equals Profits (with adjustments and no rebasing) $ 177,265 Operating Ratio (with adjustments and no rebasing) $4,279,532 / ($4,279,532 + $177,265) = 96.02% Table 15 Allowable Profit Calculation (Projected 2020 Base Year) Description Amount (Total Allowable Costs / Operating Ratio) – Total Allowable Costs = Allowable Operating Profit ($3,377,757/90 percent) - $3,377,757 = $375,306 4. Components of Residential Rates There are a number of cost components which are included in residential rates. Using the 35-gallon residential cart rate as an example, the pie chart in Figure 1, on the following page, shows the major components of the projected 2020 rates, and the relative costs of each component. Line item references are made to the Application. Cost categories are described below: Direct Labor Costs includes compensation of the waste removal staff, including regular time, overtime, payroll taxes, and associated benefits. This category corresponds to Direct Labor (Line 1) of the Application. Post Collection Costs include all charges for the disposal of solid waste at a landfill or transfer station and processing of recyclables. Although post collection costs are not included in the Application, we include them in this single can rate analysis. General and Administrative Costs and Svc to County include such costs as accounting, corporate overhead/management fees, insurance, legal services, office supplies, postage, telephone, and utilities. These costs include Corporate and Local General and Administrative Costs (Line 2), and Services Provided to County (Line 4). 17 Based on terms specified in Exhibit F of the Second Amendment to the County/RSS Franchise. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 18 November 7, 2019 Trucking and Equipment Costs includes leases of trucks and equipment, fuel and oil expense, licenses, parts, tires, and associated repair and maintenance expenses. These costs are identified as Trucking and Equipment with Profit (Line 5), Depreciation and Other Operating Costs (Line 3), and Trucking and Equipment Pass Through (Line 9) of the Application. Profit is any revenue which exceeds expenses (total allowable costs plus total pass-through costs). The operating ratio method is used to determine allowable profit, as discussed in the profit analysis section of this report. Profit is shown in Line 7 of the Application. Profit does not include that portion of profit included in the post collection costs. The County’s Franchise Fee is currently seven (7) percent of total residential/ curbside recycling, commercial, and light industrial revenues. Franchise fees are shown in Line 23 of the Application. Figure 1 Rate Components (Projection Year 2020) I. Comparison of Rates and Services to Other Neighboring Communities RSS’ current 2019 Unincorporated West County rates were compared with survey data from ten (10) other communities. Results of the survey are summarized in Attachment C. Tables C-1 through C-3 show how 2019 West County residential rates currently charged by RSS compare to the average of the other areas surveyed. For reference, rate comparisons for commercial and industrial sectors also are shown. In Table C-1, we compare Unincorporated West County residential rates with averages of ten other neighboring communities. Existing RSS Unincorporated residential rates compare most favorably for 20- gallon and 35-gallon services at 16.1 and 12.2 percent below average. West County residential rates for 65-gallon service were 7 percent below average, while rates for the 96-gallon service were 0.5 percent above average. For information purposes only, for the commercial (bin) sector, as shown in Table C-2, West County rates were generally relatively close to the average of the ten areas surveyed. Rates ranged from 7.0 percent Post Collection , 27% Direct Labor, 34% G&A, 11% Service to County ,  1% Trucking & Equipment  , 16% Profit, 6% Franchise Fees, 5% Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 19 November 7, 2019 below average to 1.6 percent above average. Rates for five of the six categories surveyed fell below average. For information purposes only, for the industrial (debris box) sector, as shown in Table C-3, rates ranged from 38.1 percent below average to 5.2 percent above average. This comparison is based on a representative two (2) ton load. Note that most of the comparable communities in the West Contra Costa County area, which are also served by Republic Services, are offered the same price for debris box services as unincorporated West Contra Costa County customers. * * * * * This Analysis is substantially different from an audit, examination, or review in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, the objective of which is to express an opinion regarding RSS financial statements. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The consulting services did not contemplate obtaining the understanding of RSS internal controls or assessing control risk, tests of accounting records and responses to inquiries by obtaining corroborating evidential matter, and certain other procedures ordinarily performed during an audit or examination. Thus, this engagement was not intended to provide assurance that we would become aware of significant matters that would be disclosed in an audit or examination. As part of this Analysis, the County agreed to be responsible to: make all management decisions and perform all management functions; designate an individual who possesses suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience, preferably within senior management to oversee our services; evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed; accept responsibility for the results of the services; and establish and maintain internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities. The County has the ultimate authority to approve rate changes. Crowe‘s fees are not dependent upon the outcome of this report and Crowe is independent with respect to any other economic interests. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 20 November 7, 2019 Attachment A: Rate Application and Audited Financial Statements Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 21 November 7, 2019 Attachment A includes the 2020 Base Year Rate Change Application (Application) submitted by RSS to the County July 24, 2019. In the Application, RSS proposed to increase the service portion of West unincorporated County collection rates by 9.33 percent on January 1, 2020. The Application included the following forms: Financial information Cost summary for year 2018 Revenue summary Single family residential revenues summary (including current rates and accounts) Operating information Rate change requested (including current and proposed rates). Information provided in the Application was for the following five (5) years: Actual prior years, 2016 to 2018 (including audited 2018 results) Current year estimated, 2019 Base year projected, 2020. Attachment A also includes the 2020 audited financial statements submitted by RSS with its Application to the County. Armanino LLP, a certified public accountant, prepared the audited financial statements. The audit opinion is unqualified. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 22 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 23 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 24 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 25 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 26 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 27 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 28 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 29 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 30 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 31 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 32 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 33 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 34 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 35 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 36 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 37 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 38 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 39 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 40 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 41 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 42 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 43 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 44 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 45 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 46 November 7, 2019 Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 47 November 7, 2019 Attachment B: Adjusted Rate Model Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 48 November 7, 2019 Exhibit B-1, on the next page, of this appendix provides the adjusted base year rate model based on Crowe adjustments. The model reflects the following general adjustments: Revenues Minor increase to revenues Allowable Costs/Profits Moderate decrease to direct labor Moderate decrease to general and administrative costs No adjustment to trucking and equipment costs (w/profit) No adjustment to depreciation and other operating costs Minor decrease to services provided to the County Minor decrease to allowable profit Pass Through Costs No adjustment to trucking and equipment costs (pass through) Elimination of contribution to rate stabilization fund Minor decrease to franchise fees. Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 49 November 7, 2019 Exhibit B-1 Schedule of Rate Analysis Findings (Projection Year 2020) Line in Application Category Revenue or Cost Profit Total Revenues 14 Residential Revenues $1,263 $0 $0 17 Commercial Revenues 0 0 0 Subtotal $1,263 $0 $0 Allowable Costs 1 Direct Labor ($49,714) ($5,524) ($55,238) 2 Corporate and Local General and Administrative ($15,866) ($1,763) ($17,629) 3 Depreciation and Other Operating Costs 0 0 0 4 Services Provided to County ($16,200) ($1,800) ($18,000) 9 Trucking and Equipment 0 0 0 Subtotal ($81,780) ($9,087) ($90,866) Allowable Operating Profits 7 Allowable Profits $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Pass Through Costs without Franchise Fees 8 Administrative Fees $0 $0 $0 9 Trucking and Equipment (Equipment Rental) 0 0 0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 Franchise Fees 23 Residential/Commercial/Light Industrial Franchise Fees ($6,839) $0 ($6,839) Contribution to Rate Stabilization Fund 25 Contribution to Rate Stabilization Fund ($102,278) $0 ($102,278) Subtotal ($109,117) $0 ($109,117) Total Adjustments ($190,897) ($9,087) ($199,984) Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 50 November 7, 2019 Attachment C: Comparative Rate Survey Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 51 November 7, 2019 Tables C-1 through C-3 below include results of a survey of comparative residential, commercial, and industrial rates. We provide comparisons between West County rates and the following ten (10) neighboring communities: Albany Crockett El Cerrito Hercules Kensington Oakland Pinole Richmond Rodeo San Pablo Table C-1 Comparison of RSS’ Unincorporated West Contra Costa County Residential Rates with Neighboring Communities (Per Customer, Per Month) City / Community 20 Gallon 35 Gallon 65 Gallon 95 Gallon 1. Albany $39.15 $43.84 $75.77 $107.68 2. Crockett $29.01 $34.39 $60.31 $73.28 3. El Cerrito $37.63 $49.63 $99.64 N/A 4. Hercules $32.92 $38.63 $68.11 $98.47 5. Kensington $43.60 $47.60 $95.17 $142.79 6. Oakland $41.54 $47.17 $83.26 $125.13 7. Pinole $29.99 $35.74 $63.63 $92.40 8. Richmond $30.48 $37.09 $70.37 $104.59 9. Rodeo $27.21 $29.20 $35.62 $48.98 10. San Pablo $26.40 $32.20 $62.45 $93.60 Average $33.79 $39.55 $71.43 $98.55 RSS West County (2019) $28.37 $34.73 $66.50 $99.06 Difference from Average -16.0% -12.2% -6.9% 0.5% RSS West County (2020) $29.83 $36.60 $70.06 $104.37 Difference from Average -11.7% -7.5% -1.9% 5.9% Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 52 November 7, 2019 Table C-2 Comparison of 2019 West Unincorporated Contra Costa County Commercial Rates with Neighboring Communities (Per Customer, Per Month) City / Community Commercial Rates 1 pickup per week 2 pickups per week 1 cu. yd. 2 cu. yd. 3 cu. yd. 1 cu. yd. 2 cu. yd. 3 cu. yd. 1. Albany $ 174.67 $ 349.34 $524.01 $ 349.34 $ 698.68 $1,048.42 2. Crockett 156.61 210.39 249.88 317.87 3. El Cerrito 338.55 660.86 644.97 1,273.73 4. Hercules 280.98 466.01 639.86 492.72 852.57 1,191.01 5. Kensington 227.15 454.30 454.30 908.60 6. Oakland 244.02 405.22 581.09 487.97 810.42 1,162.14 7. Pinole 266.67 447.61 618.37 471.42 823.74 1,156.83 8. Richmond 246.61 408.36 561.08 435.69 750.27 1,048.12 9. Rodeo 122.49 189.31 256.13 244.97 378.59 512.23 10. San Pablo 245.45 409.77 564.72 432.46 752.30 1,054.10 Average $ 230.32 $ 400.12 $535.04 $ 426.37 $ 756.68 $1,024.69 2019 West County rates 233.92 384.32 525.89 411.61 703.73 979.05 Difference 1.56% -3.95% -1.71% -3.46% -7.00% -4.45% Ms. Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager Page 53 November 7, 2019 Table C-3 Comparison of 2019 West Unincorporated Contra Costa County Industrial Rates with Neighboring Communities (Per Pull, Assumes 2 Tons Material) City / Community Base Plus Tonnage Fees Base Charges Only 20 yard 30 yard 40 yard 20 yard 30 yard 40 yard 1. Albany $734.80 $1,102.20 $1,469.60 $734.80 $1,102.20 $1,469.60 2. Crockett 470.42 1,029.00 1,145.00 443.59 1,029.00 1,145.00 3. El Cerrito 644.00 744.00 354.00 454.00 4. Hercules 775.38 814.38 867.38 474.00 513.00 566.00 5. Kensington 570.00 650.00 570.00 650.00 6. Oakland 1,263.25 1,672.31 2,066.72 1,168.65 1,577.71 1,972.12 7. Pinole 775.38 814.38 867.38 474.00 513.00 566.00 8. Richmond 775.38 814.38 867.38 474.00 513.00 566.00 9. Rodeo 688.60 727.60 780.60 474.00 513.00 566.00 10. San Pablo 671.56 717.87 763.31 370.18 416.49 461.93 Average $736.88 $908.61 $1,103.42 $553.72 $728.14 $914.08 2019 West County Rates 775.38 814.38 867.38 474.00 513.00 566.00 Difference 5.23%-10.37%-21.39%-14.40%-29.55% -38.08% EXHIBIT B    Maximum Residential Collection Rates for RSS Customers within the County’s Franchise Area    Table 1 – Existing & Recommended Monthly Residential Collection Rates with 4.63% increase  Cart Size 2019 Collection Rate Recommended Collection Rate Increase (4.63%) 2020 Collection Rate 20 Gallon $22.97 $1.06 $24.03 35 Gallon $25.26 $1.17 $26.43 65 Gallon $48.89 $2.26 $51.15 95 Gallon $72.64 $3.36 $76.00     Table 2 – Existing & Proposed Monthly Residential Post‐Collection Rates with 7.4% increase  Cart Size 2019 Post- Collection Rate Proposed Post- Collection Rate Increase (7.4%) 2020 Post- Collection Rate 20 Gallon $5.40 $0.40 $5.80 35 Gallon $9.47 $0.70 $10.17 65 Gallon $17.61 $1.30 $18.91 95 Gallon $26.42 $1.95 $28.37     Table 3 – Existing & Recommended Total Monthly Residential Rates with combined 5.4% increase  Cart Size 2019 Total Monthly Rate Total Combined Monthly Rate Increase (5.4%) 2020 Total Monthly Rate 20 Gallon $28.37 $1.46 $29.83 35 Gallon $34.73 $1.87 $36.60 65 Gallon $66.50 $3.56 $70.06 95 Gallon $99.06 $5.31 $104.37     G:\Conservation\Deidra\_Collection\Franchised Haulers\Richmond Sanitary Service\RSS Rates\2020 Base Year Rate  Application\Tables‐Maximum Residential Rates for RSS Customers within the County.docx  RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER the interdepartmental Cannabis Proposal Review Panel's recommendation on the scoring and ranking of proposals for storefront retail cannabis businesses and commercial cannabis cultivation businesses. 2. FIX December 10, 2019, as the date for a Board decision on which commercial cannabis proposals to invite to apply for a land use permit. FISCAL IMPACT: Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff costs for administering the selection process are included in DCD's budget and paid for out of the fees required of those who submitted proposals. The cost of reviewing future applications will be paid by applicants. Upon issuance of a land use permit and after establishment of the selected commercial cannabis businesses, the County will begin generating tax revenue in accordance with the County's Cannabis Business Tax Ordinance approved by County voters on November 6, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Ruben Hernandez (925) 674-7785 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: DCD Director, CAO Deputy D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Scoring and ranking of commercial cannabis proposals in order to select invitees for storefront retailers and commercial cultivation BACKGROUND: Per Section 88-28.404 of the County is cannabis zoning ordinance, in order to apply for a land use permit for a commercial cannabis use where the number of permits is limited by code, land use permit applicants are required to participate in a selection process that has been approved by the Board. The Cannabis Ordinance allows for the establishment of four (4) storefront cannabis retailers, ten (10) commercial cannabis cultivators, and two (2) commercial cannabis manufacturers in agricultural zones. On February 12, 2019, the Board approved the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Opportunity to Apply for a Commercial Cannabis Activity Land Use Permit (attached) which was then released to the public on February 14, 2019. The 24 page RFP laid out the selection process including timelines, due dates, required formatting of proposals, as well as describing the evaluation process, scoring criteria and ranking process. The RFP identified a due date of April 4, 2019 for letters of intent and June 27, 2019 for full proposals. In response to the RFP, 60 letters of intent were received by DCD, of which 53 were invited to submit proposals. Of the 53 invited to submit proposals, 40 full proposals were received, 21 for storefront retail and 19 for commercial cultivation. Although the code provides for the establishment of two cannabis manufacturing businesses in agricultural zoning districts, no proposals for the establishment of commercial manufacturing in agricultural districts were received. Links to the 40 full proposals are provided for reference in Attachment 7. Additional information on the selection process is described in detail in the attached slide presentation and summarized below. Commercial Cannabis Review Panel As a part of approving the selection process, the Board also approved the makeup of the Cannabis Review Panel (Panel) that would be responsible for evaluating, scoring and ranking the proposals for final consideration by the Board. The Board directed that staff from each of the following County departments or agencies participate on the Panel: County Administrator's Office; Department of Agriculture; Contra Costa Fire Protection District; Health Services Department and DCD. A total of ten staff members from the departments/agencies listed above served on the Panel and participated in the review of the proposals. The Panel met on 15 separate occasions and reached a general consensus on the scoring and ranking provided in this report. Review of Proposals by Cannabis Panel All of the qualifying proposals for both storefront retail and commercial cultivation were reviewed, scored and ranked by the panel. In addition to evaluating the written proposals, the panel also interviewed applicants/owners for all 21 of the storefront retailer proposals. Interviews of commercial cultivation applicants/owners were deemed unnecessary by the panel since fewer than 10 proposals can meet code requirements. The Panel utilized the scoring criteria and key metrics described in the RFP to assign scores. The RFP identified seven scoring categories, each with a specific point value. The categories and point value in the RFP were identified as follows: 1. Cover letter/Ownership Qualifications (200 pts.); 2. Location (200 pts.); 3. Business and operating plan (200 pts.); 4. Security plan (200 pts.); 5. Sustainability (100 pts.); 6. Community/Economic benefit (200 pts.); 7. Equitable geographic distribution (100 pts.). Interview performance was incorporated into the Cover letter/Ownership qualification section of the scoring performance was incorporated into the Cover letter/Ownership qualification section of the scoring criteria. As a note, the Panel found Section 7 of the scoring criteria in the RFP, “Equitable geographic distribution”, to be presumptuous at this point in the process since the scoring of any one of the proposals would have an effect on the scoring of the others. Therefore, the panel decided to score Section 7 “Equitable geographic distribution” the same for all proposals (100 points). To address the concept of equitable distribution, the Panel recommends the Board consider alternative scenarios identified by the Panel that allocate the potential businesses to different regions of the county. Ranking of Storefront Retailers Proposals for storefront retailers were received in the following communities: Bay Point (2); Clyde (1); Pacheco Boulevard (10); El Sobrante (7); and North Richmond (1). In some instances, multiple storefront retailer proposals were submitted for the same location by different applicants. In these cases, the applicants are competing for the same retail space or building where only one permit can be issued. Also, a number of storefront retailer proposals were located on properties within 500-feet of each other, which is prohibited under the Cannabis Ordinance. The result of the Panel's work to rank and score the retail storefront proposals is summarized in the attached scoring summary table and explained in the slide presentation and in the two-page summaries provided for each of the proposals. To address geographic distribution of the retailers, the Panel developed the following alternate ranking scenarios for the Board’s consideration: Scenario #1 - 1 in El Sobrante, 1 on "north" Pacheco Blvd., 1 on "south' Pacheco Blvd., and 1 in Bay Point Scenario #2 - 1 in El Sobrante, 2 on “south” Pacheco Blvd. and 1 on “north” Pacheco Blvd. It should also be noted that One Plant in El Sobrante was established prior to the County's 2007 ban on medical dispensaries and is presently operating a medical-only dispensary. One Plant has submitted a proposal to become a full service retail storefront, including adult use cannabis. If One Plant is not selected, it may continue to operate in addition to the four retail storefronts that may be permitted elsewhere by the County. Ranking of Commercial Cannabis Cultivators The majority of commercial cannabis cultivation proposals were located in the East County area, though three were located in North Richmond. Of the 19 proposals submitted for commercial cultivation, 11 proposals were deemed ineligible because the subject properties are not in the service area of a retail water supplier as required by code. One proposal for commercial cultivation received a failing score due in part that the proposed cultivation is within one mile of the urban limit line, which is prohibited by code (the proposal failed to meet several minimum scores). Since the operation of a commercial cultivation business is significantly different than that of a retail storefront business, the scoring and ranking of commercial cultivation proposals was done separately from storefront retailer proposals and on a different basis. The result of the Panel's work to rank and score the commercial cultivation proposals is summarized in the attached scoring summary table and explained in the slide presentation and in the two-page summaries provided for each of the proposals. Since fewer proposals were received than the maximum number of commercial cultivation businesses to be permitted, the Panel is recommending that all seven eligible proposals be invited to apply for land use permits. It should be noted that the RFP explains that the Board is not required to invite or permit any commercial cannabis businesses, let alone the maximum number. Additional Considerations The Panel's scoring of the proposals was based on very specific details regarding the operation, security, design, proposed community benefit, and other features of the proposed businesses. The panel expressed concern with ensuring that the selected businesses operate in accordance with the details described in their respective proposals on an ongoing basis. Based on this concern, the Board may wish to specify that invitations to apply for a land use permit must be based on the details of the proposal submitted. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not select land use permit invitees for the limited commercial cannabis activities, no land use permits for storefront retail or commercial cultivation will be issued for the county unincorporated area. Failure to establish a legal and regulated cannabis market in the county unincorporated area might encourage an illicit cannabis market to flourish, and would deprive county residents of local access to tested and properly packaged and labeled cannabis products, as well as security and restricted access to minors as provided by the legal, regulated cannabis market. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: RFP Attachment 2: Slide Presentation Attachment 3: Retail Storefront Rankings Attachment 4: Cultivation Rankings Attachment 5: 2-page Summaries of Storefront Proposals Attachment 6: 2-page Summaries of Cultivation Proposals Attachment 7: Links to Full Proposals 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 0 February 14, 2019 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY LAND USE PERMIT Deadlines: Letter of Intent (LOI) Thursday, April 4, 2019 by 4:00 P.M. Proposals (by invitation only) Thursday, June 27, 2019 by 4:00 P.M. All submittals must be delivered in person to the following location: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 674-7205 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 1 Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Schedule Section 3: RFP Instructions Section 4: Scoring and Selection Process Attachments:  Attachment A: Letter of Intent Form TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 2 In accordance with the provisions of the Contra Costa County Cannabis Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 88-28 and 84-86 of the County Code) (the “Zoning Ordinance”) the County hereby invites interested parties to participate in the selection process for the opportunity to submit a land use permit (“LUP”) application for the establishment of one of three types of commercial cannabis activity permits with a limit (or “cap”) on the number of business that may be permitted by the County. The following three types of commercial cannabis businesses have numeric limits and are the subject of this Request for Proposals (“RFP”):  Storefront retailer (with or without delivery): Cap = Four (4)  Commercial cultivation: Cap = Ten (10)  Cannabis manufacturing in agricultural zoning districts: Cap = Two (2) Proponents of these three types of businesses may only apply for an LUP upon receiving an invitation from the County following the completion of the selection process. Vertically- integrated businesses that include one or more of the three numerically-limited types must also respond to this RFP. Other types of commercial cannabis activities allowed under the Zoning Ordinance including delivery-only retailers, cannabis manufacturing businesses not located in an agricultural zoning district, cannabis testing laboratories and cannabis distribution businesses do not have a cap and do not need to respond to this RFP. However, all commercial cannabis activities require an LUP and other approvals, as more particularly described in the Zoning Ordinance. All commercial cannabis activities must be located within specifically designated zoning districts and outside of the required buffer zones from sensitive uses, all in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. As authorized by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors” or “Board”), the Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) will administer the RFP selection process described in this document. The RFP process described below will be utilized to evaluate, qualify and score prospective land use permit applicants for the numerically-limited commercial cannabis activities described above. As further described below, all parties interested in submitting proposals must first submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) that includes basic information about the proposed business. LOIs will be utilized to identify persons who meet certain minimum requirements for obtaining an LUP under the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., location and ownership interest, as more fully described in Section 3A) and to disqualify persons who do not meet those minimum requirements. All Section 1: Introduction 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 3 persons who submit an LOI will receive a written response from DCD indicating whether or not they are invited to submit a proposal. Parties invited to submit a proposal must do so by the deadline set forth in Table 1, on page 5, to be considered for an invitation to apply for an LUP. Submitted proposals will be evaluated, scored and ranked by County staff according to the Scoring Guidelines described in Section 4 below based on the written materials, an oral interview and a site visit. A ranked and scored list of prospective applicants will be provided to the Board of Supervisors along with a recommendation on which prospective applicants should be invited to apply for an LUP. The Board of Supervisors will consider the staff recommendation and determine which prospective applicants, if any, will be invited to apply for an LUP. Steps in the RFP Process The County’s RFP process to select persons to invite to apply for an LUP will occur as follows (see Table 1 for dates and deadlines): i. County publishes RFP on its website and sends notice to those who have asked to be on the email notification list. ii. DCD conducts a question and answer meeting for prospective applicants that wish to attend. DCD also collects written questions through its website and publishes on its website a collective response. iii. Each prospective applicant submits a Letter of Intent (LOI) and required $500 filing fee to DCD by the submission deadline. iv. DCD responds in writing to persons who submit an LOI to inform them whether or not they are invited to submit a proposal (See Section 3A for additional information on how the determination will be made). v. Each prospective applicant invited to do so submits a proposal and required $2,500 filing fee to DCD by the submission deadline. vi. Proposals are evaluated, scored and ranked by a County staff team. The evaluations will be supplemented with information from oral interviews and site visits for Proposals that achieve minimum scores based solely on written materials. The County staff team will include representatives from multiple County Departments and agencies, including DCD, Health Services, Agriculture Weights and Measures, County Administrator’s Office and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. vii. DCD prepares a report to the Board of Supervisors compiling the County staff team’s recommendations on evaluating, scoring and ranking proposals. viii. Board of Supervisors considers whether to approve the scoring panel’s recommendations and invite prospective applicants to apply for land use permits . 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 4 ix. Letters sent to any prospective applicants selected by the Board (“Invitees”) inviting them to apply for an LUP prior to a specified deadline. Steps after the RFP Process  LUP applications submitted by Invitees will be processed by DCD in accordance with County Code requirements and will include compliance the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LUP applications require a deposit (currently $2,700) and require the applicant to pay for the County’s direct costs in reviewing the application on a time and materials basis. LUPs are discretionary permits and applications may be denied. One or more public hearings will be conducted to review the LUP. All LUPs for commercial cannabis activities will be heard initially by the County Zoning Administrator. An appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision will be heard by the County Planning Commission. An appeal of a Planning Commission decision will be heard by the County Board of Supervisors.  Following approval by the appropriate hearing body, and after any appeals, DCD will issue an LUP for a commercial cannabis activity. An approved LUP will include required terms and conditions. The Zoning Ordinance describes the minimum mandatory terms and conditions that must be adhered to, but the LUP will include additional terms and conditions specific to the application. Prior to commencing operation of the activity, the applicant must document for DCD compliance with all LUP terms and conditions, including but not limited to securing all other necessary permits and approvals.  Other required permits and approvals that must be secured before commencing operations include, but may not be limited to, the following: o Permit from the County Health Services Department issued pursuant to Commercial Cannabis Health Permit Code (Chapter 413-4 of the County Code) o Cannabis license(s) from the State of California o Business license from the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, and o Building permits from DCD for any and all construction activities. Important Notices Regarding RFP Process  In order to be eligible to apply for and receive an LUP for one of the limited commercial cannabis activities described above, the cannabis business operator must have control over a physical location located within a designated zoning district and outside of the cannabis exclusion zoning district and designated cannabis buffer zones for sensitive uses. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 5  An LUP may be revoked or suspended for reasons specified in the Zoning Ordinance.  Persons submitting an LOI or a proposal must submit all materials in person by the specified deadlines. No late LOI’s or proposals will be accepted. Table 1: RFP Schedule CANNABIS RFP SCHEDULE RFP Release Date February 14, 2019 DCD Hosts Meeting to Answer Questions (Tentative Location of meeting will be the Dept. of Conservation and Development located at 30 Muir Road in Martinez-DCD will send email notice on final location and request RSVP) March 8, 2019 – 10:30 A.M. Letters of Intent Due April 4, 2019 by 4 pm DCD notifies submitters of LOI if they are invited to submit a Proposal by May 9, 2019 Proposals due (by invitation only) June 27, 2019 by 4 pm Proposals evaluated, ranked and scored by County staff team. Oral interviews. Site visits. July-September, 2019 Board considers staff recommendation and determines which respondents to invite to apply for an LUP September/October, 2019 (estimated) Section 2: Schedule 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 6 A) Letter of Intent (LOI) Submittal The LOI must be submitted in person to the Department of Conservation and Development by 4:00 P.M. on April 4, 2019. Late LOIs will not be accepted and will be returned unopened to the submitter. In order to be deemed acceptable, an LOI submission must include the following: ◻ A “Letter of Intent to Submit a Proposal to Apply for One of the Limited Commercial Cannabis Activity Permits” prepared as described in the attached Letter of Intent Form (Attachment A); ◻ Letter of Intent (LOI) processing fee of $500.00; ◻ Evidence of a secured location for the proposed cannabis business such as:  Real Estate Letter of Intent: A signed written term sheet, letter of intent, or exclusive negotiating agreement between two or more parties to sell, lease, or sublease property for a commercial cannabis use. To be acceptable, this document must provide an outline of the terms of the proposed agreement and clearly indicate that the property will be used for a commercial cannabis use. These terms can be further negotiated but must provide the basis for the proposed written agreement.  Real Estate Purchase or Lease Option: This is a signed written agreement for the purchase or lease of a specific piece of real property. With this document, the proposed buyer or lessee gains the exclusive right to purchase or lease the property for a commercial cannabis use. Once a potential buyer or lessee has an option to buy or lease a property, the owner cannot sell or lease the property to anyone else during the term of the option. The potential buyer or lessee pays for this option for a specific time period.  Purchase Agreement: This is a signed written agreement that a potential buyer will purchase a specific piece of property and the owner cannot sell to anyone else unless the terms of the agreement are not fulfilled.  Lease Agreement: This is a signed written agreement that gives a lessee certain rights to use and occupy specific property for a specified period of time and for a commercial cannabis use.  Proof of Ownership: This is a deed that shows that title to the real property belongs to the applicant/proposer. Section 3: RFP Instructions 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 7 DCD will review all LOIs received by the LOI submission deadline stated in this RFP. Within 30 days after the LOI submission deadline, DCD will provide a written notice to each person who submits an LOI stating whether that persons is invited to submit a full proposal in response to this RFP. A party submitting an LOI will not be invited to submit a full proposal if DCD determines any of the following: (1) the LOI was not submitted by the LOI submission deadline; (2) the LOI is not accompanied by the LOI processing fee; (3) the LOI is incomplete or does not include sufficient information to support a determination that the proposed commercial cannabis activity will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; (4) the LOI is not accompanied by evidence of a secured location; or (5) DCD determines that information included in the LOI establishes that the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be satisfied. B) Submittal of Proposal A party may submit a proposal in response to the RFP if DCD notifies the party that its LOI has been accepted and the party is invited to submit a proposal. To be considered, each LOI respondent invited to submit a proposal must submit the $2,500 filing fee and two (2) hardcopies of the proposal in person to the Department of Conservation and Development no later than the deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, 2019. Late submittals will not be accepted. At the close of the submittal period all proposals will be reviewed and ranked by a committee comprised of staff from various County departments. Proposals will be scored in accordance with the Scoring Guidelines shown in Table 2 of this RFP. In order to ensure fair and consistent scoring and ranking of the proposals, a proposal must be prepared utilizing the guidelines found Sections 3 and 4 of this RFP. Once all of the proposals are ranked, a meeting will be scheduled before the County Board of Supervisors where the Board of Supervisors will make a final determination regarding which, if any, persons submitting proposals will be invited to apply for a LUP. Within two weeks after the final Board’s decision, all parties who submitted proposals will be informed, in writing, of the status of their proposal and whether or not they have been selected to submit a LUP application for the commercial cannabis use(s) designated in their proposal. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 8 C) Proposal Format In order to ensure consistent evaluation of proposals, each proposal must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines provided below. A proposal must include the following six sections in the following order: 1) COVER LETTER/OWNER QUALIFICATIONS 2) LOCATION SUMMARY 3) BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN a. Business Plan b. Site and Building Plans c. Operating Plan d. Additional required information for storefront retailers e. Additional required information for commercial cultivation f. Additional required information for cannabis manufacturing in agriculturally zoned areas 4) SECURITY PLAN a. Cannabis Manufacturing in Agricultural(A- ) Zoning District 5) SUSTAINABILITY/ODOR CONTROL 6) COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC BENEFIT SUMMARY D) Instructions for Preparing Proposals For each of the required six sections of the proposal, please provide the information requested below. Please also include information responsive to the Scoring Guidelines (Table 2 in Section 4). The Scoring Guidelines are categorized into sections that correspond with required six sections of the proposal. 1) COVER LETTER/OWNER QUALIFICATION All proposals must include a cover letter that provides the following information: ◻ A one-page or less description of the proposed cannabis business which provides information on the type of activities to take place at the business, 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 9 including the type of products and/or services to be provided or handled, the type of cannabis, medicinal or recreational or both, the business will operate with, the market the business is expected to reach, etc. ◻ The type of State license(s) to be obtained ◻ Information on owner(s) of proposed business: The cover letter must include the name and address of each person or entity proposed to be responsible for the operation of the business. Such persons or entities include, but may not be limited to, each manager, each corporate officer, each individual with an ownership interest, each member of a board of directors, each general or limited partner, and each member of a decision -making body for the commercial cannabis activity. ◻ Statement of Qualifications. The cover letter must include a description of the owner’s or owners’ qualifications, including the qualifications of individuals proposed to oversee key aspects of the activity. Please focus on experience relevant to the proposal, including but not limited operating a business similar to that which is proposed. ◻ A statement that owner/applicant/business operator has read and understood the rules and permitting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 88- 28 and 84-86 of the County Code) and of the Commercial Cannabis Health Permit Code (Chapter 413-4 of the County Code) available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_cod e 2) LOCATION SUMMARY Using the Key Metrics for Location found in the Scoring Guidelines (Table 2), provide a description of the proposed business location in terms of its surroundings, access, neighborhood character, visibility, etc., as well as a summary of the appropriateness of the location of the cannabis business and how it conforms to the location requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The summary should also identify the nearest sensitive uses as provided in the Zoning Ordinance such as schools, day care centers, youth centers and drug treatment centers or any other potentially sensitive uses. 3) BUSINESS AND OPERATING PLAN The operating plan portion of the proposal must include all of the following: a. Business Plan 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 10 ◻ The business plan should provide a summary of the operational and financial objectives of the business and detailed plans and budgets showing how the objectives are to be realized. See the Scoring Criteria in Table 2 for additional detail. b. Site and Building Plans Proposal must include complete site plans and proposed building and floor plans. The plans must include the following information: ◻ The address and assessor's parcel number of the property or properties whe re the business will be located ◻ Site plans must identify all existing and proposed site improvements including building descriptions and locations, parking areas for employees and clients/customers, driveways, fencing, cannabis cultivation/canopy areas, storage and processing areas, secure areas, and the location of any and all other improvements on-site ◻ Floor plans must show existing and proposed floor plans. Floor plans must identify all building areas including secured areas, waiting areas, cultivation/grow areas, office areas, employee only areas, etc. and all other areas required by State regulations or the County Can nabis Ordinance and zoning code c. Operating Plan Proposal must include a detailed preliminary operating plan that, at a minimum, must include the following information: ◻ A standard operating procedures manual detailing how operations will comply with State and local regulations; how safety and quality of products will be ensured; record keeping procedures for financing, testing, and other items records required to be kept by State law; and product recall procedures. ◻ Proposed hours of operation. ◻ Waste disposal information. ◻ Medical recommendation verification procedures, if applicable, and youth access restriction procedures. ◻ A record keeping policy that ensures records will be kept in accordance with State laws and regulations. ◻ A description of track and trace measures that will be implemented. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 11 ◻ An odor control plan that describes how the business will prevent odors from impacting neighboring parcels or creating a public nuisance. ◻ Size, height, colors, design and location of any proposed signage at the business. ◻ A parking plan that establishes how all off-street parking requirements will be met. ◻ A security plan that establishes how all security requirements in State laws and regulations will be satisfied. [Staff anticipates proposing to add additional detail to the requirements outlined in this paragraph either here or in the selection criteria] ◻ Details regarding how cannabis and cannabis products will be received, stored, handled, transported, and secured to prevent theft and trespass. d. Additional Information Required for Storefront Retail In addition to the information required in Section (c) above, a proposal for a storefront retailer must provide information on how the following requirements will be satisfied: ◻ A storefront retailer's hours of operation may not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m., and they may not end later than 9:00 p.m. ◻ A retailer shall implement and maintain the security measures required by Business and Professions Code section 26070(j). At the same time that a retailer provides notice to a licensing authority and law enforcement under Business and Professions Code section 26070(k), the retailer shall provide that same notice to the Department. ◻ A proposal for a storefront retailer must indicate whether the storefront retailer will provide deliveries. ◻ If delivery is proposed, the shall show describe how its employees who deliver cannabis or cannabis products will comply with Section 88- 28.412(b)(Deliveries) of the County Cannabis Ordinance. ◻ Products: A retailer shall ensure that all cannabis and cannabis products at the premises of the retailer are cultivated, manufactured, transported, distributed, and tested by licensed and permitted facilities that maintain operations in full conformance with all a pplicable state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, including this chapter. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 12 e. Additional Information Required for Commercial Cultivation In addition to the information required in Section c. above, a proposal for commercial cultivation must provide information describing how the following requirements will be satisfied. ◻ A floor plan or site plan identifying the location, dimensions, and boundaries of all proposed canopy areas, taking into account space needed for ongoing care of plants, and a description of the proposed method of physically delineating those boundaries at the site. ◻ Proof of water service availability from a retail water supplier. ◻ Commercial cultivation may be located only in the following zoning districts outside of a cannabis exclusion (-CE) combining district: general agricultural (A-2); heavy agricultural (A-3); A-20 exclusive agricultural; A-40 exclusive agricultural; A-80 exclusive agricultural; planned unit (P-1) when commercial cultivation is permitted by the developmen t plan; controlled manufacturing (C-M); light industrial (L-I); and heavy industrial (H-I). A business engaged in commercial cultivation may cultivate cannabis outdoors only if the business is located in a general agricultural (A-2), heavy agricultural (A-3), A-20 exclusive agricultural, A-40 exclusive agricultural, or A-80 exclusive agricultural zoning district located outside of a cannabis exclusion (-CE) combining district. ◻ Indoor Commercial Cultivation: All indoor commercial cultivation must be conducted within a building, as defined in Section 82-4.210, or within a greenhouse. No indoor commercial cultivation may be conducted indoors within a residential building. *Cultivation Area Size Information ◻ Indoor Commercial Cultivation: The proposal shall describe the total maximum proposed canopy size. Per the County Cannabis Ordinance, the total canopy size for indoor commercial cultivation in other than agricultural zoning districts may not exceed the lesser of:  Twenty-two thousand square feet, or  The maximum size authorized by the State license for the business  Indoor commercial cultivation in an agricultural zoning district may not be located in any building that is larger than ten thousand square feet of floor area. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 13 ◻ Outdoor Commercial Cultivation: The proposal shall describe the total maximum proposed canopy size. Per the County Cannabis Ordinance, the total canopy size for outdoor commercial cultivation may not exceed the lesser of:  Two acres  The maximum size authorized by the State license for the business. f. Additional Information Required for Cannabis Manufacturing in Agricultural Zones In addition to the information required in Section (c) above, a proposal for commercial manufacturing activities within an agricultural zoning district must provide information describing how the following requirements will be satisfied. ◻ No Volatile Solvents. Cannabis manufacturing that will require a State "Type 7" license, or will use volatile solvents, is prohibited. ◻ Products. A cannabis manufacturing business in agricultural zoning shall ensure that all manufactured cannabis products are cultivated, transported, distributed, and tested by licensed and permitted facilities that maintain operations in full conformance with State laws and regulations and the applicable requirements of this chapter. A cannabis manufacturing business shall maintain adequate quality control measures to ensure cannabis and cannabis products manufactured at the site meet applicable requirements of State laws and regulations. ◻ Employee Training. A cannabis manufacturing business shall ensure that all employees of the business operating potentially hazardous equipment are trained on the proper use of equipment and on the proper hazard response protocols in the event of equipment failure. 4) SECURITY PLAN A proposal must include a security plan that establishes how all security requirements in State laws and regulations will be satisfied. The security plan must clearly identify the security measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas of the business used for cultivation, including the following measures. ◻ Indoor commercial cultivation areas must be locked, and no cannabis plants may be visible from outside of the indoor commercial cultivation areas. Outdoor cultivation areas and greenhouses must be fenced and all gates must be locked. Fencing surrounding outdoor cultivation areas and greenhouses 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 14 must be designed and maintained to ensure those areas and greenhouses are not visible from adjacent lots, private roads, and public rights of way. ◻ Access to the premises must be limited to authorized personnel. ◻ The premises must include an alarm system and security cameras to monitor all cultivation areas and all entryways. The alarm system and security cameras must be monitored twenty-four-hours per day by a licensed alarm company operator. a. Cannabis Manufacturing in Agricultural(A- ) Zoning District ◻ A cannabis manufacturing business in agricultural zoning shall implement and maintain sufficient security measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing cannabis or cannabis products, including an alarm system and security cameras that monitor all manufacturing areas and entryways and that are monitored twenty-four-hours per day by a licensed alarm company operator. 5) SUSTAINABILITY ◻ Proposal must provide a complete explanation of all proposed measures to ensure the sustainability of the business, including but not limited to a description of energy generation and efficiency measures, high efficiency mechanical systems, and alternative fuel transportation methods. ◻ Proposal must provide the following information in relation to water use: - A description of the water source to be used for the business. - For commercial cultivation and other uses that require significant water, a water management and conservation plan that identifies sustainability measures that will be utilized at the business, inclu ding water efficiency measures - To the maximum extent feasible, water conservation measures, water recapture systems, drip irrigation, raised beds, or grey water systems must be incorporated in cannabis cultivation operations in order to minimize use of water. - A waste water management plan. ◻ For indoor commercial cultivation businesses please provide and explanation on how the operation shall satisfy its electricity demands by (1) providing onsite renewable energy generation, or (2) purchasing electricity that is generated entirely from renewable sources, or a combination of (1) and (2). 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 15 ◻ A description of efforts to avoid and minimize ai r emissions, including emissions from vehicles and operations. ◻ A commercial cultivation or manufacturing business located outside the urban limit line shall include measures to avoid and minimize impacts on rural infrastructure, including but not limited to water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure. 6) COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC BENEFIT SUMMARY Using the Key Metrics for Community/Economic benefit in Table 2 below, provide a community/economic benefit statement describing the benefits the proposed business will have in these areas. The County staff team will use the criteria detailed in the table below to evaluate, score and rank proposals and will prepare a report to the Board on the evaluations. To be considered eligible to be invited to apply for an LUP, a proposal must receive both (1) a minimum score of 70% of the available points in each category listed in Table 2, and (2) at Section 4: Scoring and Selection Process *Important Notice Regarding Water Usage for Commercial Cultivation* Per the County Cannabis Ordinance, water service for a commercial cultivation business must be provided by a retail water supplier with the following exceptions; A commercial cultivation business may satisfy its water demand by pumping groundwater from a groundwater production well if all of the following criteria are met: a. The retail water supplier does not provide retail water se rvice at all times during the year. b. Groundwater is used to satisfy water demand of the business only during those periods when the retail water supplier does not provide retail water service to the business. c. The use of groundwater by the business will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, and will not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table level. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 16 least 80% of the available points overall (at least 960 points). The Board of Supervisors will make the final determination on which, if any, persons submitting proposals will receive an invitation to apply for an LUP. Regardless of score, the Board may, in its discretion, determine on the basis of the proposals submitted not to invite any persons submitting proposals to apply for an LUP, or the Board may, in its discretion, invite a number of LUP applications that is less than the cap for the applicable category of commercial cannabis activity. Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 1. Cover Letter/ Ownership Qualifications  Thoroughness of Cover Letter in providing a complete picture of the proposed business and business operators ability to operate a successful business  Business owner experience operating a licensed cannabis business in another jurisdiction and/or experience operating a business similar to what is proposed  Description of any special business or professional qualifications or licenses relevant to the proposed business.  Performance during oral interview, including knowledge of state and local regulations, knowledge of the details of the proposals, ability to answer questions accurately and consistently, demonstrated ability to exercise good judgement and demonstrated ability and commitment to comply with the terms and conditions of any permit that is ultimately secured. 200 pts. 2. Location  Location clearly identified with address and detailed description, in appropriate zoning district and meets all the locational requirements as described in Section 88-28.410(b) of the County Zoning Ordinance. 200 pts. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 17 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 2. Location (continued)  Compliance with buffer/setback/sensitive use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.  The business is located in an area that would not result in the undue influence of cannabis use upon sensitive populations such as children and those recovering from substance abuse. Distances from residential and other sensitive uses, such as schools, daycare centers, youth centers and drug/alcohol recovery facilities are maximized / exceed minimum requirements.  Proposed storefront retailer has a location that has public visibility to enable easy reporting of violations and nuisances, but is not highly visible to youth.  Proposed storefront retailer is readily accessible from public transit? (a benefit)  Proposed storefront retailer is readily accessible from major thoroughfares? (a benefit)  Compatibility with surrounding community and nearby land uses.  Provision of parking will meet or exceed required minimum off-street parking requirements.  Will not exacerbate crime in an high crime area (e.g. within a crime reporting district, where the general crime rate exceeds the countywide general crime rate by more than twenty percent)  The business is proposed to be located in an area that is safe and accessible by law enforcement and fire fighters.  Observed features of the property (lighting, parking, landscaping, access, etc.) are consistent with the proposed site plan. 3. Business and Operating Plan  Completeness of operating plan and documented ability to comply with County Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 18 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 3. Business and Operating Plan  Completeness and effectiveness of inventory control plan  Floorplan/layout is clear and provides for safe and functional operation  Signage plan (interior and exterior), including plan for avoiding marketing to youth  Proposed design features, such as windows, primary entrance facing street, pedestrian improvements, no significant blank walls, removal of existing nonconforming features such as pole signs, security screening not visible from exterior  Timeline for beginning operation, including outline for any proposed construction/improvements and a deadline for completion  Are the proposed odor control measures likely to be effective in preventing odors that will disturb neighboring properties or create a nuisance and in protecting the quality of the indoor air for the health of employees and customers?  Budget for construction, operation, maintenance, compensation of employees, equipment costs, utility costs, and other operation costs is well thought out and reasonable. The budget must include a detailed pro forma for three years of operations and a description of the sources and uses of funds.  Proof of sufficient capital to cover first 3 months of operation (documentation of cash or other liquid assets on hand, Letters of Credit or other equivalent assets); 200 pts. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 19 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 4. Security Plan  A complete security plan has been provided identifying all proposed security measures in detail  The security plan identifies and describes all active security measures  The security plan identifies and describes all proposed security measures  Active security measured are described in appropriate detail and will be effective  Passive security measures are described in appropriate detail and will be effective  Security camera plan is described in appropriate detail and will be effective  Information is provided on how site layout conducive to security  Information is provided on how interior layout conducive to security  Details on Employee background check measures  Product security measures  Document and cash storage security measures  Security measures beyond minimum standards 200 pts. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 20 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 5. Sustainability  Would the proposed business meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance related to electricity generation, water use and control of any wastewater or runoff?  Would the business include any innovative sustainability measures in excess of minimum requirements?  Would the proposal aggressively avoid and minimize emissions, including vehicle emissions (especially diesel emissions) related to operation of the business? 100 pts. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 21 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 6.Community /Economic Benefits  What benefits would the proposal offer to the community?  Would the anticipated tax revenue be substantial relative to other proposals?  Would the business serve a unmet need in the community, such as greatly access to cannabis for medicinal or adult-use purposes?  Would the business stimulate broader economic development and contribute substantial new jobs?  Would the business avoid negative impacts to the community and generally serve as a net community asset?  Would the business protect overall public health?  Is the business a locally-owned business, that is a majority of ownership is held by Contra Costa County residents?  Are the products to be sold, manufactured or handled by the proposed business designed to avoid encouraging use by children?  What other benefits would the business have for the broader community 200 pts. 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 22 Table 2: Scoring Guidelines Subject Key Metrics Point Value 7.Equitable Geographic Distribution  Would the proposal result in an undesirable concentration of a specific type of cannabis activity in an area of the County? (a significant detriment, particularly for storefront retailers near an existing retailer or a more highly ranked proposed retailer)  Would the proposal serve an area of the County that would not otherwise be served? 100 pts. ATTACHMENT A LETTER OF INTENT TEMPLATE Date Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Ruben Hernandez RE: Letter of Intent to Submit Cannabis Business Proposal Dear Mr. Hernandez; I, the undersigned, attest that I am a duly authorized representative of the proposed cannabis business identified below: Name of Business: ________________________________________________________ Address of Proposed Business Location: ________________________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number: ________________________________________________________ Zoning: ____________ General Plan: __________ Complies with Location requirements of Section 88-28.410(b) ___Yes ___No Applicant: ________________________________________________________ Applicant Notification address: ________________________________________________________ Applicant Phone Number: ________________________________________________________ Applicant Email Address: ________________________________________________________ I understand that I will be expected to receive all notices at the application notification address of the applicant. I further consent to receiving notice by email at (provide email address). I am interested in applying for a (select one: (1) commercial cultivation, (2) storefront retail, (3) manufacturing in agricultural zone, or (4) a vertically-integrated business that includes at least one of (1), (2), or (3)) cannabis permit. ATTACHMENT A LETTER OF INTENT TEMPLATE 2 / 1 4 / 1 9 P a g e | 1 Further, I have secured a property located at (business address) which is located in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County and located within the (Zoning) Zoning District, and located outside of both (1) the cannabis exclusion zoning district, and (2) the cannabis sensitive uses buffer zones identified in Section 88-28.410(b)(3) of the County Cannabis Ordinance. Please find enclosed (e.g., a real estate letter of intent, a realestate purchase or lease option, purchase agreement, lease agreement or proof of ownership of the place where business will be located; a letter of interest is not acceptable) evidencing that I have secured a proposed site for the minimum requirement of two years. I have also included $500.00 for payment of the required Letter of Intent filing fee. I understand that if I am selected to participate in the limited commercial cannabis activity RFP process I will be prepared to submit my proposal by June 27, 2019. I also understand that if County finds the RFP process unnecessary based on the number of LOIs submitted and the number of permits available, I am prepared to submit a land use permit application for the stated commercial cannabis use within 90 days of receiving notification. Furthermore, I understand that failure to submit a proposal or apply for a land use permit within that time periods described above automatically forfeits my opportunity to submit my proposal or land use permit. Name Title Enclosures: 1. (e.g., a letter of intent to sign a lease, a lease, a purchase option, a purchase agreement, or evidence of ownership of the place where business will be located) 2. $500.00 Letter of intent filing fee Commercial Cannabis Proposals Scoring and Ranking CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOVEMBER 19, 2019 1 Commercial Cannabis RFP Background •Request for Proposal (RFP) and selection process required per County Cannabis Ordinance (Section 88-28.404) for storefront retail, commercial cultivation and manufacturing in agricultural zoning district. •The Cannabis Ordinance imposes a limit of four (4) cannabis retail storefronts, ten (10) commercial cannabis cultivation and two (2) manufacturing businesses in agricultural zoning districts. •The purpose of the RFP process is to enable the County to determine which of the commercial cannabis proposals in these categories to invite to apply for a land use permit. 2 Additional Discretionary Review and Permitting Required •The proposals invited by the Board to apply for a land use permit (LUP) will still need to go through a discretionary LUP process. •The LUP review and approval process will include submission of additional application materials, compliance with California Environmental Quality Act, public noticing, and public hearings. •A County health permit, state license, and County business license will also be required before such business may open. 3 Response to RFP •The Request for Proposals (RFP) was approved by the Board on February 12, 2019 and issued on February 14, 2019. •Letters of Intent (LOI) were a required first step for respondents (to confirm appropriate zoning and property interest). •LOIs were due on April 4, 2019. 60 were received, 53 were invited to submit full proposals. •Proposals were due on June 27, 2019. 40 Proposals were received: •21 for storefront retail. •19 for commercial cultivation. •Zero for manufacturing in an agricultural district. 4 Role of Cannabis Proposal Review Panel •The role of the Panel was to evaluate, score and rank cannabis proposals according to the criteria set forth in the RFP. •The Panel’s ranking of the proposals is meant to provide the Board with guidance for selecting the commercial cannabis proposals to apply for a land use permit. •The Panel’s ranking is only a recommendation. The final selection will be made by the Board. 5 Cannabis Proposal Review Panel As set forth in the RFP, the Review Panel was made up of the following County Departments/Agencies (each department designated its representatives): •County Administrator’s Office: Julie Enea •Department of Agriculture: Matt Slattengren •Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Chris Bachman •Health Services Department: Joe Doser (Environmental Health) and Mayra Lopez (Tobacco Prevention) •Department of Conservation and Development: John Kopchik, Jason Crapo, Ruben Hernandez, Michael Hart, and Jamar Stamps 6 Scoring and Ranking of Proposals •The Panel scored each proposal based on the scoring criteria identified in the February 14, 2019 RFP. •Storefront retailer proposals were scored independently from commercial cultivation proposals. •The panel interviewed all 21 retail storefront applicants. •Commercial cultivation applicants were not interviewed as less than ten were located in eligible areas. •Panel members had access to all 40 full proposals and reviewed and preliminarily evaluated the proposals independently. •The Panel met a total of 15 times. 7 RFP Scoring Criteria RFP Scoring Categories -(See the attached RFP for detailed criteria within each category) 1.Cover Letter/Ownership Qualifications (200 points) 2.Location (200 points) 3.Business and Operating Plan (200 points) 4.Security Plan (200 points) 5.Sustainability (100 points) 6.Community/Economic Benefit (200 points) 7.Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 points) 8 9 Countywide Map of All Proposals Overview of Proposals •A total of 40 proposals were submitted –21 for storefront retail and 19 for commercial cultivation. •Overall, the County received a good pool of applicants. Most proposals were extremely detailed, thorough, and responsive. •One storefront retail proposal received a failing score due to scores below 70% in the categories of Cover Letter/Ownership Qualifications, Business and Operating Plan, and Sustainability and an overall score below 80%. 10 Overview of Proposals (cont.) •Eleven (11) commercial cultivation proposals were deemed ineligible due to being located in areas not served by a “retail water supply” as required by County code. •One commercial cultivation proposal received a failing score due to scores below 70% in the categories of Location, Business and Operating Plan, and Sustainability and an overall score below 80%. •20 of the 21 retail storefront proposals and 7 of the 19 commercial cultivation proposals received recommended passing scores from the Panel and are eligible to be invited to apply for an LUP. 11 Retail Storefront Proposals •For the 21 storefront retail proposals, the number of applications received for each area of the County are as follows: 6 in the “North” Pacheco Boulevard area; 4 In the “South” Pacheco Boulevard area; 7 in El Sobrante; 2 in Bay Point (same site); 1 in Clyde; 1 in North Richmond. •County Ordinance Section 88-28.410(b)(3)(B) prohibits storefront retailers within 500 feet of each other. 12 Retail Storefront Proposal Locations Countywide 13 North Pacheco Boulevard Retail Storefront Proposal Locations 14 South Pacheco Boulevard Retail Storefront Proposal Locations 15 El Sobrante Retail Storefront Proposal Locations 16 North Richmond Retail Storefront Proposal Location 17 Clyde and Bay Point Retail Storefront Proposal Locations 18 19 Retail Storefront Scoresheet *Proposals that share same rank color are mutually exclusive due to being located on same site or within 500-feet of each otherPassing Scores Observations on Distinguishing Features of Retail Storefront Proposals •All proposals were reviewed and scored according to the scoring criteria in the RFP •Most proposals were very comprehensive and had relatively similar level of quality in many areas, notably in operations plan and security •Some areas where the proposals significantly differentiated themselves in the eyes of the Panel were: •Location,including degree of accessibility, compatibility with surrounding uses, visibility, and adequacy of parking •Quality of interview and level of experience •Community Benefit •Sustainability 20 21 Retail Storefront Rankings *Proposals that share same rank color are mutually exclusive due to being located on same site or within 500-feet of each other Rank*Business Name Area 1 Authentic 925 South Pacheco 2 The Artist Tree El Sobrante 3 Embarc Contra Costa North Pacheco 4 Garden of Eden South Pacheco 5 Bento South Pacheco 5 Perfect Union South Pacheco 7 The Flower Shop El Sobrante 8 Elemental Wellness Center North Pacheco 9 Element 7 - Bay Point Bay Point 9 The Gas Station North Pacheco 11 Element 7 - Appian Way El Sobrante 12 Horizon Collective North Pacheco 12 Stone Age Farmacy Clyde 14 The Green Door - Bay Point Bay Point 15 Element 7 - San Pablo Dam Road El Sobrante 16 Shoot the Moon North Pacheco 17 The Green Door - Appian Way El Sobrante 18 White Fire Dispensary Richmond 19 Emerald Heights El Sobrante 19 One Plant El Sobrante 21 Waterfront Wellness North PachecoPassing Scores Geographic Distribution and Selection Scenarios •To address geographic distribution, the Panel has developed alternate ranking scenarios for Board consideration. •Scenario #1 -1 in El Sobrante, 1 on north Pacheco Boulevard, 1 on south Pacheco Boulevard, and 1 in Bay Point. •Scenario #2 -1 in El Sobrante, 2 on south Pacheco Boulevard, and 1 on north Pacheco Blvd. 22 Scenario #1 23 1 in El Sobrante, 1 on south Pacheco Boulevard, 1 on north Pacheco Boulevard, and 1 in Bay Point Rank*Business Name Area 1 Authentic 925 South Pacheco 2 The Artist Tree El Sobrante 3 Embarc Contra Costa North Pacheco 4 Garden of Eden South Pacheco 5 Bento South Pacheco 5 Perfect Union South Pacheco 7 The Flower Shop El Sobrante 8 Elemental Wellness Center North Pacheco 9 Element 7 - Bay Point Bay Point 9 The Gas Station North Pacheco *Proposals that share same rank color are mutually exclusive due to being located on same site or within 500-feet of each other Scenario #2 24 1 in El Sobrante, 2 on south Pacheco Boulevard, and 1 on north Pacheco Boulevard Rank*Business Name Area 1 Authentic 925 South Pacheco 2 The Artist Tree El Sobrante 3 Embarc Contra Costa North Pacheco 4 Garden of Eden South Pacheco 5 Bento South Pacheco 5 Perfect Union South Pacheco 7 The Flower Shop El Sobrante 8 Elemental Wellness Center North Pacheco 9 Element 7 - Bay Point Bay Point 9 The Gas Station North Pacheco *Proposals that share same rank color are mutually exclusive due to being located on same site or within 500-feet of each other Existing Medical-Only Dispensary in El Sobrante 25 •The business currently known as One Plant is operating as a medical marijuana dispensary in El Sobrante. One Plant submitted a proposal for retail storefront so it could expand to adult use cannabis and received a passing score (ranked 19th). •If the Board invites four different proposals to apply for an LUP, it is possible that One Plant would continue to operate as a medical-only cannabis dispensary. 26 Proposal Details and Summary Information •All 40 full proposals are attached. •The Panel has prepared 2-page sheets of each scored proposal that summarizes each section of the proposal and their scores (address field contains a link to an interactive map). •Images of each proposal mentioned in the scenarios follow this slide. Authentic 925 (Rank #1) 100 N. 1st Ave., Pacheco 27 The Artist Tree (Rank #2) 4100 San Pablo Dam Rd., El Sobrante 28 Embarc Contra Costa (Rank #3) 3503 Pacheco Blvd., Pacheco 29 Bento (Rank #5) 5236 Pacheco Blvd., Pacheco 30 Element 7 –Bay Point (Rank #9) 3515 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point 31 One Plant (Rank #19) 3823 San Pablo Dam Road, El Sobrante 32 County Wide Map for Commercial Cultivation 33 34 North Richmond Cultivation Proposal Locations 35 East County Cultivation Proposal Locations 36 Commercial Cultivation Scoresheet Passing Scores 37 Commercial Cultivation Rankings Rank Business Name Area 1 Lifted Spirit Collective Brentwood 2 703 Chesley, LLC Richmond 3 Element 7 - Chestnut Street Brentwood 4 Element 7 - Willow Way Byron 5 Casa Rasta Farms Richmond 6 Diablo Valley Farms Brentwood 7 Magic Flower Gardens, LLC Richmond 8 Royal Craft LLC KnightsenPassing Scores Additional Considerations •The Panel recommends all invitations must be based on the description of the project in the proposals. Applications must live up to the commitments made in the proposals. •A process for selecting the final three commercial cultivation invitees will be brought to the Board at a later date. 38 Next Steps •Schedule for December 10th the Board decision on which proposals to invite to apply for an LUP. •Within 90 days of being invited by the Board, the applicant must apply for a Land Use Permit and pay applicable fees. •LUP applications will proceed through the normal discretionary review process, including one or more public hearings. •Upon review and approval of an LUP, the applicant must obtain other necessary approvals prior to commencing operations, including a County health permit, State license, County business license, and necessary building permits. 39 Appendix -Interview Questions 40 1.Please briefly summarize your experience in the cannabis industry. What lessons have you learned and how will you apply that experience to this proposal? 2.What do you think is the strongest feature or aspect of your proposal? 3.Tell us what your understanding is of the County’s and the State’s step-by-step permitting and licensing process. What is your experience going through similar processes and do you anticipate any scheduling challenges? 4.Land use permits are a public process. What type of site specific controversy have you anticipated with your proposal and what have you done and will you do to address those concerns? 5.Almost 40% of Tobacco store retailers sell tobacco to underage youth. Describe the policies and plans that you would implement and how you would enforce these policies to ensure your cannabis products do not end up in the hands of youth. Explain how your marketing strategy will not encourage youth to attempt to access your product. 6.Give us a summary of how your business will benefit the community, including hiring and community outreach. What local community/non-profit organizations are you already engaged with (financially or otherwise)? Or, who are you planning to engage with? 7.Would you like to provide any summary or concluding remarks? RETAIL STOREFRONT SCORESHEET Appl i ca t ion Numbe r Area Bus ine s s Name1. Cove r Le t te r /Owne r sh ip Qual i f i ca t ion s (200 p t s . )2. Lo ca t ion (200 p t s . )3. Bu s ine s s and Ope ra t ing Plan (200 p t s . )4. Se cu r i ty P lan (200 p t s . )5. Su s ta inab i l i ty (100 p t s . )6. Commun i ty /E conom i c Benef i t (200 p t s . )Equi tab le Geog raph i c Di s t r ibu t ion (100 p t s . )TOTAL (1 ,200 p t s . )Rank*CDMJ19-00012 South Pacheco Authentic 925 180 200 190 200 90 195 100 1155 1 CDMJ19-00032 El Sobrante The Artist Tree 195 175 180 200 100 190 100 1140 2 CDMJ19-00031 North Pacheco Embarc Contra Costa 185 185 180 200 95 185 100 1130 3 CDMJ19-00001 South Pacheco Garden of Eden 180 180 180 195 85 185 100 1105 4 CDMJ19-00034 South Pacheco Bento 175 185 185 200 85 170 100 1100 5 CDMJ19-00028 South Pacheco Perfect Union 190 185 180 185 70 190 100 1100 5 CDMJ19-00058 El Sobrante The Flower Shop 190 165 180 175 85 185 100 1080 7 CDMJ19-00019 North Pacheco Elemental Wellness Center 175 180 160 190 90 180 100 1075 8 CDMJ19-00042 Bay Point Element 7 - Bay Point 160 175 160 190 85 180 100 1050 9 CDMJ19-00017 North Pacheco The Gas Station 160 170 170 200 80 170 100 1050 9 CDMJ19-00023 El Sobrante Element 7 - Appian Way 160 160 160 190 85 180 100 1035 11 CDMJ19-00033 North Pacheco Horizon Collective 160 175 170 200 70 145 100 1020 12 CDMJ19-00057 Clyde Stone Age Farmacy 170 155 160 200 85 150 100 1020 12 CDMJ19-00039 Bay Point The Green Door - Bay Point 155 170 180 185 80 145 100 1015 14 CDMJ19-00043 El Sobrante Element 7 - San Pablo Dam Road 160 150 155 180 85 180 100 1010 15 CDMJ19-00007 North Pacheco Shoot the Moon 140 170 150 180 90 175 100 1005 16 CDMJ19-00037 El Sobrante The Green Door - Appian Way 155 160 180 185 80 140 100 1000 17 CDMJ19-00016 Richmond White Fire Dispensary 175 140 150 165 85 150 100 965 18 CDMJ19-00045 El Sobrante Emerald Heights 150 155 150 175 75 155 100 960 19 CDMJ19-00038 El Sobrante One Plant 155 180 155 160 70 140 100 960 19 CDMJ19-00059 North Pacheco Waterfront Wellness 100 180 100 175 50 140 100 845 21 *Proposals that share the same color are mutually exclusive due to being located on same site or within 500-feet of each other COMMERCIAL CULTIVATION SCORESHEET Appl i ca t ion Numbe r Area Bus ine s s NameWate r Se rv i ce 1. Cove r Le t te r /Owne r sh ip Qual i f i ca t ion s (200 p t s . )2. Lo ca t ion (200 p t s . )3. Bu s ine s s and Ope ra t ing Plan (200 p t s . )4. Se cu r i ty P lan (200 p t s . )5. Su s ta inab i l i ty (100 p t s . )6. Commun i ty /E conom i c Benef i t (200 p t s . )Equi tab le Geog raph i c Di s t r ibu t ion (100 p t s . )TOTAL (1 ,100 p t s . )RankCDMJ19-00009 Brentwood Lifted Spirit Collective YES 195 195 190 195 100 200 100 1175 1 CDMJ19-00026 Richmond 703 Chesley, LLC YES 180 200 180 185 95 185 100 1125 2 CDMJ19-00047 Brentwood Element 7 - Chestnut Street YES 190 190 190 185 90 175 100 1120 3 CDMJ19-00046 Byron Element 7 - Willow Way YES 190 160 190 185 90 175 100 1090 4 CDMJ19-00008 Richmond Casa Rasta Farms YES 170 185 155 190 90 190 100 1080 5 CDMJ19-00051 Brentwood Diablo Valley Farms YES 185 200 170 175 90 160 100 1080 5 CDMJ19-00027 Richmond Magic Flower Gardens, LLC YES 195 200 140 190 90 140 100 1055 7 CDMJ19-00055 Knightsen Royal Craft LLC YES 140 130 110 190 50 140 100 860 8 CDMJ19-00002 Knightsen Royal Winzone Management Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00003 Knightsen U.S. Gods Dragon Management Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00004 Knightsen U.S. Phoenix Management Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00005 Knightsen Golden Flower Enterprise Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00006 Knightsen Granville Dragon Management, Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00010 Knightsen Thrive Biotech Farm, Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00013 Knightsen Jings Garden, Inc.NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00014 Knightsen Living Well Biotech Farm, Inc NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00030 Byron WWBDM LLC NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00048 Bethel Island Element 7 (0 Canal)NO 0 N/A CDMJ19-00049 Brentwood Element 7 (430 Camino Diablo)NO 0 N/A     Authentic 925 MJ19-0012 RANK:  #1  Business Name: Authentic 925 Owner(s): Jose Pecho (Community Outreach) Brian Mitchell (CEO) Total Score: 1,155/1,200 (Rank #1) Address: 5753-5759 Pacheco Boulevard, Pacheco Business Type: Storefront Retail and Delivery Distribution Square Footage: 15,000-s.f. (4,000-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 77 Spaces (shared with existing tire shop) Within 500-feet of: Garden of Eden, Perfect Union Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ideal location with good access and large parking lot - Highest # of employees based on relocation of distribution facility and Corporate HQ to site - 24-hr security guard presence - Likely highest County tax revenue generation - Ownership has experience with retail dispensary Cons - Parking may become issue based on proposed future use (Corporate HQ, distribution center) - Located across from Pacheco Community Center Building Rendering Before and After (Remodel and Update of Existing Building) Vicinity Map      Authentic 925 MJ19-0012 RANK:  #1  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 180 - Operate La Corona Wellness dispensary in San Francisco since June 2018 - Very large vertically integrated business (retail storefront with delivery, distribution) - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 200 - Centrally located ½-mile from Hwy 680 on/off ramp - Visible location on major County thoroughfare - 77 parking spaces proposed - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 190 - Comprehensive understanding of State and County permitting processes - Budget is complete and reasonable, sufficient capital available - $11m in start-up funding available - Use of Treez PoS system which complies with State/County regulations - Modern, safe and functional floor plan - Non-cannabis logo 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Ownership of entire site, but some non-associated retail to remain - 4 guards during hours of operation, one guard after hours - Extensive camera coverage both interior and exterior - Hourly cash drops overseen by manager - Separate entrance for vendors and staff 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Use of “smart” power strips that automatically turn off to conserve energy - Discounts on apparel to customers traveling by alternative transit - Installation of solar panels - Will opt for MCE electricity - Plug-in/hybrid delivery vehicles 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 195 - 50% local ownership - $150k or 1.5% of gross profit (whichever is greater) for community brnifit donations - 16 paid volunteer hours per employee annually - $18/hour starting wage - Plans to relocate HQ and Oakland distribution center to site - Will display work from local artist 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,155     The Artist Tree MJ19-0032 RANK:  #2  Business Name: The Artist Tree Owner(s): Adam Han Amy Lee Total Score: 1,140/1,200 (Rank #2) Address: 4100 San Pablo Dam Rd., El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 4,250-s.f. (1,192-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 17 Spaces Within 500-feet of: Element 7 – Appian Way Emerald Heights The Green Door The Flower Shop Element 7 - SPDR Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Subtle approach to retail in a highly visible location - Operators have extensive background in cannabis retail - Significant improvement over existing use Cons - Adjacent to residential uses - Proximate to swim club parking entrance and, to a lesser degree, the library Building Rendering Before/After (Renovation and Update to Existing Building) Vicinity Map      The Artist Tree MJ19-0032 RANK:  #2  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 195 - Applicant operates five retail storefronts (first was established in Los Angeles in 2006) - Clear and thorough interview - Best interview 2. Location (200 pts) 175 - Central accessible location at intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way - Located near library and swim school - Residential uses near back of store - 18 parking spaces - Update and remodel to existing building (existing smoke shop) 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - State compliant inventory management - Non-cannabis logo - $800k startup cost projected, $400k in expenditures and $1.1m in labor cost for first 7 years. $4.7m in assets shown 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Full control of site - At least one guard in lobby during business hours - Extensive camera coverage - Separate entrance for delivery fulfillment 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 100 - Solar installation - Work with MCE to ensure most efficient and cost-effective means of providing electricity - Ownership has background in solar installation - Full electric delivery vehicles, use OptimoRoute for efficient delivery routes 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 190 - 2% gross receipts to charitable organizations - Community Calendar giving campaign - 24 paid volunteer hours per employee annually - Support local artists through display/selling art at no charge 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,140     Embarc Contra Costa MJ19-0031 RANK:  #3  Business Name: Embarc Contra Costa Owner(s): George Miller IV Total Score: 1,130/1,200 (Rank #3) Address: 3503 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront retail with delivery Square Footage: 2,400-s.f. (1,275-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 29 Spaces Shares Site With: Elemental Wellness Center Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Large team with experience in many relevant fields - Highly visible/accessible location on Pacheco Boulevard - Many community benefits, including volunteer hours and charitable contributions Cons - Newly formed team Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel and upgrade to existing building) Vicinity Map      Embarc Contra Costa MJ19-0031 RANK:  #3  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 185 - Large team with significant experience in many relevant fields - Operations leader is GM for retail operation in San Francisco - Excellent interview 2. Location (200 pts) 185 - Located directly off of Pacheco Boulevard closer to Hwy 680 than nearly all other “north” Pacheco Blvd. proposals - 29 proposed parking spaces - Remodel of existing building, modern design 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - State compliant inventory management - Sale of pre-packaged products only, minimal odor impacts - Complete floor plan and exterior renderings provided, major upgrade of existing building and site proposed, including improved parking area - Non-cannabis signage - $1.6m in startup funding 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Full control of site - Two guards during business hours - Very Extensive camera coverage, thorough security plan - Secure enclosed loading area for deliveries 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 95 - Use solar for power, including installing a battery - Zero Emission vehicles for deliveries 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 185 - Owner is native to Contra Costa but no longer lives in County, long family history in County - 100% local hiring commitment - Starting wage at least $2 above minimum - 40 paid volunteer hours/year - 1% of gross receipts to climate programs, 1% of local brand sales to public protection fund 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,130     Garden of Eden MJ19-0001 RANK:  #4  Business Name: Garden of Eden Owners: Matt Light (20%) Laurie Light (20%) Shareef El-Sissi (10%) Soufyan Abouamed (50%) Total Score: 1,105/1,200 (Rank #4) Address: 100 Union St., Pacheco Business Type: Storefront Retail and Delivery Square Footage: 3,115-s.f. (1,350-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 31 Shared Spaces Within 500-feet of: Authentic 925, Perfect Union Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Very accessible central location off Pacheco Boulevard - 500 paid employee community service hours proposed annually Cons - Located on narrow side street (Union St.), not as visible as other proposals on Pacheco Blvd. - Monetary contribution to non-profit organizations lower than some other proposals - Located near Pacheco Community Center Building Rendering Before/After(Remodel and update of existing building) Vicinity Map      Garden of Eden MJ19-0001 RANK:  #4  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 180 - Cannabis dispensary and delivery business experience - Involved with development of TREEZ Point of Sale (POS) tracking software used Statewide - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 180 - Centrally located ½-mile from Hwy 680 on/off ramp - Lower visibility due to location on side street (Union St.) off Pacheco Blvd. - 31 shared parking spaces proposed 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - Reasonable budget projections, fully capitalized - Uses Treez PoS system, complies with State/County Regulations - Non-cannabis related logo - Significant upgrades to site and building proposed 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 195 - Sole use of property/full site control - 2 guards during hours of operations - Extensive camera coverage both interior and exterior - Delivery area gated off from parking, separate building access 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - LED and other energy-efficient bulbs - Installation of solar panels 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 185 - 90% local ownership - Target of 500 combined community service hours annually - $25k pledge in year 1; yearly escalating cash donations - Involvement in Pacheco MAC meetings 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,105     Bento MJ19-0034 RANK:  #5  Business Name: Bento Owner(s): Clayton Wiedemann Christian Wiedemann Thomas Krehbiel Total Score: 1,100/1,200 (Rank #5) Address: 5236 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 2,400-s.f. (1,440-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 9 Spaces Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Local ownership with background in cannabis businesses - Most central, accessible location with close proximity to Hwy 680/Hwy 4 on/off ramps - Located on main thoroughfare in heavily commercial area Cons - No amount specified for charitable contributions/volunteer hours - Limited off-street parking Building Rendering Before/After (Renovation/Update to Existing Building) Vicinity Map      Bento MJ19-0034 RANK:  #5  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 175 - Owners have experience with cannabis business, operate cultivation/manufacture/distribution facility in Desert Hot Springs - Partnered with delivery only retailer, in operation since 2016 - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 185 - Most central, accessible location with close proximity to Hwy 680/Hwy 4 on/off ramps - Located on main thoroughfare in heavily commercial area - 9 parking spaces - Renovation and update to existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 185 - State compliant inventory management - Small lobby and showroom - Delivery focused business - Non-cannabis logo - $3m in startup capital available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Full control of site - One armed guard during business hours - Extensive camera coverage - Separate delivery entrance 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Use 7 new hybrid vehicles for deliveries 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 170 - Majority ownership is local to Contra Costa - Direct contributions to charities, but no amount specified - Volunteer hours for employees, but no amount specified 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,100       Perfect Union MJ19-0028 RANK:  #5  Business Name: Perfect Union Owner(s): David Spradlin (Executive Director) Mark Pelter (Operation Director) Jazz Toor (Operations Advisor) Total Score: 1,100/1,200 (Rank #5) Address: 5807 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront retail with delivery Square Footage: 1,665-s.f. (807-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 10 Spaces Within 500-feet of: Garden of Eden, Authentic 925 Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Very accessible, central location on Pacheco Boulevard - Background in cannabis retail operations - 5% of gross revenue towards community organizations Cons - Parking is limited (applicant intends to secure more) - Located near Pacheco Community Center - Limited sustainability efforts identified Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel and update to existing building) Vicinity Map        Perfect Union MJ19-0028 RANK:  #5  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 190 - Thorough cover letter - Experience operating cannabis stores in Sacramento - Started cultivation in 2006 - Excellent interview. 2. Location (200 pts) 185 - Centrally located ½-mile from Hwy 680 on/off ramp - Visible location on major County thoroughfare - 10 Parking spaces proposed - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - Inventory control compliant with state regulations - Compact floor plan, small retail area - Non-cannabis sign - $1.3M startup budget, $1M construction budget 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Full control of the site - Two guards during business hours - Extensive camera placement both interior and exterior 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 70 - Use of energy efficient and recycled building materials - Limited sustainability efforts identified 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 190 - Operations Advisor resides in Walnut Creek - 15-20 Full time employees, 80% local hiring - Living Wage, letters of support from labor groups - 5% of gross revenues to local community organizations 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,085     The Flower Shop MJ19-0058 RANK:  #7  Business Name: The Flower Shop Owner(s): Bill Koziol Total Score: 1,080/1,200 (Rank #7) Address: 4160 Appian Way, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 2,000-s.f. (1,000-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 29 Shared Spaces Within 500-feet of: The Artist Tree Shares Site With: Element 7 – Appian The Green Door – El Sobrante Emerald Heights Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership local to Contra Costa, has experience operating storefront retail - Visible location along Appian Way Cons - Across the street from County library and children’s reading garden - Proximate to swim club - Will share building with bar with history of serious crime - Adjacent to multi-family residential uses Building Rendering Before/After (Renovation and update to existing building) Vicinity Map      The Flower Shop MJ19-0058 RANK:  #7  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 190 - Owner has experience with cannabis retail, Richmond in 2012 and Oakland in 2014 - Excellent interview 2. Location (200 pts) 165 - Adjacent to residential uses - Across street from library, near swim club - Will share building with bar - Within a mile of Hwy 80 on/off ramp - Located directly on Appian Way - Remodel of existing building - 29 shared parking spaces 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - Large lobby area - Non-cannabis signage - $888,838 startup cost, total of $1.175m available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 175 - Share site with bar - Two guards during business hours - Extensive camera coverage - No panic buttons in retail area 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Delivery fleet consists of electric vehicles 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 185 - 100% local ownership - 80% local hiring policy - Contribute 3-7% of gross margins to local organizations - No paid volunteer hours specified 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,080     Elemental Wellness Center MJ19-0019 RANK:  #8  *Building rendering does not appear to match plans Business Name: Elemental Wellness Center Owner(s): Joseph LoMonaco (15%) Django Evans (15%) Daniel Fried (5%) Jay Howard (65%) Total Score: 1,075/1,200 (Rank #8) Address: 3503 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront retail with delivery Distribution Square Footage: 8,197-s.f. (3,365-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 30 Spaces Shares Site With: Embarc Contra Costa Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership has background with cannabis retail - Highly visible/accessible location on Pacheco Boulevard - Minimum 20 hours/month for employee volunteer hours Cons - Lower contributions to charity compared to others - Parking lot constrained (difficult to exit) Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel and upgrade to existing building) Vicinity Map      Elemental Wellness Center MJ19-0019 RANK:  #8  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 175 - Thorough cover letter - Team has operated microbusiness that includes retail, delivery, and cultivation in San Jose for several years - Good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 180 - Located directly off of Pacheco Boulevard closer to Hwy 680 than nearly all other “north” Pacheco Blvd. proposals - 30 proposed parking spaces, potential issues with exiting due to angled parking - Remodel of existing building, modern design 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 160 - Compliant inventory software and track and trace software - Business includes wellness center and yoga studio - Only conceptual building plans provided - Non-cannabis logo - Secured $2.5M personal loan 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Control full site - 2-4 guards during business hours - Extensive camera coverage both interior and exterior - Delivery and distribution area gated off - No information for wellness area/yoga studio 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Daytime lighting will be reliant on SOLATUBE skylights - Installation of solar panels - Use of Low-Emission vehicles until fully electric models suited 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 180 - One owner is local to Contra Costa - Up to 1% of gross receipts donated to charitable causes (est. $102k in year 3) - Minimum 20 hours/month employee volunteer hours - Anticipated $15 entry wage, or “at least $2 above minimum wage” 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,075     Element 7 – Bay Point MJ19-0042 RANK:  #9  Business Name: Element 7 Owner(s): Naresh Kotwani (50%) Robert DiVito, Jr. (20%) Keenan Soares (20%) Contra Costa County (10% equity) Total Score: 1,050/1,200 (Rank #9) Address: 3515 Willow Pass Rd., Bay Point Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 2,587-s.f. Off-Street Parking: 17 Spaces Shares Site With: The Green Door – Bay Point Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - High hourly entry wage - Team has extensive experience in cannabis industry - 24-hour security guard on site - Located directly off of Willow Pass, near freeway Cons - Adjacent to residential uses Building Rendering (Vacant Lot – New Construction) Vicinity Map      Element 7 – Bay Point MJ19-0042 RANK:  #9  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 160 - Team has substantial experience in cannabis industry - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 175 - Several vacant lots, plan to develop site for cannabis retail - Remaining undeveloped portion possibly used for mixed- use/housing - Adjacent to residential uses - Located directly off Willow Pass Road - Located within .5 miles of HWY-4 entrance - 17 parking spaces proposed 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 160 - Non cannabis signage - Access to $5m in startup capital 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Full control of site - 24 hour guard, unknown number of guards during business hours - Extensive interior and exterior camera coverage - Designated loading and unloading area - Site surrounded by fence, gated entry for pedestrians and automobiles 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Use of LEED core concepts - Hybrid vehicles for delivery 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 180 - $22/hour starting plus stock option - $30,000 annually to local charities - 2% local non-profit equity ownership - All full time staff commit 40 hours annually for volunteering 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,050       The Gas Station MJ19-0017 RANK:  #9  Business Name: The Gas Station Owner(s): Brian Wong Viet Nguyen Total Score: 1,050/1,200 (Rank #9) Address: 2368 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez Business Type: Storefront retail and delivery Distribution Square Footage: 3,905-s.f. (1,505-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 11 Spaces Within 500-feet of: Shoot the Moon Shares site with: Horizon Collective Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership background in cannabis retail - Extensive security plan - Progressive monetary donations to charitable organizations Cons - Directly adjacent to residential uses - Limited off-street parking Building Rendering Vicinity Map        The Gas Station MJ19-0017 RANK:  #9  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 160 - Thorough cover letter - Operated retail storefront in San Francisco since 2017 (Elevated) - Owners and team members have worked in cultivation since 2006 - Average interview 2. Location (200 pts) 170 - Adjacent to residential uses - Within 2 miles of Hwy 4 and 1.5 miles of Hwy 680 - Located directly on Pacheco Boulevard - 11 off-street parking spaces, less than required by code - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 170 - Meadow PoS system, includes inventory control - Compliant and functional floorplan - Non-cannabis signs/logo - $2.1M in private loans available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Sole use of site - Two guards during business hours, one guard on site after hours - Extensive interior and exterior camera coverage - Secured parking area for employees and distribution area 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 80 - Installation of solar panels - Installation of EV charging stations 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 170 - Progressive donation over four years to non-profits ranging from $36k to $100k - President will act as community outreach coordinator 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,050     Element 7 – Appian Way MJ19-0023 RANK:  #11  Business Name: Element 7 Owner(s): Robert DiVito, Jr. Total Score: 1,035/1,200 (Rank #11) Address: 4160 Appian Way, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail and Delivery Square Footage: 3,542-s.f. (1,764-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 22 Spaces Within 500-feet of: The Artist Tree Shares Site With: Emerald Heights The Green Door The Flower Shop Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Team has extensive experience in cannabis industry - 24-hour security guard on site - Visible location along Appian Way Cons - Across the street from County library and children’s reading garden - In proximity of swim club - Will share building with bar with history of serious crime - Adjacent to multi-family residential uses Street View (Remodel and update to existing building, no rendering available) Vicinity Map      Element 7 – Appian Way MJ19-0023 RANK:  #11  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 160 - Thorough cover letter - Team has substantial experience in cannabis industry - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 160 - Adjacent to residential uses - Across street from library, near swim club - Will share building with bar - Within a mile of Hwy 80 on/off ramp - Located directly on Appian Way - Remodel of existing building - 22 shared parking spaces 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 160 - Use of Flowhub and METRIC for track & trace and inventory control - Non-cannabis logo - Eco-modern design - $1.35m in start-up funding 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Full site control - 24 hour guard, unknown number of guards during business hours - Extensive interior and exterior camera coverage - Designated secured loading and unloading area 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Use of LEED core concepts - Hybrid vehicles for delivery 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 180 - 2% of dividends with an additional $30k annually to non-profit organizations - 40 hours/year paid volunteer hours for employees - $22/hour entry wage 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 935     Horizon Collective MJ19-0033 RANK:  #12  Business Name: Horizon Collective Owner(s): John Swanston Kenneth John O’Brien III Total Score: 1,020/1,200 (Rank #12) Address: 2368 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 3,198-s.f. Off-Street Parking: 16 Spaces Within 500-feet of: Shoot the Moon Shares Site With: The Gas Station Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership background in cannabis retail, distribution, and cultivation - Visible location located on main thoroughfare Cons - Directly adjacent to residential uses - No commitment to employee volunteer hours - Low sustainability goals compared to other proposals Existing Site Photo (Renovation of existing building, no rendering provided) Vicinity Map      Horizon Collective MJ19-0033 RANK:  #12  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 160 - Ownership has background in cannabis retail. Operated dispensary in Sacramento since 2008 plus two in San Diego - Additional experience with distribution and cultivation - Good interview. 2. Location (200 pts) 175 - Adjacent to residential uses - Within 2 miles Hwy 4 and 1.5 miles of Hwy 680 - Located directly on Pacheco Boulevard - 16 parking spaces - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 170 - State compliant inventory management system - Non-cannabis logo - $1.15m startup cost estimated, $1.3m cash available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Full control of site - Two guards during business hours - Extensive camera coverage - Secure loading area for deliveries, gated parking for employees 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 70 - Plan to use environmental friendly cars, such as hybrids 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 145 - Donate up to 5% of net profits to community programs - Encourage employees to donate time, but no amount specified 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,020       Stone Age Farmacy MJ19-0057 RANK:  #12  Business Name: Stone Age Farmacy Owner(s): Michael Blazevich (24.5%) Anna Blazevich (24.5%) Jennifer Cassady (51%) Total Score: 1,020/1,200 (Rank #12) Address: 150 Medburn Street, Clyde Business Type: Storefront Retail and Delivery Square Footage: 2,500-s.f.  Off-Street Parking: 16 Spaces Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership has extensive experience operating cannabis storefront retail - Extensive security plan Cons - Located adjacent to residential uses - Not on main thoroughfare - No charitable contribution/volunteer hours specified Existing Building (No rendering provided) Vicinity Map        Stone Age Farmacy MJ19-0057 RANK:  #12  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 170 - Ownership has operated retail storefront in Los Angeles since 2007, and Long Beach since 2017 - Also has experience with cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution - Good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 155 - Adjacent to residential uses - Located within 1 mile of HWY-4 entrance - 16 parking spaces - Remodel of existing building - Located off Medburn Avenue, near Port Chicago Highway, not on a major thoroughfare 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 160 - Well designed floor plan - Startup cost of $674k. $850k cash and $1m credit line available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 200 - Full control of site - Two armed guards during business hours, one 24-hour guard - Extensive interior and exterior camera placement - Separate payment and product pick-up window - Registers only allowed max $5k - Designated loading area 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Solar - Intends to obtain LEED certification - Environmentally-friendly vehicle fleet 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 150 - Ownership based in Long Beach, but 51% ownership is one individual from Concord - 100% local hiring policy - $15/hour starting wage - Fundraising for local charities, but no minimum donation specified - Employee volunteer commitment, but no hours specified 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100       Stone Age Farmacy MJ19-0057 RANK:  #12  Total (1,200 pts) 1,020     The Green Door – Bay Point MJ19-0039 RANK:  #14  Business Name: The Green Door Owner(s): Douglas Cortina (CEO, 21,25%) Jigar Patel (President, 21.25% ) Richard Pierce (CFO, 21.25%) AnnaRae Grabstein (CCO, 21.25%) Jared Katz (Director of Business, 15%) Total Score: 1,015/1,200 (Rank #14) Address: 3515 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 7,500-s.f. (3,750-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 58 Spaces Shares Site With: Element 7 – Bay Point Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership has background in retail operations - Located directly off of Willow Pass, near freeway - Brand new building proposed Cons - No local ownership - Some requirements missing from proposal (permitting acknowledgement, pro forma) Building Rendering (Vacant Lot – New Construction) Vicinity Map      The Green Door – Bay Point MJ19-0039 RANK:  #14  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 155 - Detailed cover letter, but overlooked the required acknowledgement of the permitting requirements - Ownership has experience in operating retail storefronts since 2003 - Below average interview 2. Location (200 pts) 170 - Several vacant lots, plan to develop full site for cannabis retail - Adjacent to residential uses - Located directly off Willow Pass Road - Located within .5 miles of HWY-4 entrance - 58 parking spaces proposed 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - Large and roomy floor plan - Non-cannabis signage “The Green Door” - $2.1m startup cost 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Full control of site - 24-hour guard, two guards during business hours - Extensive interior and exterior camera coverage - Secure carport for deliveries 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 80 - LEED water efficiency standards as guide - Purchase hybrid or electric vehicles for delivery 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 145 - 5% of net profits by year 3 to Fred Finch Youth Center - 12 hours per employee annually paid volunteer hours 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,015     Element 7 – San Pablo Dam Road MJ19-0043 RANK:  #15  Business Name: Element 7 Owner(s): Robert DiVito, Jr. (70%) Keenan Soares (20%) Contra Costa County (10% Equity) Total Score: 1,010/1,200 (Rank #15) Address: 4024 San Pablo Dam Road, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 2,093-s.f. Off-Street Parking: Unknown, small quantity Within 500-feet of: The Artist Tree Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - High hourly entry wage - Team has extensive experience in cannabis industry - 24-hour security guard on site Cons - Very limited off-street parking Building Rendering (remodel and update to existing building, no rendering provided) Vicinity Map      Element 7 – San Pablo Dam Road MJ19-0043 RANK:  #15  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 160 - Team has substantial experience in cannabis industry - Very good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 150 - Located directly off of San Pablo Dam Road - Unknown number of parking spaces, possibly 7 - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 155 - Non cannabis signage - Access to $5m in startup capital 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 180 - Full control of site - 24 hour guard, unknown number of guards during business hours - Extensive interior and exterior camera coverage - Separate entrance for employees/deliveries 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Use of LEED core concepts - Hybrid vehicles for delivery 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 180 - $22/hour starting - Contribute 2% dividends with additional $30k annually to local charities - 10% indemnified equity share to the County - 40 paid volunteer hours annual per staff member 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,010     Shoot the Moon MJ19-0007 RANK:  #16  Business Name: Shoot the Moon Owner(s): Jason Burns (President) Estella Burns (Vice President) Brian Ribarich (Secretary) Total Score: 1,005/1,200 (Rank #16) Address: 2508 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Storefront Retail and Delivery Square Footage: 4,740-s.f. (3,974-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 15 Spaces Within 500-feet of: The Gas Station, Horizon Collective Proposals Pros and Cons Pros - 100% local ownership - Visible location off of Pacheco Boulevard - Fully operated by applicant/owners Cons - Directly adjacent to residential uses - Exterior cameras do not appear to cover full exterior of building - Ownership lacks experience compared to other applicants - Shadow of cannabis leaf in signage Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel and update of existing building) Vicinity Map      Shoot the Moon MJ19-0007 RANK:  #16  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 140 - Concise cover letter - Operated delivery-only business in Pacheco for 3 years ending in January 2019 - -No storefront retail experience - Good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 170 - Commercial area but adjacent to residential uses - Within 2 miles of Hwy 4 and 1.5 miles of Hwy 680 - Located directly on Pacheco Boulevard - 15 parking spaces proposed, some back directly onto Shell Ave. - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 150 - Secure and compliant floor plan - Moderate upgrade of existing building proposed - Cannabis leaf in logo - Only $500k of start-up capital available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 180 - Full control over property - 1 armed guard at lobby entrance during business hours - Exterior cameras do not cover all sides of building 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Biodegradable bags for retail use, recycling programs - Use of full electric vehicle for delivery, though unclear sufficient capital exist - LEED Certified building proposed 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 175 - 100% local ownership - 5% of net profits to community organizations - $18/hour starting wage - Commitment of 80% local hiring 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,005     The Green Door – El Sobrante MJ19-0037 RANK:  #17  Business Name: The Green Door Owner(s): Douglas Cortina (CEO, 21,25%) Jigar Patel (President, 21.25%) Richard Pierce (CFO, 21.25%) AnnaRae Grabstein (CCO, 21.25%) Jared Katz (Director of Business, 15%) Total Score: 1,000/1,200 (Rank #17) Address: 4160 Appian Way, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 1,720-s.f. (retail area unknown) Off-Street Parking: 22 Shared Spaces Within 500-feet of: The Artist Tree Shares Site with: Element 7 – Appian Way Emerald Heights The Flower Shop Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership with experience operating cannabis retail - Visible location along Appian Way Cons - Across the street from County library and children’s reading garden - In proximity of swim club - Will share building with bar with history of serious crime - Adjacent to multi-family residential uses - Charitable monetary donations/volunteer hours not specified Building Rendering Before/After (Renovation and Update to Existing Building) Vicinity Map      The Green Door – El Sobrante MJ19-0037 RANK:  #17  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 155 - Did not include required acknowledgement of permitting requirements - Ownership has experience operating retail storefronts since 2003 - Below average interview 2. Location (200 pts) 160 - Adjacent to residential uses - Across street from library, near swim club - Will share building with bar - Within a mile of Hwy 80 on/off ramp - Located directly on Appian Way - Remodel of existing building - 22 shared parking spaces 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - State compliant inventory control - Non-cannabis logo - $1.34m startup cost-$5m in startup capital available 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Share building with existing bar - Two guards during business hours - Extensive camera coverage - Secure carport for deliveries 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 80 - LEED water efficiency standards as guide - Purchase hybrid or electric vehicles for delivery 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 140 - Charitable giving partnerships mentioned but no amounts specified - No paid volunteer hours specified 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,000     White Fire Dispensary MJ19-0016 RANK:  #18  Business Name: White Fire Dispensary Owner(s): Darren Dykstra Hamei Hamedi Total Score: 965/1,200 (Rank #18) Address: 801 Chesley Avenue, Richmond Business Type: Storefront retail and delivery Square Footage: 9,051-s.f. (retail area s.f. unknown) Off-Street Parking: 120 Shared Spaces Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership has background in dispensary operation - Existing solar panels, electric/hybrid vehicle fleet Cons - Located in high crime area surrounded with incompatible uses - Poor access - Large amount of parking, but it is shared and no direct access to entrance from parking lot Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel of existing building) Vicinity Map      White Fire Dispensary MJ19-0016 RANK:  #18  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 175 - Operated dispensary in San Jose since 2016 - Operated indoor cultivation facility starting in 2006 - Good interview 2. Location (200 pts) 140 - Located in high crime area surrounded with incompatible uses - Adjacent to residential uses - Near community center, sports field, railroad tracks - Near Richmond Parkway, but not close to freeways - Located on Chesley Ave, not near a main thoroughfare - 120 shared parking spaces, no direct access from parking area to building entrance - Rehabilitation of existing brick building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 150 - Awkward public access - Location of parking with regard to entrance cumbersome - Small waiting area - Non-cannabis logo - Treez PoS System - Budget appears complete and reasonable 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 165 - Multiple tenants on site - One guard located at entrance during business hours - Adequate interior and exterior camera coverage - Deliveries taken through rear entrance, through long corridor, limited camera coverage in corridor - Floorplan requires crossing of retail floor to access upstairs secure storage and safe areas 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 85 - Existing solar panels on building - Delivery fleet will be comprised of electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel vehicles 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 150 - One of two owners is local - Donations to charity, no monetary amount specified - $16.50/hour starting (stated in interview, not mentioned in proposal) - Policy to hire locally, but no commitment 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 865       Emerald Heights MJ19-0045 RANK:  #19  Business Name: Emerald Heights Owner(s): CROP Infrastructure Corp. (30%) David Baker (45%) Daniel Kang (13.75%) Yoshito Okubo (11.25%) Total Score: 960/1,200 (Rank #19) Address: 4160 Appian Way, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail with Delivery Square Footage: 1,468-s.f. (-s.f. retail area) Off-Street Parking: 18 shared Spaces Within 500-feet of: The Artist Tree Shares Site With: The Green Door Element 7 – Appian Way The Flower Shop Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership experience with cannabis - 100% local hire pledge - Visible location along Appian Way Cons - Across the street from County library and children’s reading garden - In proximity of swim club - Will share building with bar with history of serious crime - Adjacent to multi-family residential uses - Lower charitable contributions compared to some other proposals Building Rendering Before/After (Remodel and update to existing building) Vicinity Map        Emerald Heights MJ19-0045 RANK:  #19  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 150 - Team members/ownership has experience with cannabis cultivation in other states - Average interview 2. Location (200 pts) 155 - Adjacent to residential uses - Across street from library, near swim club - Will share building with bar - Within a mile of Hwy 80 on/off ramp - Located directly on Appian Way - Remodel of existing building - 19 shared parking spaces 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 150 - Limited room for security/staff in lobby area - Limited storage/inventory/office space - Modern interior, heavy focus on technology - $5m letter of credit, $800k in hard startup cost 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 175 - Share site with bar - One guard during business hours - No camera coverage in front of building? - Deliveries from secured carport 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 75 - Solar panels - Recycled building materials - Sustainable packaging 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 155 - Starting wage at $18/hour - 100% local hire pledge - 5% of all profits for November and December donated to 4 local nonprofits - Up to 60 hours/year paid volunteer hours - Showcase local art free of charge 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 960     One Plant MJ19-0038 RANK:  #19  Business Name: One Plant Owner(s): Aaron Serruya (60%) Adam Wilks (40%) Total Score: 960/1,200 (Rank #19) Address: 3823 San Pablo Dam Road, El Sobrante Business Type: Storefront Retail Square Footage: 1,200-s.f. Off-Street Parking: 19 Shared Spaces Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Current, and only, legal, non-conforming, medicinal- only dispensary in unincorporated County - 100% local hiring policy Cons - No local ownership - Interviewees not identified in proposal - Existing signage unauthorized - incorporates cannabis leaf - Security issues with floorplan layout Building Rendering (Existing Building) Vicinity Map      One Plant MJ19-0038 RANK:  #19  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 155 - Interviewees not identified in proposal - Has been operating as only legal, non-conforming, medicinal-only, dispensary in unincorporated County for more than ten years - Below average interview - Expanded into adjacent tenant space without County approval 2. Location (200 pts) 180 - Existing medicinal-only dispensary - Located within 0.6-mile of I-80 freeway on/off ramp - Visible location on San Pablo Dam Road - 19 shared parking spaces 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 155 - Existing medicinal-only dispensary, minimal upgrades needed - Store signage is existing but never authorized, includes stylized cannabis leaf logo - Non-conforming business expanded into adjacent tenant space without County approval 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 160 - Shares property with several other businesses - 1 guard minimum during business hours - Good interior and exterior camera coverage - Access to retail area is not blocked off from lobby - Register area not separated from retail floor - Required to cross retail floor for cash deposits - No separate rooms for managers or security staff, only lobby, retail floor, and secure storage 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 70 - Guided by LEED water efficiency standards 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 140 - No local ownership - 100% local hiring policy, $15-$25 per hour - No paid volunteer hours specified - Annual charitable donations ranging from $1k-$5k to five local organizations 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 950     Waterfront Wellness MJ19-0059 RANK:  #21  Business Name: Waterfront Wellness Owner(s): Zachary Walls (23.3%) Cole Graz (23.3%) Melvin Tumaneng (23.3) Michael Hisaka (15%) Joseph Pike (15%) Total Score: 845/1,200 (Rank #21) Address: 3796 & 3798 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez Business Type: Retail storefront Square Footage: 1,406-s.f. Off-Street Parking: 15 Spaces Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership local to Contra Costa - Highly visible location Cons - Ownership has no experience in cannabis retail, only vape shops - Proposed monetary contribution to community organizations less than others - Incomplete proposal Picture of Building (Existing, no exterior changes proposed) Vicinity Map      Waterfront Wellness MJ19-0059 RANK:  #21  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 100 - 3 of 5 owners live in Contra Costa, other 2 live in Dublin - Incomplete cover letter, limited information on owners and history - Did not include required statement regarding acknowledging regulations - Some team members have experience with vape retail, but no cannabis retail experience - Failing score (100 pts. out of 200) for this section - Poor interview 2. Location (200 pts) 180 - Adjacent to residential uses - .6 miles from I- 680, 1.5 miles from HWY 4 - Located directly on Pacheco Boulevard - 17 Proposed parking spaces - Remodel of existing building 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 100 - Proposal does not demonstrate adequate expirence - Use Cova Software for PoS and inventory management, compliant with State/County regulations - Compliant floorplan, functional layout - No signage shown - Startup cost $300k+. Management has committed $340k and holdings in owned vape business is valued at $1.5M 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 175 - Control full site - One guard during business hours - Camera placement covers both interior and exterior 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 50 - No information provided 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 140 - CEO is local to Contra Costa - Anticipated annual contribution of 1% or $30k to community events 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 845     Lifted Spirit Collective MJ19-0009 RANK:  #1  Business Name: Lifted Spirit Collective Owner(s): Israel Martinez (CEO) Oscar Burrola (COO) Total Score: 1,175/1,200 (Rank #1) Address: 5930 Balfour Road, Brentwood Business Type: Cultivation Manufacturing Distribution Square Footage: 22,000-s.f. (4,361-s.f. cultivation) Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Local Ownership - Background in farming, particularly cannabis - Use of existing greenhouses, indoor cultivation - Contributions to local organizations Cons - Within ½-mile of Brentwood Coty limits/Urbanized uses Aerial Photo Vicinity Map      Lifted Spirit Collective MJ19-0009 RANK:  #1  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 195 - Extensive experience in farming, background in cannabis cultivation - Owner is instructor and lead horticulture technician at Oaksterdam University in Oakland 2. Location (200 pts) 195 - Cultivation located within existing greenhouse structures - Near corn, tomatoes, and walnuts - Approximately 0.42 miles from Urban Limit Line 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 190 - Track and Trace through BiotrackTHC - Multiple systems implemented for odor control - Reasonable budget projections - Already owns property - Funded through personal savings, no proof - Multiple odor control systems 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 195 - Guard station on site, but no mention of hiring guard - Alarm system implemented - Extensive camera coverage 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 100 - Installation of solar - Mixed light cultivation - Use of reclaimed water, rainwater - Dehumidifiers to recapture water - Hybrid and biodiesel for transportation 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 200 - Ownership has long history in Contra Costa County - Yearly increasing contributions to community organizations ($30k in 2021, $50k in 2022, $75k in 2023) 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,175     703 Chesley, LLC MJ19-0026 RANK:  #2  Business Name: 703 Chesley, LLC Owner(s): James Lee Total Score: 1,125/1,200 (Rank #2) Address: 703 Chesley Ave, Richmond Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 12,000-s.f. (5,600-s.f. cultivation) Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Experience in commercial cannabis - Local ownership - Existing warehouse Cons - Aerial Photo Vicinity Map      703 Chesley, LLC MJ19-0026 RANK:  #2  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 180 - Manages indoor cannabis facility in Richmond 2. Location (200 pts) 200 - Located within existing warehouse 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 180 - Personal savings, no proof of capital 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Guard during hours of operation - Alarm system - Camera coverage 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 95 - Drip irrigation - Dehumidifiers to recapture water - Electricity sourced from MCE’s Deep Green Service - Electric vehicles 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 185 - Local ownership - 0.5% net revenue to a local mental health program (approx. $2,200/year) 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,125     Element 7 - Chestnut MJ19-0047 RANK:  #3  Business Name: Element 7 Owner(s): Robert DiVito, Jr. Total Score: 1,120/1,200 (Rank #3) Address: 0 Chestnut Street, Brentwood Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 88,000 square feet Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Staff has extensive experience - Security guard during hours of operation, drone - $30k annually to local organizations Cons - Aerial Photo Vicinity Map      Element 7 - Chestnut MJ19-0047 RANK:  #3  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 190 - Hired staff with experience in cultivation 2. Location (200 pts) 190 - Cultivation in hoop houses - Located near almonds, cherry orchards - Located near residential - 1 mile from Urban Limit Line 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 190 - Vertically integrated with manufacturing location in Antioch - Odor control includes scrubbers, chemical, and high plume 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Security guard during hours of operation - Use of drone for security - Alarm system 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Solar - Recycled water on automated system - Green building materials, LEED design 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 175 - Up to $30k in charitable contributions - 2% of indemnified equity 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,120     Element 7 – Willow Way MJ19-0046 RANK:  #4  Business Name: Element 7 Owner(s): Robert DiVito, Jr. Total Score: 1,090/1,200 (Rank #4) Address: 3645 Willow Way, Byron Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 88,000 square feet Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Staff with background in cannabis - $30k in charitable contributions, 2% equity - Heavy security Cons - Close to Urban Limit Line, residential uses Aerial Photo                                          Vicinity Map      Element 7 – Willow Way MJ19-0046 RANK:  #4  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 190 - Hired staff with experience in cultivation 2. Location (200 pts) 160 - Cultivation in hoop houses - Located near almonds, cherry orchards - Located near residential - Approximately 0.12 miles from Urban Limit Line 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 190 - Vertically integrated with manufacturing location in Antioch - Odor control includes scrubbers, chemical, and high plume 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 185 - Security guard during hours of operation - Use of drone for security - Alarm system 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Solar - Recycled water on automated system - Green building materials, LEED design 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 175 - Up to $30k in charitable contributions - 2% of indemnified equity 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,090     Casa Rasta Farms MJ19-0008 RANK:  #5  Business Name: Casa Rasta Farms Owner(s): Jose “Alex” Ramirez (CEO) Maria Michel-Ramirez (Compliance/HR) Marco Parra (Cultivation Manager/Grower) Total Score: 1,080/1,200 (Rank #5) Address: 505 Brookside Drive, Richmond Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 11,520-s.f. (7,200-s.f. cultivation) Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Majority local ownership - Background in cannabis cultivation - Donations to local non-profits Cons - Low start-up capital shown in proposal Aerial Photo                                          Vicinity Map     Casa Rasta Farms MJ19-0008 RANK:  #5  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 170 - Five years of cultivation experience 2. Location (200 pts) 185 - Use of existing greenhouse - Located near other existing greenhouses 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 155 - State compliant track and trace system - Possibly insufficient budget/capital - Odor control system 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Alarm system in place - Extensive camera coverage 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Drip irrigation, reclaim used water - Future solar 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 190 - Majority owned by Contra Costa residents - Plan to donate to local non-profits - Donate soil to Urban Tilth 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,080       Diablo Valley Farms MJ19-0051 RANK:  #5  Business Name: Diablo Valley Farms Owner(s): Robert Nunn Total Score: 1,080/1,200 (Rank #5) Address: 4425 Sellers Ave., Brentwood Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 8,000 square feet Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Existing facility - Local ownership with background in farming Cons - Adjacent to Urban Limit Line Aerial Photo                                          Vicinity Map       Diablo Valley Farms MJ19-0051 RANK:  #5  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 185 - Local ownership - Decades of local farming experience 2. Location (200 pts) 200 - Cultivation will occur within existing greenhouse - Adjacent to Urban Limit Line - Owner also owns much of the surrounding properties 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 170 - Pre-existing nursery operation, existing greenhouses for cultivation - Sufficient capital, already owns property and existing structures 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 175 - Alarm system - Operator lives next to facility - Camera system, but no plans included 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Drip irrigation - Utilization of existing natural gas well, self-sufficient and off-the- grid facility 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 160 - Plan to hire local - Owned by County residents 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,080     Magic Flower Gardens, LLC MJ19-0027 RANK:  #7  Business Name: Magic Flower Gardens, LLC Owner(s): Justin Derham Lisa Frolova Total Score: 1,055/1,200 (Rank #7) Address: 801 Chesley Ave, Richmond Business Type: Cultivation Square Footage: 4,000-s.f. Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - Ownership with background in commercial cultivation - Located in existing warehouse Cons - No charitable contributions - Low anticipated tax revenue compared to others - Limited information available in proposal Aerial Photo Vicinity Map      Magic Flower Gardens, LLC MJ19-0027 RANK:  #7  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 195 - Ownership with background in cultivation 2. Location (200 pts) 200 - Located in existing warehouse 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 140 - Family business with some background in cultivation 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Security guard during hours of operation - Alarm system - Camera Coverage 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 90 - Existing solar - MCE Deep Green - Drip irrigation 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 140 - “Mom and pop” business 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 1,055     Royal Craft, LLC MJ19-0055 RANK:  #8  Business Name: Royal Craft, LLC Owner(s): Jacqueline Mezzetta Jasun Molinelli Kendall Tuffli Mark Spilker Total Score: 860/1,200 (Rank #8) Address: 11 Pastor Lane, Knightsen Business Type: Cultivation Manufacturing Square Footage: 80,000-s.f. Proposal Pros and Cons Pros - One owner is master grower with experience in State licensed cannabis cultivation Cons - Does not use retail water supply, though is located in East Contra Costa Irrigation District - Outdoor cultivation only, less than 1 mile from Urban Limit Line - No proof of capital Aerial Photo Vicinity Map      Royal Craft, LLC MJ19-0055 RANK:  #8  Score Comments 1. Cover Letter/ Owner Qualifications (200 pts) 140 - One owner is master grower with experience working at State licensed cannabis cultivation farm 2. Location (200 pts) 130 - Outdoor cultivation, located within 1 mile of Urban Limit Line - Near grape, almond, and cherry orchards - Screened from public with fencing and trees 3. Business and Operating Plan (200 pts) 110 - Manufacturing CBD infused coffee and other foods - Plan to construct commercial kitchen within manufacturing area - No proof of capital provided 4. Security Plan (200 pts) 190 - Alarm systems - Security guards, but no mention of number or hours - Extensive camera coverage for manufacturing facility, no plan provided for cultivation area 5. Sustainability (100 pts) 50 - Plan for solar, but not included in budget - Use of well water only, despite being located in East Contra Costa County Irrigation District 6. Community and Economic Benefit (200 pts) 140 - Plan to hire local - Majority owned by County residents 7. Equitable Geographic Distribution (100 pts.) 100 Total (1,200 pts) 860 Link to Proposal File Size Rank Business Name Location (link opens map)Area CDMJ19-00012 [PDF]94.4 MB 1 Authentic 925 5753-5759 Pacheco Boulevard South Pacheco CDMJ19-00032 [PDF]128.4 MB 2 The Artist Tree 4100 San Pablo Dam Road El Sobrante CDMJ19-00031 [PDF]245.6 MB 3 Embarc Contra Costa 3503 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco CDMJ19-00001 [PDF]292.5 MB 4 Garden of Eden 100 Union Street South Pacheco CDMJ19-00034 [PDF]138.0 MB 5 Bento 5236 Pacheco Boulevard South Pacheco CDMJ19-00028 [PDF]67.5 MB 5 Perfect Union 5807 Pacheco Boulevard South Pacheco CDMJ19-00058 [PDF]155.4 MB 7 The Flower Shop 4160 Appian Way El Sobrante CDMJ19-00019 [PDF]352.7 MB 8 Elemental Wellness Center 3503 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco CDMJ19-00042 [PDF]232.3 MB 9 Element 7 - Bay Point 3515 Willow Pass Road Bay Point CDMJ19-00017 [PDF]55.8 MB 9 The Gas Station 2368 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco CDMJ19-00023 [PDF]115.6 MB 11 Element 7 - Appian Way 4160 Appian Way El Sobrante CDMJ19-00033 [PDF]89.4 MB 12 Horizon Collective 2368 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco CDMJ19-00057 [PDF]145.0 MB 12 Stone Age Farmacy 150 Medburn Street Clyde CDMJ19-00039 [PDF]156.3 MB 14 The Green Door - Bay Point 3515 Willow Pass Road Bay Point CDMJ19-00043 [PDF]115.4 MB 15 Element 7 - San Pablo Dam Road 4024 San Pablo Dam Road El Sobrante CDMJ19-00007 [PDF]131.9 MB 16 Shoot the Moon 2508 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco CDMJ19-00037 [PDF]292.4 MB 17 The Green Door - Appian Way 4160 Appian Way El Sobrante CDMJ19-00016 [PDF]175.2 MB 18 White Fire Dispensary 801 Chesley Avenue Richmond CDMJ19-00045 [PDF]107.5 MB 19 Emerald Heights 4160 Appian Way El Sobrante CDMJ19-00038 [PDF]93.7 MB 19 One Plant 3823 San Pablo Dam Road El Sobrante CDMJ19-00059 [PDF]194.3 MB 21 Waterfront Wellness 3796 & 3798 Pacheco Boulevard North Pacheco Link to Proposal File Size Rank Business Name Location (link opens map)Area CDMJ19-00009 [PDF]285.3 MB 1 Lifted Spirit Collective 5930 Balfour Road Brentwood CDMJ19-00026 [PDF]26.9 MB 2 703 Chesley, LLC 703 Chesley Avenue Richmond CDMJ19-00047 [PDF]88.5 MB 3 Element 7 - Chestnut Street 0 Chestnut Street Brentwood CDMJ19-00046 [PDF]86.8 MB 4 Element 7 - Willow Way 3645 Willow Way Byron CDMJ19-00008 [PDF]23.1 MB 5 Casa Rasta Farms 505 Brookside Drive Richmond CDMJ19-00051 [PDF]2.4 MB 5 Diablo Valley Farms 4425 Sellers Avenue Brentwood CDMJ19-00027 [PDF]16.7 MB 7 Magic Flower Gardens, LLC 801 Chesley Avenue Richmond CDMJ19-00055 [PDF]2.5 MB 8 Royal Craft LLC 11 Pastor Lane Knightsen CDMJ19-00002 [PDF]111.5 MB N/A Royal Winzone Management Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00003 [PDF]85 MB N/A U.S. Gods Dragon Management Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00004 [PDF]123 MB N/A U.S. Phoenix Management Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00005 [PDF]78.4 MB N/A Golden Flower Enterprise Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00006 [PDF]78.7 MB N/A Granville Dragon Management, Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00010 [PDF]76.9 MB N/A Thrive Biotech Farm, Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00013 [PDF]78.8 MB N/A Jings Garden, Inc.0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00014 [PDF]78.8 MB N/A Living Well Biotech Farm, Inc 0 Orwood Tract Levee Road Knightsen CDMJ19-00030 [PDF]2.1 MB N/A WWBDM LLC 6600 Armstrong Road Byron CDMJ19-00048 [PDF]87.7 MB N/A Element 7 (0 Canal)0 Canal Road Bethel Island CDMJ19-00049 [PDF]87.1 MB N/A Element 7 (430 Camino Diablo)430 Camino Diablo Brentwood Rankings and Links to Full Proposals Cultivation Proposals Retail Storefront Proposals RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project (Project) and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Concord and Pacheco areas. [Project No.0662-6R4119] DCD-CP#16-35 (District IV and V), 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 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 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Laura Cremin (925)313-2015 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Laura Cremin-Environmental Services C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project and take related actions under CEQA, Concord and Pacheco areas. RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of $2,354.75 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: $13,000,000.00 (88.5% Federal Highway Bridge Program, 11.5% Local Road Funds) BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project is to replace the Marsh Drive Bridge (#28C-0442) over the Walnut Creek Channel. The existing bridge is identified as structurally, seismically, and hydraulically deficient. The purpose of the Project is to replace the existing bridge to meet current design standards to provide safe public access. The existing bridge was originally built as a 6-span concrete slab bridge in 1938, and was lengthened in the 1960s to a 10-span bridge. The bridge is currently 325 feet long by 34 feet wide. The new bridge will be designed to correct all of the existing bridge deficiencies and handle the seismic loads as well as the hydraulic flows within the channel. The proposed bridge replacement will be a 5-span bridge, pre-stressed concrete slab structure on concrete piles that is longer and wider than the existing bridge, at approximately 340 feet long and 55 feet wide. The existing bridge will be demolished and the new bridge will be built in stages on a raised profile approximately seven feet above existing profile with fewer supports in the channel to meet hydraulic standards. The proposed bridge will re-align Marsh Drive slightly to the north while utilizing a larger horizontal curve on the east in order to improve safety. To improve the roadway alignment and horizontal curve at the bridge, there will be approximately 350 to 500 linear feet of roadway approach work at each end of the bridge. In its final configuration the proposed bridge will accommodate two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) with pedestrian and bike facilities on each side of the road. The Project will also include a separated path along the south side of the bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail at the southeastern side of the bridge. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design, construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS CEQA Attachment Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 1 of 72 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement 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: Laura Cremin, Environmental Analyst, (925) 313-2015 Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division 4. Project Location: Marsh Drive, approximately 0.2 miles west of Solano Way, Concord and Pacheco, Contra Costa County (Figure 1) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Contra Costa County: CO (Commercial); (Light Industry); PS (Public and Semi-Public); BP (Business Park); MO (Mobile Homes) City of Concord: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Public and Semi-public; Office 7. Zoning: Contra Costa County: U (Unrestricted), L-I (Light Industry), H-I (Heavy Industry), T-1 (Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Park) 8. Description of Project: Contra Costa County Public Works Department (CCCPWD), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to replace Marsh Drive Bridge (#28C-0442) over the Walnut Creek Channel (Project). The existing bridge is identified as structurally, seismically, and hydraulically deficient. The purpose of the Project is to replace the existing bridge to meet current design standards to provide safe public access. Project construction is expected to begin in fall 2021 or spring 2022 and take approximately 24 – 30 months to complete. The existing bridge was originally built as a 6-span concrete slab bridge in 1938, and was lengthened in the 1960s to a 10-span bridge. The bridge is currently 325 feet long by 34 feet wide. The new bridge will be designed to correct all of the existing bridge deficiencies and handle the se ismic loads as well as the hydraulic flows within the channel. The proposed bridge replacement will be a 5 -span bridge, pre-stressed concrete slab structure on concrete piles that is longer and wider than the existing bridge, at approximately 340 feet long and 55 feet wide. The existing bridge will be demolished and the new bridge will be raised approximately seven feet with fewer supports in the channel to meet hydraulic standards. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 2 of 72 The proposed bridge will re-align Marsh Drive slightly to the north while utilizing a larger horizontal curve on the east in order to improve safety (Figure 2). To improve the roadway alignment and horizontal curve at the bridge, there will be approximately 350 to 500 linear feet of roadway approach work at each end of the bridge. In its final configuration the proposed bridge will accommodate two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) with pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side of the road. The Project will also include a separated path along the south side of the bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail at the southeastern side of the bridge. The Project will use staged construction to avoid bridge closure and traffic detours; the existing bridge will provide traffic and pedestrian/bicycle access while the new bridge is being constructed. Two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) and a pedestrian/bicycle access route will be maintained during each phase of construction. Standard traffic control will be used during construction. The existing bridge will be demolished after the new bridge is constructed. Work will occur in the creek and dewatering and/or stream diversion is anticipated. Ground disturbance will be necessary; depth will vary between Project elements. The maximum depth of excavation for Project work will be approximately 50 feet for the installation of foundation piles (using drilling), approximately 20 feet for bridge abutments and bents, approximately five feet for general roadway work, and approximately 15 to 20 feet for some utility relocations. Vegetation removal may be necessary throughout the Project area. Disturbed areas will be stabilized following construction. A public outreach presentation was held at the Buchanan Airport in December 2018. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Marsh Drive is a two-lane urban minor arterial road that is widely used by commuters bypassing State Route 4. Marsh Drive bridge spans Walnut Creek Channel, which flows north into Pacheco Creek, and eventually into Suisun Bay. The Project vicinity is urban with commercial and light industrial uses surrounding the Project site. Walnut Creek channel, State Highway 4 and industrial uses are located to the north, a vacant lot to the northeast, car dealership (Lithia Dealership) and Iron Horse Regional Trail to the southeast, Walnut Creek channel to the south, Buchanan Field Airport to the southwest, and Valley Relocation and Storage office building to the northwest. There are residential developments to the east off of Solano Way and Olivera Road, and west of the Buchanan Field Airport off of Marsh Drive. The bridge is jointly owned by Contra Costa County and the City of Concord (City). The dividing line between the County and the City runs approximately north-south along Walnut Creek channel and splits the bridge nearly in half. The east side of the bridge and roadway approach are inside the City’s limits while the west side of the bridge and roadway approach are inside the County’s limits. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement):  City of Concord  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under the aegis of the Federal Highways Administration  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Section 404 – Nationwide Permit; Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 408) Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 3 of 72  San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 401- Water Quality Certification)  State Water Resources Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 402 - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 - Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement)  East Bay Regional Park District  Contra Costa Water District (Utility Relocation Agreement)  Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Encroachment Permit) 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Wilton Rancheria submitted a general request letter to be notified of Projects within Contra Costa County under AB52. CCCPWD initiated contact with Wilton Rancheria on April 25, 2016 (refer to Section XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources for the record of contacts). No request for consultation nor information about potential resources was received from the tribe. However, Wilton Rancheria has requested consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (refer to Section XVIII Cultural Resources). Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 4 of 72 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigations measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Telma Moreira Principal Planner Date Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 5 of 72 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 6 of 72 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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 (Contra Costa County 2005c). 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 south of the bridge. A view of Mount Diablo and rolling hills is visible in the distance. Suisun Bay, which is part of the Delta estuary system, is approximately 3.8 miles north of the Project site but views are obscured by two State Highway 4 bridges. The new bridge would be located within the same general footprint as the existing bridge, but would be wider and have a higher elevation. The new bridge, however, will not block or change views in any directions. 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 2017). Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 7 of 72 The Project is located in the City of Concord and in the unincorporated area of Pacheco. These are urban areas. The applicable governing document for scenic quality in Concord is the Land Use Element of the Concord 2030 General Plan (Concord 2005). Scenic vistas within the City of Concord are not identified in the Plan, but there are policies related to the preservation of visible hillside and open space areas (General Plan Policy LU-1.1.9) and development and design standards related to viewshed protection in hillside areas, open space preservation, grading impacts, and height and massing of structures (Policy LU-11.1.4). The applicable governing document for Pacheco is the Contra Costa County General Plan described in Section I.a. The Project will not conflict with either General Plan because it will cause very little visual change to the surrounding area. The Project is limited to a bridge replacement project along an existing roadway, which will not substantially alter its improvement. The replacement bridge design, including architectural treatments on the bridge, retaining wall, and railings would intend to be aesthetically pleasing. The Project will not introduce buildings, structures or other features that would not be compatible with the architectural and landscape requirements of the area. Some existing 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 night time views. With the exception of road striping, 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 CCCPWD Resident Engineer who would be available to address any concerns. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 8 of 72 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? 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? According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC 2016) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no farmland in the Project area; it is designated as Urban and Built Up Land. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? There is no farmland in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. 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)? There is no forestland, or land zoned for timberland production in the Project area. 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? There is no forestland, or land zoned for timberland production in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 9 of 72 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? There is no farmland in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 10 of 72 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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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. The air quality plan that is applicable to the proposed project is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which was adopted April 19, 2017 (BAAQMD 2017b). The BAAQMD considers a project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the region if there is substantial evidence that 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. 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. The Project will not cause significant air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impacts and will not increase exposure of the population to air pollutants (see analysis that follows in Sections III.b and VIII.a). 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 11 of 72 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 will replace an existing bridge and 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. The creation of a Class IV bicycle lane across the bridge would promote the BAAQMD initiatives to increase the use of alternative means of transportation and support reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the Clean Air Plan. The plan includes incentives for construction equipment upgrades and other strategies to reduce emissions of construction vehicles on a plan level. On the Project level, Project specifications require compliance with emissions reduction regulations being mandated by the California Air Resources Board. 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. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 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: particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter or PM), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The Bay Area is under nonattainment status for State 1-hour and 8- hour ozone standards (BAAQMD 2018). 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. The BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates plans to establish rules and regulations for various emissions sources. The purpose of Appendix D of BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is to offer procedures to evaluate potential air quality impacts (BAAQMD 2017a). The significance criteria from the guidelines were applied to evaluate construction-related impacts associated with the Project. The Project is limited to the replacement of an existing bridge and 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 construction equipment and bridge demolition. In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 12 of 72 engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. Construction of the Project will include demolition, grading and excavation, saw cutting, and striping. LSA Associates prepared a Construction Emissions Analysis memorandum (LSA 2019a). Road Construction Emissions Model version 9.0.0 (RoadMod), which was developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality, was used to quantify construction-related and operational pollutant emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that Project construction would occur over 24 months. The results of the emissions analysis were compared with BAAQMD 2017 thresholds of significance. A summary of average daily constructions emissions is shown in Table 1. All construction- related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and therefore its air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Table 1: Summary of Average Daily Construction Emissions Emissions (lb/day) ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Average Daily Project Construction Emissions 1.0 9.4 0.5 0.4 BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold of Significance? No No No No Notes: lb/day = pounds/day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases Although the Project does not exceed the thresholds of significance, the BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10) that are recommended for all projects in Table 8-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Implementation of these measures will further reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities. Consistent with the Measures suggested by the BAAQMD, the Project Contractor will implement the following best management practices (BMPs) for air pollution control: 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 13 of 72 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 CCCPWD 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. As described in Section IX, Hazardous Materials, sampling of the existing bridge materials have determined to contain lead-based paint (LBP) and potential asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM). Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be implemented. 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 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 (2017) 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 a new bicycle lane. As such, the Project will not exceed established thresholds for regional emissions or make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) 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. The closest receptors in the Project vicinity would be the residents located along Marsh Drive, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the Project site. There will be no operational impacts resulting from the Project. However, sensitive receptors could be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period d ue to the operation of construction equipment. Health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as construction diesel emissions are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. 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 the BMPs for air pollution control listed above would help to reduce construction pollutant concentrations. 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 24 to 30 months, which is relatively short when compared to the 70-year risk exposure period. Additionally, the Project emission concentrations at any one receptor location would have a Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 14 of 72 much shorter duration. Due to the short duration of the construction period and the dispersion of Project construction emissions, and implementation of the air pollution control BMPs listed in Section III.b, which is consistent with BAAQMD guidelines, health risks from DPM construction emissions would be further reduced. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely 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 vicini ty of residents and businesses. However, these will be limited and temporary in nature and further reduced with implementation of the BMPs listed in Section III.b. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 15 of 72 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 state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as 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? 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? The Walnut Creek channel bisects the Project site; it flows north underneath the Marsh Drive bridge, merges with Grayson Creek 0.4 miles downstream to form Pacheco Creek, and then empties into Suisun Bay in the Carquinez Strait. Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek are low-flow channels contained within earthen, trapezoidal flood-control channels. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 16 of 72 A biological resource assessment of the Project footprint and surrounding area (Biological Study Area [BSA]) was conducted in July and August 2018 (LSA 2019b). The assessment included background review of literature and databases, reconnaissance-level field surveys for special-status wildlife and plant species, and a wetland delineation. The BSA consists of three geographically separate locations: 1) a segment of Marsh Drive starting from approximately 370 feet west of the Marsh Drive bridge and extending to approximately 530 feet east of the bridge (Figure 3A); 2) a 3.5-acre potential staging area at the northeastern corner of Buchanan Field Airport (Potential Staging Area 1) (Figure 3B); and 3) a 3.5-acre potential staging area west of Buchanan Field Airport at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive (Potential Staging Area 2) (Figure 3C). The BSA largely coincides with the boundaries of the maximum Project footprint in all three locations. At the bridge location on Marsh Drive, the BSA includes areas east and west of the bridge where roadway approach work is needed. The BSA also extends upstream for approximately 30 linear feet and downstream for approximately 150 linear feet to account for temporary impacts within the Walnut Creek channel. The BSA includes all trees adjacent to the road and bridge that may be affected by the Project. Land cover types within the BSA are described below and impacts to each of the land cover types are identified in Table 2 and shown on Figures 3A-3C. : 1) Developed. Developed areas are those where vegetation has been cleared and altered for commercial development, parking, and roads. These areas are largely covered by cement or pavement and do not contain natural habitats. The developed land cover type also includes gravel/dirt roads along the tops of the levees. 2) Landscaping. Landscaped areas occur adjacent to Marsh Drive and the maintenance access roads along the tops of the levees. This land cover type includes native and non-native species purposely planted as landscaping. This land cover type is common within urban settings and complements buildings, roads, parking lots, and buffer areas around these features. Although some native trees occur along the levees, they do not represent a distinct natural vegetation community. 3) Ruderal Grassland. Ruderal grassland consists of grasslands in upland areas along Lower Walnut Creek above the ordinary high water mark, in both staging areas, and in a vacant lot northeast of the Project site. These areas are dominated by wild oat (Avena sp.). Common forbs in this community are wild radish (Raphanus sativus), alkali-mallow (Malvella leprosa), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). There is significant human disturbance from homeless encampments under Marsh Drive Bridge and the Highway 4 Bridge just north of the Project site. Potential Staging Area 1 contains patches of creeping wild rye (Elymus triticoides) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Potential Staging Area 2 contains patches of creeping wild rye. Potential Staging Area 1 is mowed regularly due to its proximity to Buchanan Field Airport runways. Potential Staging Area 2 is mowed less frequently and has one wetland ditch present along the western boundary. 4) Freshwater Marsh. Freshwater marsh habitat occurs on the eastern side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek. Common species in this habitat type include bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), cattail (Typha sp.), bentgrass (Agrostis sp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). 5) Seasonal Wetland. Seasonal wetland habitat occurs on the flood terrace on the western side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek and in the ditch running parallel to the western Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 17 of 72 boundary of Potential Staging Area 2. Common vegetation on the flood terrace includes alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), spearscale (Atriplex prostrata), bentgrass, sharp dock (Rumex conglomeratus), rabbit’s-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Italian wild rye (Festuca perennis), Bermuda grass, and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). Some freshwater marsh species are present in the area mapped as seasonal wetland north of the bridge; however, freshwater marsh is not dominant west of the creek. Seasonal wetland cover in the ditch includes bentgrass, hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), Bermuda grass, hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and pepperweed. The wettest portion of the ditch contains spearscale, rabbit’s-foot grass, cattail, nutsedge (Cyperus sp.), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). 6) Unvegetated Flood Terrace. A small (0.07 acre) unvegetated area occurs in the floodplain on the western side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek. Unvegetated flood terrace is limited to areas under Marsh Drive Bridge that are below the ordinary high water mark of Walnut Creek. Due to shading from the bridge, there is less than 5 percent vegetated cover, consisting of bentgrass and ruderal grasses and forbs. 7) Vegetated Berm. Two natural levees/berms occur on either side of the low-flow channel. These areas are at or slightly below the OHWM but contain upland plant species similar to those found in ruderal grassland (wild oat, wild radish, alkali-mallow, field bindweed, and bristly ox-tongue). In addition to these species, other common grasses and forbs are present along the low-flow channel, including Italian wild rye, soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), Harding grass, and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). 8) Stream Channel. The lower reach of Walnut Creek channel is a maintained, earthen, trapezoidal flood control channel with an unvegetated, perennial low-flow channel. The low-flow channel, which formed naturally, ranges in width from approximately 28 feet to 35 feet. The low-flow channel is unvegetated due to persistent, deep flow. Table 2: Potential Temporary and Permanent Impacts By Land Cover Type Land Cover Type Total within Biological Study Area (acre) Permanent Impacts (acre) Temporary Impacts (acre) Developed 3.557 1.27 2.287 Landscaping 0.593 0.112 0.481 Ruderal grassland 6.894 0.197 6.697 Freshwater marsh 0.342 0.057 0.285 Seasonal wetland 0.473 0.081 0.392 Unvegetated flood terrace 0.119 0.048 0.071 Vegetated berm 0.184 0.041 0.143 Stream channel 0.187 0.034 0.153 Total 12.349 1.84 10.509 The ruderal grassland, freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, unvegetated flood terrace, vegetated berm, and stream channel are considered environmental sensitive areas (ESA) and provide suitable Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 18 of 72 habitats for special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the BSA as listed in Table 3. No special-status plant species have the potential to occur. Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the BSA Common Name (Species Name) Listing Status Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Federally Threatened Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California Species of Special Concern Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) California Species of Special Concern Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) California Species of Special Concern IMPACT BIO-1: Suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species is present within the BSA. Mitigation Measure BIO- 1 below includes best management practices to avoid and minimize for general impacts, however, specific species measures are discussed further below in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through BIO-6. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: The following best management practices/avoidance and minimization measures would be used for protection of the biological resources within the BSA. 1) Prior to start of construction, temporary high visibility ESA silt fence will be placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site from the top of one levee to the top of the opposite levee to preclude impacts beyond the project footprint and to deter species from entering the work area. The limits will be staked by a qualified biologist. Fencing will be removed at the end of the first year of construction and reinstalled at the beginning of the second year. 2) Prior to the start of construction in each year, construction personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements. 3) Flowing water will be protected from demolition and construction activities by diverting the stream into pipes/culverts through the active construction zone. Downstream flow will be maintained at all times. 4) Temporary coffer dams used to redirect flow will consist of sheet piles, gravel bags, water- filled bladder dams, or another agency-approved material. Any water pumped from the work area will be allowed to settle to reduce turbidity prior to being released back into the creek. Temporary coffer dams and diversion pipes will be removed from the creek prior to the winter rainy season in each year. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a water diversion plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. 5) During removal of the existing bridge, a tarp or other approved method will be used below the bridge to prevent debris from falling into Walnut Creek. The tarp will be left in place until the bridge is removed. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a demolition plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. As described in Section III.b, best management practices will be implemented to control dust which will minimize impacts to biological resources. 6) During excavation for the demolition and replacement work, the contractor will be required to separately excavate and stockpile wetland topsoils from soil layers beneath. These soil layers Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 19 of 72 will be backfilled in the same order as excavated. Stockpiled soils will be windrowed no higher than 6 feet and shall be covered with a filter fabric or burlap; not plastic. 7) Within 1 month of completion of temporary excavation and re-grading work, the surfaces will be smoothed to pre-project grades and will be re-seeded using a wetland erosion control seed mix containing native wetland plant species currently found on the project site. 8) CCCPWD will require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Construction General Permit as required under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP will identify water pollution control and construction-waste containment measures to be implemented during and after Project construction, including but not limited to:  Trash general by the Project will be promptly and properly removed from the site daily.  All refueling of construction and maintenance vehicles will occur in paved areas away from the top of bank of the Walnut Creek channel. Runoff from these paved areas will not be allowed to flow into the creek.  Hazardous material absorbent pads and similar materials will be available on site in the event of a spill that could potentially impact jurisdictional waters.  Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Fiber rolls will not contain plastics of any kind. Erosion control blankets will be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians.  No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks.  Active construction areas will be watered regularly. 9) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre-Project conditions. Before October 31 and/or immediately after construction is complete, all exposed soils will be stabilized to reduce the effects of erosion. IMPACT BIO-2: The Project could accidentally introduce new invasive species to the Project site. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: To prevent the accidental introduction of new invasive species into the Project site during construction, CCCPWD will require that the Project construction 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 as specified in the plans and specifications. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 20 of 72 Special-Status Plant Species A special-status plant habitat assessment and late summer/fall protocol-level botanical survey of the BSA was conducted on August 28, 2018. One special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii) was considered to have potential to occur in the BSA. However, the results of a protocol-level plant survey conducted during the flowering period for this species confirmed that Congdon’s tarplant does not occur on the Project site. Therefore, the project will have no impact on this species. Special-Status Wildlife Species A special-status wildlife survey of the BSA was conducted July 25, 2018. As listed in Table 3 above, one federally-listed species, the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), has the potential to occur in the Project area. However, the potential for occurrence is low, and there are no self-sustaining anadromous populations remaining in Walnut Creek or its tributaries. No state-listed species have the potential to occur. Other special-status species that may occur in the project vicinity are fall/late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) as described below. The Project site provides marginally suitable habitat for fall/late-fall run Chinook salmon and suitable habitat for western pond turtle and western burrowing owl, although none of these species were observed during the surveys. Species observed during the survey were western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), great egret (Ardea alba), black phoebe, European starling, red- winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) (flocks of young birds), house finch, house sparrow, and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). There was also evidence of use by barn owl (Tyto alba) (dead bird), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) (scat), coyote (Canis latrans) (scat), river otter (scat), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (tracks). Old cliff swallow and house finch nests were observed on the bridge structure. Gopher holes and Canada goose scat were observed at Potential Staging Area 1. A turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and California ground squirrel burrows were observed at Potential Staging Area 2. Central California Coast steelhead The Central California Coast Steelhead is listed as a federally threatened species. This fish is known to occur in the creek, and occasional attempted spawning events have been reported upstream of the Project site, below a drop structure. There have been occasional observations of redds (depressions made to deposit eggs) above the drop structure, however, the habitat below the drop structure is unsuitable spawning habitat for salmanids, and they are unlikely to be present except for an occasional fish. The National Marine Fishseries Service (NMFS) concurred (in an email dated April 24, 2019) agreed with the conclusion that steelhead are unlikely to occur in Walnut Creek any time of year and that self-sustaining populations have been extirpated. There are numerous passage impediments throughout the Walnut Creek Watershed, and drainages associated with Lower Lanust Creek no longer provide conditions for self-sustaining polulations of steelheads. The Project would involve work within the low-flow channel of Walnut Creek, including dewatering and removal of the existing bridge columns. This work in the channel would occur between May 1 and October 31, outside of spawning season, and would therefore not present a barrier to fish passage. The Project will have no impact on this species. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 21 of 72 Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon The Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon are considered California Species of Special Concern. They are not federally or State-listed and have no designated critical habitat. No Chinook salmon were observed during the general survey on July 25, 2018, however, adult Chinook salmon carcasses and redds were found in Walnut Creek between Highway 4 (downstream of the Project site) and the first drop structure upstream of the Project site. NMFS (in an email dated April 11, 2006) concluded that Chinook salmon observed in the lower reach of Walnut Creek are hatchery strays that have never successfully reproduced in the creek, and that existing habitat within the reaches of Walnut and Grayson creeks which includes the reach containing the BSA) does not allow for successful spawning. As described above, Project work in the channel includes the installation of a dewatering system. There are potential indirect impacts to salmon due to temporary loss of habitat while the flow diversion is in place, and other indirect impacts related to construction activity (such as runoff or sedimentation). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 will be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to Chinook salmon to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-3: The Project could impact Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon, a California species of Special Concern. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: 1) The Project will limit construction within the channel to the period between May 1 and October 31 to largely avoid the spawning season. 2) Prior to installation of the flow diversion, a qualified fisheries biologist will install a fish barrier (e.g., ¼-inch galvanized hardware cloth) upstream and downstream of the work area, including the area needed for coffer dam installation and flow diversion pipes. A qualified biologist will then use a seine and/or a dip net to capture fish within the work area and relocate them to a suitable area downstream of the fish barrier prior to the installation of the coffer dams. The qualified biologist will be present during coffer dam installation and dewatering of the work area. During dewatering, the biologist will visually survey the work area and will use a seine and/or a dip net to capture and relocate any remaining fish. Electrofishing may be implemented to ensure that all of the fish are removed from the work area. Western Pond Turtle Western pond turtles occupy permanent and intermittent ponds and creeks. They prefer deep (great than 2 feet), quiet pools along streams. Important habitat features include basking sites and suitable aquatic hiding areas such as undercut banks, logs, rocks, aquatic vegetation, and/or mud and leaf- litter. Nesting areas include grassy, sunny slopes adjacent to aquatic habitat. This species is known to occur in the Project vicinity. The nearest California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence is 0.19 miles away. No western pond turtles were observed during the general survey on July 25, 2018, however the BSA provides potential movement and breeding habitat. There will be approximately 1.044 acres of temporary impacts and 0.261 acres of permanent impacts to western pond turtle aquatic habitat. Once constructed, the new bridge structure will have fewer support piles and overall increase habitat available to western pond turtles. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 22 of 72 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-4: The Project could impact western pond turtle, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles on the first day of work immediately prior to the start of work to ensure that no individuals are present. Once a temporary high visibility fence is installed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site and all vegetation has been cleared, a designated construction monitor (trained by the qualified biologist), will inspect the work area for western pond turtles anytime work activity ceases for two days or more. If a western pond turtle is observed by the construction monitor in the immediate work area, no work will commence in the area of the sighting until the turtle has moved out of harm’s way or the qualified biologist has arrived at the site and relocated the turtle. Western Burrowing Owl Western burrowing owl occur in open, well-drained grasslands with abundant small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground squirrels. The nearest CNDDB Occurrence is 0.92 mile from the bridge replacement site and 0.05 mile from Potential Staging Area 2. The ruderal grassland habitat at Potential Staging Area 2 provides potential breeding, wintering, and/or foraging habitat, based on proximity to a known occurrence and appropriate habitat, including the presence of ground squirrel burrows. No burrowing owls or evidence of occupied burrows was observed during the general wildlife survey conducted within the BSA. The suitability of Potential Staging Area 1 and the bridge replacement site is limited. Potential Staging Area 1 lacks ground squirrel burrows, and the bridge replacement site has few ground squirrel burrows, tall vegetation, and substantial human disturbance that likely preclude occupation by burrowing owls. The Project would result in minor indirect impacts to western burrowing owls – the temporary loss of 2.068 acres of marginally suitable breeding and wintering habitat within Potential Staging Area 2. The Project site and Potential Staging Area 1 do not provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Implementation Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to western burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-5: The Project could impact western burrowing owl, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey within Potential Staging Area 2 to identify potential burrows and owls no more than 30 days prior to construction. The survey will be conducted in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines. During the breeding season (February 1- August 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey is conducted. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 23 of 72 If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the Project will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by Project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the non- breeding season (September 1-January 31), the Project should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone or within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. The doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation, and the Project site should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation in accordance with CDFW guidelines. Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. The applicant may conduct burrow management (i.e., regular surveys to find and proactively collapse unoccupied yet suitable burrows) in advance of and during construction to lower the likelihood of owls occupying burrows within the Project area. Nesting Birds and Raptors Bird and raptor species that are not special-status species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Most existing vegetation within the BSA has at least some potential to support birds and their nests. In addition, the bridge itself provides nesting habitat for black phoebes, cliff swallows, and house finches. As noted above, old cliff swallow and house finch nests were observed on the bridge structure. The birds likely return to the bridge to nest each year and are likely to be present at the time of construction. Other bird species observed during the wildlife survey included great egret, European starling, red-winged blackbird, and house sparrow. There was also evidence of use by barn owl, and Canada goose. Project construction could have direct impact on nesting birds, and increased noise and human presence from Project construction could result in indirect impacts on nesting birds in the BSA through modifications to behavior resulting in lower breeding success. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would ensure direct and indirect impacts on nesting birds are reduced to less-than- significant levels. IMPACT BIO-6: The Project could impact nesting birds and raptors, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) To reduce the likelihood of birds establishing nests in the construction zone, vegetation in the project vicinity may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (February 15). Similarly, potential nest trees that will be eliminated as part of the project and old, inactive swallow and finch nests on the bridge may be removed prior to the start of the nes ting season. Swallows and finches may also be prevented from nesting on the bridge through the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 24 of 72 installation of netting or other exclusionary measures if they are installed prior to the start of nesting. 2) A preconstruction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities that take place during the nesting season (February 15-August 31), including any removal of vegetation at the project site. The survey will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. Buffers will be placed around any nests that are found during the survey. No work will be conducted within the buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the nesting attempt is complete. Buffers for songbird nests are generally on the order of 50 to 100 feet, with the precise distance determined by the qualified biologist conducting the preconstruction survey based on species, nest site characteristics, and the acclimation of the nesting birds to disturbance. Repeated bird nesting surveys of the existing bridge and removal of nest starts may be needed to prevent swallow and house finch nesting throughout the construction season. The project is not expected to result in direct impacts to nesting birds with implementation of these measures. The Project is not anticipated to substantially impact any special-status species with implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6. Therefore, Project impacts will be less 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? As described in Section IV.a, the Project would result in permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitat and other natural communities, which are regulated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Permanent impacts include installation of bridge piles and abutments and additional fill. Temporary impacts include a stream diversion system, site mobilization, excavation, and grading within the creek channel and banks. The stream diversion system and associated materials will be removed prior to the winter rainy season after the first year of construction, and then reinstalled at the beginning of the second construction season. Disturbed wetland vegetation would be restored within one growing season upon completion of the Project. There are no riparian trees in the BSA. Permits will be obtained from CDFW (Streambed Alteration Agreement) and RWQCB (Water Quality Certification). Permit requirements will be followed to minimize impacts to water quality and riparian habitats. Temporary impacts to the riparian habitat will be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? An aquatic wetland delineation was conducted on July 10, 2018 by LSA (LSA 2018). In addition to the creek, there are three types of seasonal wetlands in the BSA – freshwater marsh, vegetated flood Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 25 of 72 terrace, and a vegetated ditch (see Table 2 above and Figure 3). The Project would result in 0.261 acres of direct and indirect permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the addition of fill, removal of old piles, and installation of new bridge supports within the Walnut Creek channel. The vegetated ditch in Potential Staging area 2 would not be modified. A permit will be obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) which has policies to mitigate for any loss of wetlands, streams, or other waters of the U. S. No compensatory mitigation is anticipated because the Project will result in fewer bridge supports than the current bridge and will not result in any net loss of wetland or other aquatic habitat (there will actually be a net increase of 0.001 acre of aquatic habitat). Temporary impacts to waters and wetlands will be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and are expected to fully recover within one year of disturbance. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? The BSA and Project vicinity are in an area mapped as essential fish habitat (EFH) for Chinook salmon. However, as described in Section IV.a, the lower reach of Walnut Creek does not provide suitable spawning habitat for salmonids. Suitable habitat may occur upstream of the Project site, in tributaries to Walnut Creek, but salmon are precluded from moving into those areas by two drop structures upstream of the Project site. The NMFS list for the Vine Hill USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle includes EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics, and highly migratory species because of its inclusion of Suisun Bay. EFH for these species does not occur at the Project site. There are no wildlife nurseries within the Project site. Walnut Creek provides a movement corridor for wildlife species, including river otters and western pond turtles, and adjacent habitats provide a movement corridor for migratory birds and small mammals. The Project would not result in permanent disruption to movement of fish and wildlife species in the area, as the Project involves the replacement of an existing bridge and no new permanent features would pose a barrier to movement. The Project will reduce the number of bridge support piles in the channel, which will reduce obstruction to wildlife movement once the Project is constructed. Temporary construction-related activities such as noise and dewatering activities may temporarily inhibit dispersal, migration, and daily movement of wildlife however impacts will be minimized in accordance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 through BIO-6. Therefore, Project impacts 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. Tree removal is not anticipated. However, if necessary, the trees that would be removed occur within the County right-of-way which is not subject to the County Tree Ordinance (Contra Costa County Code [CCCC] Title 8, Chapter 816-6.10(6). Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 26 of 72 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 27 of 72 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) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? To determine if the Project site contains potential significant historic resources and to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact those resources, a records search within a 0.5 mile radius of the Project’s area of potential effect (APE), which includes all areas that have potential to be directly (archaeology) and indirectly (architectural history) affected by the Project. The records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park on September 1, 2018 which included a review of the of the California Resource Information System, National Historic Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, National Historic Landmark, and California Points of Historical Interest. No resources within or adjacent to the Project APE were identified. The results are reported in the Historic Property Survey Report/Archaeological Survey Report prepared for Caltrans (LSA 2019c). In addition, LSA contacted the Contra Costa County Historical Society which had no records within or adjacent to the Project APE. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory identifies Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) as a category 5 for historic significance (not eligible for listing on the NRHP). The APE also includes vertical impacts which represents the maximum subsurface vertical extent of Project-related activities which could yield unanticipated ahistorical archaeological resource if present in the Project APE. The depth varies throughout the Project site depending on Project activities, which includes: 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) for abutment demolition and excavation, drain pipe excavation, and utility excavation; 15 feet bgs for bent demolition and excavation; and 5 feet bgs for approach grading. Pile drilling will extend to approximately 100 feet bgs. The potential for unanticipated subsurface historical resources cannot be completely ruled out therefore, the Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be followed in the event that subsurface resources are discovered during Project construction. In addition, Project contract specifications will 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 28 of 72 IMPACT CUL-1: Project construction could impact previously unidentified historical resources during ground-disturbing activities. MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: The following will be implemented during Project construction if unanticipated potential historic or pre- historic archaeological resources are encountered. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic or pre-historic archaeological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic 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 CCCPWD 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 will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Project impacts on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? The records search at the NWIC did not identify any recorded archaeological resources within or adjacent to the Project APE. Three archaeological sites were identified in the general area outside of the APE: one site approximately 400 feet outside of the APE, one site approximately 2,000 feet outside the APE, and one site approximately 2 miles north of the APE. In addition, LSA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on July 13, 2018 for a Sacred Lands File search to determine if any recorded Native American sites occur within the Project APE. The NAHC replied, via an email dated August 15, 2018, that no records were found. The NAHC provided a list of Native American tribal representatives and organizations that may have knowledge of unrecorded sites within the vicinity of the Project. LSA sent emails dated August 20, 2018 to the Native American contacts on the list requesting any information or concerns they may have regarding the APE. The following responses were received:  One Native American representative of the Ohlone Indian Tribe responded via email on August 24, 2018 that there is a site in the vicinity of the Project where he previously served as a monitor, and recommended that if that site were to be disturbed, there should be an archaeological and a Native American monitor. LSA conducted supplemental research about the site and concluded that the site could be anywhere in the vicinity of Concord, and corresponded further with the representative about the location of the site. LSA contacted the representative on February 13 and 21, 2019 asking if he had any further information, and no response has been received to date. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 29 of 72  One Native American representative from the Indian Canyan Mutsun Band of Castanoan Indians stated that the tribe recommend that a Native American representative and archaeologist be present during ground-disturbing activities.  One Native American representative from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that construction crews receive cultural resources sensitivity training prior to ground disturbance taking place.  A representative from Wilton Rancheria (who was also contacted about AB 52 consultation, see Section XVIII) left a voicemail requesting a meeting to discuss the tribe's concerns about the APE's proximity to the archaeological site that is approximately 400 feet outside of the APE. In subsequent emails, LSA provided Wilton Rancheria with a geographic file of the APE in advance preparation of a meeting to be held at the tribal headquarters. The meeting has not been held to date; however, coordination with the tribe is pending. Considering no recorded archaeological or Native American sites were identified within or adjacent to the Project APE and that there has been extensive previous disturbance of the Project site due to the channelization of Walnut Creek and fill for the adjacent levees and airport, no monitoring during Project construction is warranted. However, the potential for subsurface resources cannot be completely ruled out. The cultural resource assessment reports prepared for Caltrans (LSA 2019c) was provided to the Native American tribal representatives that responded. The deepest Project impacts would be for installing the foundation piling approximately 50 feet bgs and for bridge abutments and bents approximately 20 feet bgs. Utility relocation would occur approximately 15 feet bgs and roadway work would occur approximately 5 feet bgs. Despite the investigations previously described, Project construction may unearth unanticipated historical, pre-historic archaeological, or Native American resources; however with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 provided in V.(a), and CUL-2 provided in V.(c) below, Project impacts on potential significant subsurface resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) 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 did not identify any recorded sites within or adjacent to the Project APE and contacts with the Native American tribal representative did not reveal any unrecorded Native American burial sites. Despite the investigations previously described, Project construction may unearth unanticipated historical or pre-historic archaeological resources; however with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 provided in V.(a), and CUL-2 provided below, Project impacts on archaeological resources, including Native American resources, 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 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 NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Most Likely Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 30 of 72 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 CCCPWD and the Northwest Information Center. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 31 of 72 VI. ENERGY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The Project is limited to the replacement of an existing bridge and will not require energy use once constructed. Project construction will result in an incremental increase in energy usage associated with construction equipment (i.e. fuel in vehicles and power generators). However, energy usage during construction would be minimal and would not require excessive amounts of wasteful usage of energy. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Although the Project will result in a temporary increase in energy usage during construction, the operation of the Project would not require change from the existing condition. As such, the Project does not have potential to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 32 of 72 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic groundshaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? Fault Rupture. The Project site is within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (SCDC 2017). The main trace of the Concord Fault line runs directly through the Project site along the Walnut Creek Channel. The Concord Fault line is capable of producing earthquakes and may cause strong ground shaking at the Project site. A Geotechnical Memorandum (Parikh, 2018) was prepared to evaluate the site and provide preliminary foundation design recommendations for the Project. The report found that a large earthquake on the Concord fault could cause a surface rupture resulting in 0.38 to 1.87 feet of horizontal displacement and 0.07 to 0.19 feet of vertical displacement according to deterministic and probabilistic modeling. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 33 of 72 Ground Shaking. Contra Costa County is located within a region of high seismicity. The possibility of ground shaking from fault rupture at the Project site is considered high based on available geological and seismic data. The duration and intensity of shaking will depend upon both the magnitude of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and ground conditions. Seismic-Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction. According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the general Project area has generally high potential for liquefaction. The preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum, however, reported that no potentially liquefiable soil was encountered in previous geotechnical borings that were conducted approximately 300 feet north of Project site for the State Route 4 widening. The generalized soil profile consists of loose to medium dense sand and soft clay, underlain by very stiff to hard lean clay and dense to very dense sand. An additional geotechnical study is being conducted to confirm these findings. IMPACT GEO-1: There is a potential for impacts from fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction, and locating the Project on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1a: The Project design and construction will take the existing seismic and soil conditions into account. The Project will be designed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the regulations detailed in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1b: Potential surface deformation resulting from aseismic creep (measurable surface displacement along a fault in the absence of notable earthquakes) can be mitigated by a regular maintenance program to repair the road surface, curbs, and other engineered facilities. Annual inspection should be carried out to assess ongoing creep damage. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1c: A geotechnical and foundation study will be completed to inform the final design, and the recommendations would be incorporated into the Project plans. The study will include site-specific exploratory borings and laboratory testing to delineate potentially liquefiable materials. Potentially liquefiable deposits will either have to be removed or the foundation designed to extend beyond potentially liquefiable deposits. Project structures would be designed for seismic loading identified in the geotechnical studies. Incorporating recommendations from geologic and geotechnical investigations performed during the final design. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Landslides. According to Figure 10-6 of the General Plan, the Project site is not located within a potential landslide area. The topography of the Project site is generally flat. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Modified grades associated with the completed Project would result in negligible changes in topography. Construction of the Project would temporarily increase the exposure of soils to wind Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 34 of 72 erosion from grading and excavation activities. However, standard erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 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? According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the Project site has generally high liquefaction potential (Contra Costa County 2005d). 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. Moreover, the Project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge, which will not introduce new land uses that could be impacted by unstable soil. 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property? The Project site is located on interbedded layers silt and clay type soils. Clay tends to be an expansive soil. The Project will be engineered according to standard industry practice, which includes design considerations for soil type. Moreover, the Project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge, 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. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Based on the Geologic Map of the Walnut Creek Quadrangle, the Project is located on surficial sediments characterized as “alluvial gravel, sand, and clay of valley areas.” Holocene alluvial deposits and fill are generally considered too recent to contain significant paleontological resources and therefore have low paleontological sensitivity. 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 35 of 72 VIII. 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? 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 GHGs 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 version 9.0.0 (RoadMod) it is estimated that the Project will generate approximately 751.8 metric tons of CO2e during construction of the Project. The Project’s emissions will be short term and the Project will implement BMPs stated in Section III.b 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 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognized that California is a 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 (CARB) to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHGs to reach the GHG reduction goals by 2020. In December 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 21.7 percent from the State’s projected Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 36 of 72 2020 CO2e emission level under a business-as-usual scenario (CARB 2008). In May 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals, evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012, and report the trends in GHG emissions from various emission sectors (e.g., transportation, building energy, agriculture) (CARB 2014). In November 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan Update), which lays out the framework for achieving the 2030 reductions as established in more recent legislation (CARB 2017). The 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. The Project would not conflict with GHG reduction goals set forth in Assembly Bill 32, including the Recommended Actions identified by the 2017 CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Contra Costa Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in In December 2015. 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. 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). Based on Section III.b, 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 37 of 72 IX. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires. 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, construction vehicles will travel to and from the Project site. Examples of construction vehicles 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 bridge replacement would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or involve potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment beyond than what exists currently from the traveling public. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 38 of 72 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? The Project does not propose land uses that are associated with hazardous substances therefore long- term operational impacts will not occur. However, during construction there is potential for accidental release of hazardous substances through disturbance from bridge demolition and potentially contaminated soils or waters, or accidental spills. An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) and Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) were conducted for the Project area (WRECO, 2018). As part of the ISA, a site reconnaissance, governmental records search, and environmental database records review were conducted. The report identified several current and potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). Soils adjacent to the roadway could be contaminated with aerially deposited lead (ADL) from historic use of leaded gasoline and by fuels (volatile organic compounds) and total petroleum hydrocarbons from historic fuel cleanups. Lead may be present in roadway striping. Surfaces of the bridge were suspected to contain lead based paint (LBP) and potential asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM). As part of the ISA, shallow creek bed soil sampling, shallow groundwater sampling, an ADL study, a LBP survey and a pre-demolition survey were conducted to verify the presence of the RECs. The soil and water samples were analyzed for heavy metals identified in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and for diesel motor oil and semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOC). The studies revealed the presence of arsenic in shallow creek bed soils, metals and petroleum byproducts in shallow groundwater, ADL along roadway approach shoulders. On surfaces of the bridge, the studies confirmed the presence of LBP in bridge rail wall paint and ACM in expansion joint insulation. These materials will be removed and disposed of in accordance with professionally prepared construction specifications and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations as part of the planned bridge demolition activities. Project construction could also cause accidental release of hazardous materials such as a hazardous materials spill or equipment leakage. 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 for potential lead in striping. Demolition of the existing bridge will be performed in accordance with the Caltrans specifications supplemented by CCCPWD standards modified to meet environmental permit requirements. All concrete and other debris resulting from the demolition of the exist ing bridge and roadway will be removed from the Project site and properly disposed of by the contractor. Prior to demolition, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit a bridge demolition plan including creek diversion and bypass details for review by CCCPWD as well as other agencies as required by the environmental permits. While the Project will not have long-term operational impacts, temporary impacts could occur during construction due to disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The disturbance will be limited in Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 39 of 72 nature and potential for accidental release will be minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1. IMPACT HAZ-1: Soil movement and bridge demolition activities could mobilize contaminants exposing construction workers, the general public, and the environment. MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-1: CCCPWD will follow the following recommendations provided in the PSI to minimize potential for accidental release of contaminants. Recommendations include:  The Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be notified through their Asbestos Notification System prior to bridge demolition in compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazards Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  Waste management guidance for the proper disposal of excavated shallow soil, lead-based paint, and bridge expansion joint insulation (which must be removed prior to demolition).  Worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities.  Untreated groundwater should not be discharged into natural channels or storm drains. Groundwater and any water comingled with groundwater should be treated under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest schools are Concord Christian School (0.75 miles away), Glenbrook Middle School (1.2 miles away), Sun Terrace Elementary (1.4 miles away), and Mt. Diablo High School (1.5 miles away). 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? The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database is an online search and Geographic Information System (GIS) tool for identifying sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. It also identifies facilities that are authorized to treat, store, dispose or transfer (TSDTF) hazardous waste. The EnviroStor database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priority List [NPL]); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases were searched to identify sites of concern within 1 mile of the Project site (SWRCB 2018, DTSC 2018). Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 40 of 72 The EnviroStor database did not identify any contamination sites within the footprint of Project site. One voluntary cleanup site, one military evaluation site, five tiered permit sites, and one non-operating permitted site were identified within 1 mile of the Project location. The GeoTracker database identified 10 closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites, one land disposal site, one active cleanup program, and one military cleanup site within 1 mile of the Project. To evaluate if contamination sites represent potential environmental and/or health hazards (RECs) with respect to the Project area, the proximity of the site (within 1/8 mile), occurrence of a hazardous substance release, and flow of groundwater is considered. Though groundwater generally flows to the northwest in the Project vicinity, flow directions and depths can fluctuate due to seasonal and other environmental factors. There are several sites that contribute to the potential for the Project to encounter groundwater contamination during proposed dewatering activities. Two results from the EnviroStor database is a potential concern – the military evaluation site and one of the tiered permit sites. The Concord Army Air Field military evaluation site is located 0.7 miles upstream of the Project site at the current Buchanan Field Airport. Historical records indicated that soil testing was not performed following removal and disposal of fuel tanks and an onsite waste dump. The Micropump Corps tiered permit site is located 0.5 miles upstream of the Project site. The site is currently under evaluation, and is a concern because the risk is unknown. Two results from the GeoTracker database are potential concerns – including the active cleanup program and the military cleanup site. The active cleanup site is the Kinder Morgan Concord Station, which is located 0.3 miles northeast of the Project and has a current status of “Open – Remediation as of 8/16/2008.” Potential contaminants of concern at this site include benzene, diesel, gasoline, toluene, and xylene. Although the site is located downstream of the Project, it has the potential to affect groundwater quality at the Project due to its close proximity. The military cleanup site is the Point Ozol, Fuel Terminal DFSP – Concord Pump Station, which is located 0.3 miles northeast of the Project and has a current status of “Open – Assessment & Remedial Action as of 10/24/2018.” Potential contaminants of concern for this site include aviation, fuel benzene, and TPH. Petroleum pipelines were also identified within the Project footprint that may have historically leaked petroleum hydrocarbons to soil or groundwater. As described in Section IX.b, soil and water sampling was conducted to verify the presence of the RECs. Due to the historic and ongoing cleanup sites surrounding the Project site, there is potential for contaminated groundwater at the Project location that would require appropriate dewatering measures to be implemented during construction. The results of the sampling analysis and the recommendation for dewatering informed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce construction impacts from potential contamination from hazardous material sites 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The nearest airport to the Project is Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 0.1mile southwest of the Project site, and both of the potential staging areas are located within the airport property. As described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities. As discussed in Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 41 of 72 Section XIII.a, the Project will not generate excessive noise levels. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Emergency vehicles will have access at all times during construction. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is in an area identified as at risk for wildland fires (ABAG 2016). However, 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 beyond what currently exists for the traveling public. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 42 of 72 X. 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 or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The Project is located within the Walnut Creek Watershed. This watershed drains the east side of the Berkeley hills and the west side of Mount Diablo. The upper watershed is formed of steeply sloped canyons, and the lower watershed is formed of gently sloping alluvial floodplains with residential and urban development. The portion of the watershed that drains the Project site is 117 square miles. The Walnut Creek channel flows north under the existing bridge and merges with Grayson Creek to form Pacheco Creek, which then empties into Carquinez Strait 3.8 miles north of the Project site. Walnut Creek is designated as an impaired waterbody under the Federal Clean Water Act due to the presence of diazinon, which is a pesticide. The drainage area in the Project site is expected to be subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 43 of 72 Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Impacts to the drainage area would require authorization from a Section 404 and 408 Nationwide Permits from the USACE, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the SFBRWQB, and a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. The Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil and must comply with the SWRCB (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which states Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control. In addition, CCCPWD will coordinate with the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (FC District) to review drainage plans. There is groundwater contamination present at the Project site. Groundwater and non-stormwater discharges collected during Project construction would require authorization from a SFBRWQCB VOC and Fuel General Permit (ORDER No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. Permanent impacts to water quality result from the addition of impervious area; this additional impervious area prevents runoff from naturally dispersing and infiltrating into the ground, resulting in increased concentrated flow. The Project is anticipated to create 0.53 acres of new impervious surface because of the widening of the bridge, sidewalk, and roadways. Table 4, below, displays the disturbed soil area (DSA), existing, newly created, and replaced impervious area for the Project sites. The added impervious surface from the Project would not substantially increase the impervious surface area within Walnut Creek Watershed, which is approximately 117 square miles. Table 4. Project Impervious Area Impervious Areas Area (sq ft) (ac) Existing Impervious Area 61,201 1.40 Removed Impervious Area 5,516 0.13 Replaced Impervious Area 55,686 1.28 Added Impervious Area 23,241 0.53 Source: LSA 2018 Provision C.3 of the County Municipal Permit addresses source control, site designs, and stormwater treatment measures for new development and redevelopment projects. Upon review by the staff at the Contra Costa County Watershed Program, it was determined that the Project does not trigger C.3 requirements because it is a roadway project that does not propose additional traffic lanes. As noted above, the Project will result in additional impervious area, which increases the amount of runoff not infiltrating into the ground. This non-infiltrated and concentrated runoff can result in the direct discharge of sediment-laden flow from the roadway to receiving water bodies if not properly stabilized. During construction, Temporary impacts to surface water quality could occur from sediment-laden discharge from disturbed soil areas, pollution laden discharge from storage or work areas, and discharge of contaminated groundwater during excavation or concrete slurries during pile installation. The Project would comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would include the preparation and implementation will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed for the Project that will identify potential for construction related erosion and associated sedimentation as well as accidental spill and other potential construction related water quality impacts. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to avoid and minimize this potential and Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 44 of 72 will be approved by CCCPWD prior to construction. Temporary impacts are anticipated to be minimal with implementation of the SWPPP measures and BMPs. The Project would not add additional lanes or otherwise trigger County C.3 requirements for stormwater runoff treatment, and will not directly create wastewater discharge or degrade surface or ground water quality. Accidental releases could occur during construction. However, as stated above and in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a SWPPP 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. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The Project will not require any withdrawals from an aquifer or groundwater table and will have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge as the Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. 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: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? As discussed in Section X.a, above, although the Project would have an incremental increase in impervious surface by widening the bridge and its roadway approaches, this would not substantially increase the impervious surface area within the Walnut Creek watershed. The increase in impervious area can result in the modification of existing receiving water body hydrographs by increasing the flow volumes and rates and peak durations from the loss of unpaved overland flow and native infiltration (hydromodification). However, the Project will not result in substantial changes to the Walnut Creek hydrograph, and therefore associated impacts will not occur. The impacts of erosion on receiving waters are anticipated to be minimal. Further, although the new bridge will have higher elevation profile, a wider span, and a reduced number of supports in the channel to improve hydraulics, the existing drainage patterns would be maintained in its current condition. BMPs for erosion and sediment control as identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will be implemented during construction of the Project. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? As discussed in (i), above, the Project would introduce wider lanes and shoulders which would result in a minimal increase in impervious surface as compared to existing conditions. Surface runoff would not substantially increase. Following construction, use of the bridge and roadway would result in pollutant discharges from existing and new impervious surfaces similar to those under current conditions. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. iii Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system in the area. The runoff from the bridge over Walnut Creek is transported Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 45 of 72 via storm drain systems and ditches to a local stormwater drain system at Marsh Drive, approximately 1,500 feet west of the centerline of the creek. The design criteria of the Project will maintain the existing drainage patterns. The Project will not add additional travel lanes and therefore does not trigger C.3 stormwater treatment requirements. As previously discussed, the wider lanes and shoulders would result in a minimal increase in impervious surface as compared to existing conditions. Following construction, use of the Project site (as a bridge and roadway) would result in pollutant discharges from existing and new impervious surfaces similar to those under current conditions. Improved facilities for bicyclists may encourage alternative modes of transportation, which could reduce potential for polluted runoff from vehicles. Appropriate authorizations related to water quality would be obtained from regulatory agencies prior to construction, as described in Section X.a. The bridge would be constructed to current design standards and project construction would implement BMPs during construction to avoid adverse impacts to the drainage area. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? The existing bridge structure obstructs the flow of Walnut Creek, resulting in debris and flood water backing up during heavy rain events. The new bridge structure would be constructed with a higher elevation profile, a wider span, and a reduced number of supports in the channel. This would improve hydraulics and reduce backwater from storm events. The new bridge would provide adequate freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and flood waters. In addition, the Project does not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface; thus, the existing drainage patterns would be maintained in its current condition and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Walnut Creek channel is within the Project area, which merges into Pacheco Creek and then travels 3.8 miles north to empty into the Carquinez Strait. The Carquinez Strait feeds into the San Francisco Bay and the open ocean. Waterfront areas along the Carquinez Strait could have possible risk of inundation from seiches or tsunamis. The Project, however, is limited to replacement of a bridge on an existing road and will not introduce new land uses that could be subject to inundation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produced Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) which show Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). According to the associated FIRM, the Project site is located within a Zone A, which represent areas within the 100-year base floodplain where the base flood elevation has not been determined (FEMA 2009). The FEMA FIRM also shows levees along both sides of Walnut Creek in the Project vicinity. Outside of the levees, the existing commercial area east of Marsh Drive is within SFHA Zone AH, which represents areas subject to shallow flooding by the 100- year flood event (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between one and three feet. Buchanan Airport southwest of Marsh Drive is within SFHA Zone X, which represents areas subject to the 500-year flood event. Although the Project site is located within flood hazard areas, the Project would have no adverse impacts to flood conditions, as described in Section X.c.ii. The Project would reduce flood conditions upstream because the new bridge structure would be raised in profile elevation and have less flow obstruction (WRECO, 2019a & 2019b). The FC District will review the required elevation of the replacement Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 46 of 72 bridge to ensure that minimum freeboard guidelines are satisfied. As described in Section X.c., the pollutant load would not be significantly different from the existing conditions because the amount of additional impervious surface that the Project would construct is minimal. Therefore, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation and Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? This Project is located in both the City of Concord and in the unincorporated area of Pacheco. This area of Contra Costa County is within the limits of the San Francisco RWQCB, which established the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (SFRWQCB 2018). The Basin Plan identifies general water quality objectives for inland surface waters. Generally, roadway runoff can contain the following pollutants: total suspended solids, nitrate nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, copper, lead, and zinc. The primary pollutants associated with transportation corridors are heavy metals associated with vehicle tire and brake wear, oil and grease, and exhaust emissions. These sources of pollutants are anticipated to be negligible because the Project will not increase capacity of the road. Further, the Project construction would implement source controls to prevent stormwater runoff pollutants from discharging into Walnut Creek. The Basin Plan lists the following beneficial uses for Walnut Creek: cold freshwater habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, contact water recreation, and non-contact water recreation. Increased stormwater runoff from the new impervious area could degrade the beneficial use for freshwater habitat, fish migration, and fish spawning at Walnut Creek. This impact would be minimal due to the small amount of impervious area. As such, the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 47 of 72 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impa ct Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The Project would not physically divide an established community; rather, it would likely improve commuter accessibility to areas on either side of the bridge. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 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 within Pacheco and the City of Concord. 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 2005a):  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-A: To provide a safe, efficient and integrated multimodal 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-K: To provide basic accessibility to all residents, which includes access to emergency services, public services and utilities, health care, food and clothing, education and employment, mail and package distribution, freight delivery, and a certain amount of social and recreational activities.  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 maintained by eliminating structural and geometric design deficiencies. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 48 of 72  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 #5-23: 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. The Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2018), formerly designated a Class I bicycle lane proposed for Marsh Drive, which provides for a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Such paths are often located along creeks, canals, and rail lines. However, the current Plan has re-designated it as low stress bikeway. Considering the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Iron Horse Trail (Trail) terminates at the southeastern side of the bridge, the EBPRD and CCCPWD have been working closely to determine a safe Trail extension and crossing of Marsh Drive. This Project is the opportunity for EBPRD to close this gap. Connecting to the west side of Walnut Creek is the first crucial step to connecting the Trail westward to Martinez and the San Francisco Bay Trail across Benicia Bridge. EBPRD has identified the preferred alignment of this trail to the north of Marsh Drive. The EBPRD has identified the safest connection to be a Class IV bikeway with a concrete barrier separated bike/pedestrian pathway or bikeway. While the Plan formally designated a Class I bicycle facility along Marsh Drive bridge, the bridge can accommodate a Class IV facility. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Plan. CCCPWD has an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan; however the Project is not within the plan’s inventory area. Based on the analysis above, the Project is consistent with environmental land use policies or plans. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 49 of 72 XII. 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? 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? 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. According to the Conservation Element chapter in the County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005b), 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 50 of 72 XIII. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The general land use in the bridge vicinity is urban with commercial properties surrounding the bridge and Marsh Drive. Buchanan Field Airport is located on the southwestern side of the bridge. The closest noise receivers are various residents located along Marsh Drive, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the Project site. In addition, residences are located within 50 feet of the temporary construction staging area location near Marsh Drive and Sahara Drive/Sally Ride Drive. Contra Costa County does not have a noise ordinance for construction noise, however, the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element of 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 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 (Contra Costa County 2005e). Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, as described below, complies with the Noise Element. The City of Concord noise ordinance states that the Concord Municipal Code section 62-32(1)cc restricts the hours that construction work can take place, unless otherwise allowed by prior authorization of the City of Concord. The allowed construction times are Monday – Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and if necessary, weekends 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. unless prior approval from the CCCPWD Resident Engineer, and City is obtained to work beyond these hours. Long-term operation of the Project would not contribute to noise levels in excess of standards. The Project will not increase capacity of the road and no significant changes to topography would occur. The bridge replacement will not change the distance of the travel way from nearby receptors and related changes in roadway noise will be negligible. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 51 of 72 The Project will have construction impacts caused by an increase in ambient noise associated with Project construction. These impacts, however, 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 55 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a and NOISE-1b would reduce this short-term construction period noise impact to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT NOISE-1: Project construction will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1a: Construction activities shall be limited to non-sensitive hours for adjacent land uses (generally between 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element and the City of Concord Noise Ordinance. If work is necessary outside of these hours, the City and CCCPWD shall both approve the extended work hours and the Project construction contractor/Resident Engineer will be available to address any noise concerns during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1b: The Project Contractor shall employ the following noise-reducing practices during Project construction: 1) Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active Project site during all Project construction. 3) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project generate of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Excessive ground-borne vibration from construction activities resulting from equipment such as pile drivers will not be used to construct the Project. As an alternative to reduce noise and vibrations compared to driven piles, cast-in-drilled hole shafts would be used for the abutment and bent piles. 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) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? The Project is adjacent to the Buchanan Field Airport. As described above in Section XIII.a, the Project will not generate excessive noise levels beyond existing conditions. While Project construction will result in an increase in ambient noise, it will be temporary and Mitigation Measures Noise 1a and 1b will be implemented. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 52 of 72 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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 vehicle capacity of the roadway. 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 or any people; as such, no replacement housing is necessary. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 53 of 72 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) 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? i. Fire Protection? ii. Police Protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? 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? 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 could 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 54 of 72 XVI. 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? One recreation facility is located in the Project area. The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a multi-use hiking and bicycle trail that is managed and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The trail currently terminates at Marsh Drive on the southeast corner of the existing bridge. The EBRPD has a master plan for the Iron Horse Trail to cross the Walnut Creek channel along the Marsh Drive bridge and then continue north along the west side of the channel (EBRPD 2013). Upon learning of this Project, EBRPD requested for CCCPWD to include their planned trail on the new bridge and provided planning documents. The Project will include a separated path on the south side of the new bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail, which would support the EBRPD master plan. The Project will increase bicycle and pedestrian access to Iron Horse Regional Trail, and therefore may increase trail usage. Any additional usage would not reasonably contribute to substantial deterioration of facilities, as the trail was designed for public usage and is consistent with long term plans. Further, the Project will have a beneficial impact as it will provide a safe connection over the new bridge for a future trail extension along the west side of Walnut Creek planned by EBRPD. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 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 described in Section XVI.a., the Project will construct a separated bike path on the new bridge. Project-related activities include minor improvements necessary to connect to the existing Iron Horse Regional Trail, and will not affect the main elements of the existing trail. Any potential physical adverse effect on the environment would be addressed by the mitigation measures discussed in Section IV. Biological Resources, Section V. Cultural Resources, and Section XII. Noise. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 55 of 72 XVII. TRANSPORTATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) functions as the County’s principal transportation planning agency and Congestion Management Agency. The applicable plans adopted by CCTA are the 2017 Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CCTA 2017) and the 2018 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (CCTA 2018). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan includes transportation goals and policies (Contra Costa County 2005a). The Project does not include elements that could increase traffic on local roadways (for example residential or commercial land uses). Changes to the roadway are limited to the replacement of an existing bridge, the addition of a multi-use trail, and roadway realignment adjacent to the bridge to bring the bridge up to current design standards. This would 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 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, a Class I bicycle lane has been proposed for the Project segment along Marsh Drive to connect the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which currently terminates at the southeast corner of the bridge. A Class I bicycle lane is defined as a completely separated pathway that is designated for the use of pedestrians and bic ycles. Through Project implementation, a separated path will be constructed that meets the Caltrans definition of a Class IV Protected Bikeway – which is consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This is also consistent with General Plan Policy 5-L, which encourages increased opportunity for bicycle use for recreation as well as transportation. According to the East Bay Regional Park District 2013 Master Plan Map, the Iron Horse Regional Trail (which connects to the Anza National Historic Trail) is the only Trail or Parkland along the Project length (EBRPD 2013). It is planned for the Iron Horse Regional Trail to continue north of the bridge, which would be facilitated by this Project. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 56 of 72 County Connection provides public transit for central Contra Costa County, including the City of Concord. There is a bus stop on each side of the road on the west side of the bridge, however, they are no longer serviced because County Connection restructured its routes in 2019. The existing bridge will be demolished while the new bridge is being constructed which will provide for traffic to move through the Project area, however there will be some temporary construction impacts to vehicle traffic on Marsh Drive. Minor delays will occur, and up to 30-minute delays during bridge girder installation, however, no full vehicle detours are anticipated and traffic lanes will be maintained using staged construction. In order to ensure traffic impacts to the Iron Horse Regional Trail in the Project area are minimized during construction activities, the Project contract specifications will require the construction contractor to implement the following avoidance measures: IMPACT TRA-1: The Project will result in temporary disruption to traffic on Marsh Drive and access to Iron Horse Regional Trail. MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-1: 1) Publish press release in local newspapers seven days before construction start date. 2) Letter notification to local residents seven calendar days in advance of construction. 3) Advance letter notification to local emergency response services to allow them to plan for alternate routes. 4) Placement of portable changeable message signs at various locations in Project vicinity with construction start and road closure dates and period at least seven calendar days in advance of start dates. 5) Provide accessibility to driveways to properties outside the Project area throughout the project. 6) No full lane closures allowed during commute hours; at off-peak hours one lane of Marsh Drive may be temporarily closed during active construction; reopening of lanes at the end of each working day. 7) Temporary lane closures may be scheduled at times of minimal traffic volumes such as nights, weekends, and off-commute hours where low traffic volumes are expected. 8) Traffic control including flaggers will be used as warranted to adjust flow as vehicle volume increases in either direction. 9) Placement of construction zone speed limits. 10) Emergency vehicle access at all times. While the traveling public and trail users may be temporarily impacted by Project construction, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 will minimize potential impacts. For the reasons stated, the Project does not conflict with applicable plans. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? According to Section 15064.3 (b) (2), transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. The Project will not impact vehicles miles traveled because it will not increase capacity. Further, the Project will provide Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 57 of 72 a bicycle facility which provides an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce number of VMT. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric 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. The purpose of the Project is to bring Marsh Drive road up to current design standards, including to realign the roadway approaches at the bridge to increase the curve radiuses for driver safety. During construction, the Project contract specifications will require the Contractor to implement measures to minimize potential construction impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) 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 l east 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 58 of 72 XVIII. TRIBAL 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 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. 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) As discussed in Section IV, no listed or eligible resources are present in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Marsh Drive bridge was determined not eligible for listing according to the Caltrans Bridge Inventory. ii) 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 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 Contra Costa County under AB52. On April 25, 2016 an offer to consult was sent to the AB52 contact designated in the Wilton Rancheria general request letter. No responses were received from Wilton Rancheria in regards to AB52 consultation. See Section V. Cultural Resources for a discussion regarding consultation efforts under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 59 of 72 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 60 of 72 XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications 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. There are no existing overhead utilities at the project site; however, there are existing electrical and communication utility lines located along the south side of the bridge deck. These utility lines will need to be relocated onto the northern portion of the new bridge after the first stage of construction is complete. Accommodations will be made to provide utility openings within the new bridge structure for these utilities as well as space for potential future underground utilities. There is also an existing 21-inch-diameter Central Contra Costa Sanitary District line running north-south along the eastern levee, and there are utilities that have been bored under the creek on both the northern and southern sides of the bridge. Utilities that are bored under the creek on the southern side of the existing bridge include high-risk, 8-inch-diameter Kinder-Morgan and 16-inch-diameter Phillips 76 petroleum pipelines, as well as a 30-inch-diameter Contra Costa Water District water line. There is another abandoned 16-inch-diameter Phillips 76 petroleum pipeline bored under the creek on the northern side of the existing bridge. At this time, there are no anticipated relocations of any lines bored under the creek for the Project (LSA 2019b). Potential modifications to CCWD water utilities include Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 61 of 72 raising water valves, raising riser pipes on an earthquake manifold, raising manholes for riser pipes, relocation of CCWD -owned fire hydrants, and relocation of water services and meters within a CCWD easement. AnCCWD owned hydrant and valving on 8”-inch waterline will require relocation west of the bridge to accommodate the project. The impacts associated with minor drainage modifications are analyzed in Section X and were found to be less than significant. No other stormwater drainage facilities are proposed or will be necessary for implementation of the Project. Utility and drainage relocations would be done in compliance with all applicable regulations and would not cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The Project will not require water service, and any water needed during construction would be provided by water trucks from off-site water sources. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) 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. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Project will not generate operational waste. However, a small amount of construction waste including vegetative matter, asphalt, and concrete will be generated. The County has active solid waste facilities with capacity to accommodate any construction waste that may be generated (CalRecycle 2018). In addition, Project contract specifications will require that the Contractor dispose of solid waste, including demolition material, in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state and local management and reduction 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 62 of 72 XX. WILDFIRE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Emergency vehicles will have access at all times during construction. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. No improvements are proposed that would exacerbate a wildfire risk. Construction activities may result in unanticipated fires however the Project construction contractor will have a fire safety plan and will be equipped appropriately. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Construction activities, including utility relocations, may result in unanticipated fires however the Project construction contractor will have a fire safety plan and will be equipped appropriatel y. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 63 of 72 Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 64 of 72 XXI. 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 substantially 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, substantially 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? Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 65 of 72 References In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553) were consulted: 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 June 20, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017a). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed June 12, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017b). 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website: 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 June 11, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2018). 2018. San Francisc o Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2008). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed: June 12, 2019. 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 . Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2017). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Department of Conservation (DOC 2016 ). 2016. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2016. Contra Costa County Important Farmland . Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/con16.pd f. Accessed June 5, 2019. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle 2018). 2018. Website: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/. Accessed June 11, 2019. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2018) 2018. EnviroStor. Website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: July 27, 2018. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2017). 2017. List of eligible and officially designated Scenic Highways. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic -highways/2017-03DesigandEligible.xlsx. Accessed September 5, 2018. 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. Website: www.capcoa.org/download/CAPCOA+White+Paper. Accessed June 11, 2019. Concord. 2005. 2030 General Plan. Chapter 3. Land Use. Planning Division, Concord, CA. (Concord 2005). Website: https://www.cityofconcord.org/463/2030-General-Plan. Accessed June 3, 2019. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, CA. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 66 of 72 2005a: Chapter 5. Transportation and Circulation Element. 2005b: Chapter 8: Conservation Element. 2005c: Chapter 9: Open Space Element: 2005d: Chapter 10. Safety Element 2005e: Chapter 11. Noise Element Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (CCCDCD 2015). 2015. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. Website: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/39791. Accessed: June 12, 2019. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2018). 2018. 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Website: http://keepcontracostamoving.net/documents/. Accessed June 3, 2019. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2017). 2017. Update of the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Plan . Website: https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5ab2d91647fa9-1.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2019. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD 2013). 2013 Master Plan. Website: https://www.ebparks.org/about/planning/mp/. Accessed June 13, 2019. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2009). June 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas Panel 06013C0281F. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2018). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Wetland Delineation Report. July 2018. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019a). Construction Emissions Analysis for the Marsh Drive Bridge Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project. January 2019. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019b). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project Natural Environment Study. May 2019. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019c). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project Cultural Resources Assessment Report. March 2019. State of California Department of Conservation (SCDC 2017). 2017. California Geologic Survey – Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/geologicmaps/apfaults.php . Accessed June 5, 2019. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2018). GeoTracker. 2018. Website: http://geotracker.waterboard s.ca.gov/. Accessed July 27, 2018. WRECO (WRECO 2019). Initial Site Assessment for the Marsh Drive Bridge over Walnut Creek Replacement Project. June 2019. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 67 of 72 FIGURES Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 68 of 72 FIGURE 1: Project Location Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 69 of 72 FIGURE 2: Project Area Overview Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 70 of 72 FIGURE 3a: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 71 of 72 FIGURE 3b: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 72 of 72 FIGURE 3c: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies the Mitigation Measures that will be impleme nted as part of the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement 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, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: Biological Resources Protective Measures 1) Prior to start of construction, temporary high visibility ESA silt fence will be placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site from the top of one levee to the top of the opposite levee to preclude impacts beyond the project footprint and to deter species from entering the work area. The limits will be staked by a qualified biologist. Fencing will be removed at the end of the first year of construction and reinstalled at the beginning of the second year. 2) Prior to the start of construction in each year, construction personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements. 3) Flowing water will be protected from demolition and construction activities by diverting the stream into pipes/culverts through the active construction zone. Downstream flow will be maintained at all times. 4) Temporary coffer dams used to redirect flow will consist of sheet piles, gravel bags, water -filled bladder dams, or another agency-approved material. Any water pumped from the work area will be allowed to settle to reduce turbidity prior to being released back into the creek. Temporary coffer dams and diversion pipes will be removed from the creek prior to the winter rainy season in each year. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a water diversion plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. 5) During removal of the existing bridge, a tarp or other approved method will be used below the bridge to prevent debris from falling into Walnut Creek. The tarp will be left in Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-2 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats place until the bridge is removed. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a demolition plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. As described in Section III.b, best management practices will be implemented to control dust which will minimize impacts to biological resources. 6) During excavation for the demolition and replacement work, the contractor will be required to separately excavate and stockpile wetland topsoils from soil layers beneath. These soil layers will be backfilled in the same order as excavated. Stockpiled soils will be windrowed no higher than 6 feet and shall be covered with a filter fabric or burlap; not plastic. 7) Within 1 month of completion of temporary excavation and re-grading work, the surfaces shall be smoothed to pre -project grades and shall be re-seeded using a wetland erosion control seed mix containing native wetland plant species currently found on the project site. 8) CCCPWD will require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Construction General Permit as required under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP will identify water pollution control and construction-waste containment measures to be implemented during and after Project construction, including but not limited to:  Trash general by the Project will be promptly and properly removed from the site daily.  All refueling of construction and maintenance vehicles will occur in paved areas away from the top of bank of the Walnut Creek channel. Runoff from these paved areas will not be allowed to flow into the creek.  Hazardous material absorbent pads and similar Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-3 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats materials will be available on site in the event of a spill that could potentially impact jurisdictional waters.  Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Fiber rolls will not contain plastics of any kind. Erosion control blankets will be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians.  No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks.  Active construction areas will be watered regularly. 9) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -Project conditions. Before October 31 and/or immediately after construction is complete, all exposed soils will be stabilized to reduce the effects of erosion. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-2: Accidental Introduction of New Invasive Species MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: Invasive Species Protective Measures 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 as specified in the plans and specifications. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-4 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-3: Disturbance to Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon Protective Measures 1) The Project will limit construction within the channel to the period between May 1 and October 31 to largely avoid the spawning season. 2) Prior to installation of the flow diversion, a qualified fisheries biologist will install a fish barrier (e.g., ¼-inch galvanized hardware cloth) upstream and downstream of the work area, including the area needed for coffer dam installation and flow diversion pipes. A qualified biologist will then use a seine and/or a dip net to capture fish within the work area and relocate them to a suitable area downstream of the fish barrier prior to the installation of the coffer dams. The qualified biologist will be present during coffer dam installation and dewatering of the work area. During dewatering, the biologist will visually survey the work area and will use a seine and/or a dip net to capture and relocate any remaining fish. Electrofishing may be implemented to ensure that all of the fish are removed from the work area. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-4: Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: Western Pond Turtle Protective Measures A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles on the 1st day of work immediately prior to the start of work to ensure no individuals present. Once a temporary high visibility ESA silt fence is installed at the upstream and downstream ends of Project site and all vegetation has been cleared, a designated construction monitor (trained by the qualified biologist), will inspect the work area for western pond turtles anytime work activity ceases for 2 days or more. If a western pond turtle is observed by the construction monitor in the immediate work area, no work will commence in the area of the sighting until the turtle has moved out of harm’s way or the qualified biologist has arrived at the site and relocated the turtle. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-5: Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: Western Burrowing Owl Protective Measures A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey within Potential Staging Area 2 to identify potential burrows and owls no more than 30 days prior to construction. The survey will be conducted in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines. During the breeding season (February 1-August 31), surveys will Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-5 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-5: Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey is conducted. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the Project will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by Project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), the Project should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone or within a 160 -foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. The doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation, and the Project site should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation in accordance with CDFW guidelines. Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. The applicant may conduct burrow management (i.e., regular surveys to find and proactively collapse unoccupied yet suitable burrows) in advance of and during construction to lower the likelihood of owls occupying burrows within the Project area. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-6 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-6: Disturbance to Nesting Birds MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: Nesting Bird Protective Measures The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) To reduce the likelihood of birds establishing nests in the construction zone, vegetation in the project vicinity may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (February 15). Similarly, potential nest trees that will be eliminated as part of the project and old, inactive swallow and finch nests on the bridge may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season. Swallows and finches may also be prevented from nesting on the bridge through the installation of netting or other exclusionary measures if they are installed prior to the start of nesting. 2) A preconstruction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities that take place during the nesting season (February 15-August 31), including any removal of vegetation at the project site. The survey will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. Buffers will be placed around any nests that are found during the survey. No work will be conducted within the buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the nesting attempt is complete. Buffers for songbird nests are generally on the order of 50 to 100 feet, with the precise distance determined by the qualified biologist conducting the preconstruction survey based on species, nest site characteristics, and the acclimation of the nesting birds to disturbance. Repeated bird nesting surveys of the existing bridge and removal of nest starts may be needed to prevent swallow and house finch nesting throughout the construction season. The project is not expected to result in direct impacts to nesting birds with implementation of these measures. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-7 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date V. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Disturbance to unidentified historical resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: BMPs The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during Project construction if unanticipated potential historic or pre-historic archaeological resources are encountered. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic or pre-historic archaeological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic 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 will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, anal ysis, and reporting of the find. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD CUL-2: Impact to previously undiscovered human remains Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work and Notification Procedure 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 NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC 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 CCCPWD and the Northwest Information Center. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Archaeologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-8 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date VII. Geology and Soils GEO-1: Impacts from fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and unstable soil Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Project design and inspection The Project design and construction will take the existing seismic conditions and soil conditions into account. The Project will be designed in in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the regulations detailed in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Prior to construction CCCPWD CCCPWD Potential surface deformation resulting from aseismic creep can be mitigated by a regular maintenance program to repair the road surface, curbs, and other engineered facilities. Annual inspection should be carried out to assess ongoing creep damage. After Construction CCCPWD CCCPWD Ongoing A geotechnical and foundation study will be completed to inform the final design, and the recommendations would be incorporated into the Project plans. The study will include site-specific exploratory borings and laboratory testing to delineate potentially liquefiable materials. Potentially liquefiable deposits will either have to be removed or the foundation designed to extend beyond potentially liquefiable deposits. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Mobilization of Contaminants Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Waste Management, Worker Safety, and Groundwater procedures The CCCPWD will follow the following recommendations to minimize potential for accidental release of contaminants. Recommendations include: • The Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be notified through their Asbestos Notification System prior to bridge demolition. • Waste management guidance for the proper disposal of excavated shallow soil, lead-based paint, and bridge expansion joint insulation (which must be removed prior to demolition). • Worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities. • Untreated groundwater should not be discharged into natural channels or storm drains. Groundwater and any water comingled with groundwater should be treated under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge Prior to construction CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-9 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date HAZ-1: Mobilization of Contaminants or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. Prior to construction CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD XIII. NOISE NOISE-1: Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Ambient Noise Construction activities shall be limited to non-sensitive hours for adjacent land uses (generally between 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element and the City of Concord Noise Ordinance. If work is necessary outside of these hours, the city and county shall both approve the extended work hours and the contractor/Resident Engineer will be available to address any noise concerns during construction. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD The Project Contractor shall employ the following noise -reducing practices during Project construction: 1) Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active Project Site during all Project construction. 3) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD XVII. TRANSPORTATION TRA-1: Temporary Disruption to traffic Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Traffic Control and Notifications 1) Publish press release in local newspapers seven days before construction start date. 2) Letter notification to local residents seven calendar days in advance of construction and lane closure start date(s). Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project November 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-10 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date TRA-1: Temporary Disruption to traffic 3) Advance letter notification to local emergency response services to allow them to plan for alternate routes. 4) Placement of portable changeable message signs at various locations in Project vicinity with construction start and road closure dates and period at least seven calendar days in advance of start dates. 5) Provide accessibility to driveways to properties outside the Project area throughout the project. 6) No full lane closures allowed during co mmute hours; at off- peak hours one lane of Marsh Drive may be temporarily closed during active construction; reopening of lanes at the end of each working day. 7) Temporary lane closures may be scheduled at times of minimal traffic volumes such as nights, weekends, and off- commute hours where low traffic volumes are expected. 8) Traffic control including flaggers will be used as warranted to adjust flow as vehicle volume increases in either direction. 9) Placement of construction zone speed limits. 10) Emergency vehicle access at all times. Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment Letters and Responses This section contains the comment letters that were received on the Initial Study with Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project. Following each comment letter is a response by Contra Costa County intended to supplement, clarify, or amend information provided in the IS/MND. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Response to Comment Letter 1: Comment 1-1: A permit from CCEH is required for any well or soil boring prior to commencing drilling activities, including those associated with water supply, environmental investigation and cleanup, or geotechnical investigations. Response 1-1: CCCPWD has conducted soil explorations, for which a soil boring permit (permit number 0024870) was obtained from Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEH). The remaining drilling activity for this Project is to drill piles to build the replacement bridge. The contractor will obtain a soil boring permit from CCEH prior to commencing activities and will comply with CCEH permit requirements. Comment 1-2: Any abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) must be destroyed under permit from CCEH. If the existence of such wells are known in advance or discovered during construction or other activities, these must be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed pursuant to CCEH requirements. Response 1-2: There are no known abandoned wells in the Project area. If a well is discovered, CCEH requirements will be followed. Comment 1-3: Hazardous construction and demolition materials should be separated from those that can be recycled or disposed. Response 1-3: Project specifications will require the contractor to separate waste materials from those that can be recycled or disposed. Comment 1-4: Debris from construction of demolition activity must go to a solid waste or recycling facility that complies with the applicable requirements and can lawfully accept the material…the debris must be transported by a hauler that can lawfully transport the material. Response 1-4: Project specifications will require the contractor to follow handling, removal, transport, and disposal methods for the construction debris that comply with federal, State, and local requirements. Comment 1-5: Non-source-separated waste materials must not be brought back to the contractor's yard unless the facility has the appropriate solid waste permit or EA Notification. Response 1-5: Project specifications will require the contractor to follow applicable federal, State, and local requirements, which would include the non-source-separated waste material requirement referenced above. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Response to Comment Letter 2: Comment 1-1: Add project elements [possible modifications of CCWD's water utilities, including: raising valve cans, relocating fire hydrants, raising riser pipes on an earthquake manifold, raising manholes for riser pipes, relocating water services and meters] to the Project Description of IS/MND and provide analysis as necessary to cover this work. Response 1-1: The Project Description of the MND includes an overall description of the project, while specific elements are discussed in more detail in discussion a) of Section XVIV. Utilities and Service Systems which discusses relocation or construction of new water facilities. The following statement was added to provide more details about the potential water utility modifications: "Potential modifications to CCWD water utilities include raising water valves, raising riser pipes on an earthquake manifold, raising manholes for riser pipes, relocation of CCWD-owned fire hydrants, and relocation of water services and meters within a CCWD easement. An 8-inch waterline will require relocation west of the bridge to accommodate the project." Utility and drainage relocations would be done in compliance with all applicable regulations and would not cause a significant environmental impact. CCCPWD is currently coordinating with Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) on 65% Project plan review and approval. Comment 1-2: Add that the County has indicated that they expect the District to pay for all improvements in the County's ROW and that the County will pay for all improvements in CCWD's easement, and that the project will require a Utility Relocation Agreement that will go to CCWD's Board of Director's for approval. Response 1-2: The CCCPWD acknowledges that CCWD facilities and easements are located within portions of the proposed Project site. CCCPWD will coordinate with CCWD regarding payments for improvements, but it is not within the scope of CEQA to include that agreement in the scope of CEQA. The Utility Relocation Agreement was added to item 10 of the MND Environmental Checklist form (other public agencies whose approval is required):  "Contra Costa Water District (Utility Relocation Agreement)” Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department November 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Response to Comment Letter 3: Comment 1-1: In item 10 of the Environmental Checklist Form, the FC District should be listed separately as a public agency whose approval is required for the project. FC District encroachment permits are required for any proposed work or improvements within the FC District property or work impacting the Walnut Creek. Response 1-1: The following information added to item 10 of the MND Environmental Checklist form:  "Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Encroachment Permit)" Comment 1-2: Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, should state that the applicant will coordinate with the FC District to review improvements impacting regional drainage facilities. Response 1-2: The following information was added to discussion a) in Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality: "In addition, CCCPWD will coordinate with the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (FC District) to review drainage plans." Comment 1-3: Section X should state that a hydraulic study will be provided to the FC District for review that calculates the required elevation of the replacement bridge to satisfy minimum freeboard guidelines. Response 1-3: The following information was added to discussion d) in Section X. Hydrology and Water Quality: "The FC District will review the required elevation of the replacement bridge to ensure that minimum freeboard guidelines are satisfied." ATTACHMENT B DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 1 of 73 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement 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: Laura Cremin, Environmental Analyst, (925) 313-2015 Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division 4. Project Location: Marsh Drive, approximately 0.2 miles west of Solano Way, Concord and Pacheco, Contra Costa County (Figure 1) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Contra Costa County: CO (Commercial); (Light Industry); PS (Public and Semi-Public); BP (Business Park); MO (Mobile Homes) City of Concord: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Public and Semi-public; Office p 7. Zoning: Contra Costa County: U (Unrestricted), L-I (Light Industry), H-I (Heavy Industry), T-1 (Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Park) 8. Description of Project: Contra Costa County Public Works Department (CCCPWD), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to replace Marsh Drive Bridge (#28C-0442) over the Walnut Creek Channel (Project). The existing bridge is identified as structurally, seismically, and hydraulically deficient. The purpose of the Project is to replace the existing bridge to meet current design standards to provide safe public access. Project construction is expected to begin in fall 2021 or spring 2022 and take approximately 24 – 30 months to complete. The existing bridge was originally built as a 6-span concrete slab bridge in 1938, and was lengthened in the 1960s to a 10-span bridge. The bridge is currently 325 feet long by 34 feet wide. The new bridge will be designed to correct all of the existing bridge deficiencies and handle the seismic loads as well as the hydraulic flows within the channel. The proposed bridge replacement will be a 5-span bridge, pre-stressed concrete slab structure on concrete piles that is longer and wider than the existing bridge, at approximately 340 feet long and 55 feet wide. The existing bridge will be demolished and the new bridge will be raised approximately seven feet with fewer supports in the channel to meet hydraulic standards. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 2 of 73 The proposed bridge will re-align Marsh Drive slightly to the north while utilizing a larger horizontal curve on the east in order to improve safety (Figure 2). To improve the roadway alignment and horizontal curve at the bridge, there will be approximately 350 to 500 linear feet of roadway approach work at each end of the bridge. In its final configuration the proposed bridge will accommodate two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) with pedestrian/bicycle facilities on each side of the road. The Project will also include a separated path along the south side of the bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail at the southeastern side of the bridge. The Project will use staged construction to avoid bridge closure and traffic detours; the existing bridge will provide traffic and pedestrian/bicycle access while the new bridge is being constructed. Two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) and a pedestrian/bicycle access route will be maintained during each phase of construction. Standard traffic control will be used during construction. The existing bridge will be demolished after the new bridge is constructed. Work will occur in the creek and dewatering and/or stream diversion is anticipated. Ground disturbance will be necessary; depth will vary between Project elements. The maximum depth of excavation for Project work will be approximately 50 feet for the installation of foundation piles (using drilling), approximately 20 feet for bridge abutments and bents, approximately five feet for general roadway work, and approximately 15 to 20 feet for some utility relocations. Vegetation removal may be necessary throughout the Project area. Disturbed areas will be stabilized following construction. A public outreach presentation was held at the Buchanan Airport in December 2018. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Marsh Drive is a two-lane urban minor arterial road that is widely used by commuters bypassing State Route 4. Marsh Drive bridge spans Walnut Creek Channel, which flows north into Pacheco Creek, and eventually into Suisun Bay. The Project vicinity is urban with commercial and light industrial uses surrounding the Project site. Walnut Creek channel, State Highway 4 and industrial uses are located to the north, a vacant lot to the northeast, car dealership (Lithia Dealership) and Iron Horse Regional Trail to the southeast, Walnut Creek channel to the south, Buchanan Field Airport to the southwest, and Valley Relocation and Storage office building to the northwest. There are residential developments to the east off of Solano Way and Olivera Road, and west of the Buchanan Field Airport off of Marsh Drive. The bridge is jointly owned by Contra Costa County and the City of Concord (City). The dividing line between the County and the City runs approximately north-south along Walnut Creek channel and splits the bridge nearly in half. The east side of the bridge and roadway approach are inside the City’s limits while the west side of the bridge and roadway approach are inside the County’s limits. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement):  City of Concord  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under the aegis of the Federal Highways Administration  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Section 404 – Nationwide Permit; Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 408) Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 3 of 73  San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 401- Water Quality Certification)  State Water Resources Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 402 - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 - Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement)  East Bay Regional Park District 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Wilton Rancheria submitted a general request letter to be notified of Projects within Contra Costa County under AB52. CCCPWD initiated contact with Wilton Rancheria on April 25, 2016 (refer to Section XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources for the record of contacts). No request for consultation nor information about potential resources was received from the tribe. However, Wilton Rancheria has requested consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (refer to Section XVIII Cultural Resources). Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 5 of 73 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 6 of 73 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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 (Contra Costa County 2005c). 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 south of the bridge. A view of Mount Diablo and rolling hills is visible in the distance. Suisun Bay, which is part of the Delta estuary system, is approximately 3.8 miles north of the Project site but views are obscured by two State Highway 4 bridges. The new bridge would be located within the same general footprint as the existing bridge, but would be wider and have a higher elevation. The new bridge, however, will not block or change views in any directions. 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 2017). Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 7 of 73 The Project is located in the City of Concord and in the unincorporated area of Pacheco. These are urban areas. The applicable governing document for scenic quality in Concord is the Land Use Element of the Concord 2030 General Plan (Concord 2005). Scenic vistas within the City of Concord are not identified in the Plan, but there are policies related to the preservation of visible hillside and open space areas (General Plan Policy LU-1.1.9) and development and design standards related to viewshed protection in hillside areas, open space preservation, grading impacts, and height and massing of structures (Policy LU-11.1.4). The applicable governing document for Pacheco is the Contra Costa County General Plan described in Section I.a. The Project will not conflict with either General Plan because it will cause very little visual change to the surrounding area. The Project is limited to a bridge replacement project along an existing roadway, which will not substantially alter its improvement. The replacement bridge design, including architectural treatments on the bridge, retaining wall, and railings would intend to be aesthetically pleasing. The Project will not introduce buildings, structures or other features that would not be compatible with the architectural and landscape requirements of the area. Some existing 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 night time views. With the exception of road striping, 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 CCCPWD Resident Engineer who would be available to address any concerns. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 8 of 73 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? 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? According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC 2016) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no farmland in the Project area; it is designated as Urban and Built Up Land. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? There is no farmland in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. 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)? There is no forestland, or land zoned for timberland production in the Project area. 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? There is no forestland, or land zoned for timberland production in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 9 of 73 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? There is no farmland in the Project area. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 10 of 73 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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 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. The air quality plan that is applicable to the proposed project is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which was adopted April 19, 2017 (BAAQMD 2017b). The BAAQMD considers a project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the region if there is substantial evidence that 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. 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. The Project will not cause significant air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impacts and will not increase exposure of the population to air pollutants (see analysis that follows in Sections III.b and VIII.a). 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 11 of 73 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 will replace an existing bridge and 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. The creation of a Class IV bicycle lane across the bridge would promote the BAAQMD initiatives to increase the use of alternative means of transportation and support reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the Clean Air Plan. The plan includes incentives for construction equipment upgrades and other strategies to reduce emissions of construction vehicles on a plan level. On the Project level, Project specifications require compliance with emissions reduction regulations being mandated by the California Air Resources Board. 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. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 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: particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter or PM), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The Bay Area is under nonattainment status for State 1-hour and 8- hour ozone standards (BAAQMD 2018). 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. The BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates plans to establish rules and regulations for various emissions sources. The purpose of Appendix D of BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is to offer procedures to evaluate potential air quality impacts (BAAQMD 2017a). The significance criteria from the guidelines were applied to evaluate construction-related impacts associated with the Project. The Project is limited to the replacement of an existing bridge and 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 construction equipment and bridge demolition. In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 12 of 73 engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. Construction of the Project will include demolition, grading and excavation, saw cutting, and striping. LSA Associates prepared a Construction Emissions Analysis memorandum (LSA 2019a). Road Construction Emissions Model version 9.0.0 (RoadMod), which was developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality, was used to quantify construction-related and operational pollutant emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that Project construction would occur over 24 months. The results of the emissions analysis were compared with BAAQMD 2017 thresholds of significance. A summary of average daily constructions emissions is shown in Table 1. All construction- related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and therefore its air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Table 1: Summary of Average Daily Construction Emissions Emissions (lb/day) ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Average Daily Project Construction Emissions 1.0 9.4 0.5 0.4 BAAQMD Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold of Significance? No No No No Notes: lb/day = pounds/day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases Although the Project does not exceed the thresholds of significance, the BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10) that are recommended for all projects in Table 8-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Implementation of these measures will further reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities. Consistent with the Measures suggested by the BAAQMD, the Project Contractor will implement the following best management practices (BMPs) for air pollution control: 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 13 of 73 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 CCCPWD 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. As described in Section IX, Hazardous Materials, sampling of the existing bridge materials have determined to contain lead-based paint (LBP) and potential asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM). Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be implemented. 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 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 (2017) 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 a new bicycle lane. As such, the Project will not exceed established thresholds for regional emissions or make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) 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. The closest receptors in the Project vicinity would be the residents located along Marsh Drive, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the Project site. There will be no operational impacts resulting from the Project. However, sensitive receptors could be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. Health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as construction diesel emissions are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. 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 the BMPs for air pollution control listed above would help to reduce construction pollutant concentrations. 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 24 to 30 months, which is relatively short when compared to the 70-year risk exposure period. Additionally, the Project emission concentrations at any one receptor location would have a Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 14 of 73 much shorter duration. Due to the short duration of the construction period and the dispersion of Project construction emissions, and implementation of the air pollution control BMPs listed in Section III.b, which is consistent with BAAQMD guidelines, health risks from DPM construction emissions would be further reduced. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely 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 residents and businesses. However, these will be limited and temporary in nature and further reduced with implementation of the BMPs listed in Section III.b. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 15 of 73 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 state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as 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? 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? The Walnut Creek channel bisects the Project site; it flows north underneath the Marsh Drive bridge, merges with Grayson Creek 0.4 miles downstream to form Pacheco Creek, and then empties into Suisun Bay in the Carquinez Strait. Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek are low-flow channels contained within earthen, trapezoidal flood-control channels. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 16 of 73 A biological resource assessment of the Project footprint and surrounding area (Biological Study Area [BSA]) was conducted in July and August 2018 (LSA 2019b). The assessment included background review of literature and databases, reconnaissance-level field surveys for special-status wildlife and plant species, and a wetland delineation. The BSA consists of three geographically separate locations: 1) a segment of Marsh Drive starting from approximately 370 feet west of the Marsh Drive bridge and extending to approximately 530 feet east of the bridge (Figure 3A); 2) a 3.5-acre potential staging area at the northeastern corner of Buchanan Field Airport (Potential Staging Area 1) (Figure 3B); and 3) a 3.5-acre potential staging area west of Buchanan Field Airport at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive (Potential Staging Area 2) (Figure 3C). The BSA largely coincides with the boundaries of the maximum Project footprint in all three locations. At the bridge location on Marsh Drive, the BSA includes areas east and west of the bridge where roadway approach work is needed. The BSA also extends upstream for approximately 30 linear feet and downstream for approximately 150 linear feet to account for temporary impacts within the Walnut Creek channel. The BSA includes all trees adjacent to the road and bridge that may be affected by the Project. Land cover types within the BSA are described below and impacts to each of the land cover types are identified in Table 2 and shown on Figures 3A-3C. : 1) Developed. Developed areas are those where vegetation has been cleared and altered for commercial development, parking, and roads. These areas are largely covered by cement or pavement and do not contain natural habitats. The developed land cover type also includes gravel/dirt roads along the tops of the levees. 2) Landscaping. Landscaped areas occur adjacent to Marsh Drive and the maintenance access roads along the tops of the levees. This land cover type includes native and non-native species purposely planted as landscaping. This land cover type is common within urban settings and complements buildings, roads, parking lots, and buffer areas around these features. Although some native trees occur along the levees, they do not represent a distinct natural vegetation community. 3) Ruderal Grassland. Ruderal grassland consists of grasslands in upland areas along Lower Walnut Creek above the ordinary high water mark, in both staging areas, and in a vacant lot northeast of the Project site. These areas are dominated by wild oat (Avena sp.). Common forbs in this community are wild radish (Raphanus sativus), alkali-mallow (Malvella leprosa), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). There is significant human disturbance from homeless encampments under Marsh Drive Bridge and the Highway 4 Bridge just north of the Project site. Potential Staging Area 1 contains patches of creeping wild rye (Elymus triticoides) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Potential Staging Area 2 contains patches of creeping wild rye. Potential Staging Area 1 is mowed regularly due to its proximity to Buchanan Field Airport runways. Potential Staging Area 2 is mowed less frequently and has one wetland ditch present along the western boundary. 4) Freshwater Marsh. Freshwater marsh habitat occurs on the eastern side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek. Common species in this habitat type include bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), cattail (Typha sp.), bentgrass (Agrostis sp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). 5) Seasonal Wetland. Seasonal wetland habitat occurs on the flood terrace on the western side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek and in the ditch running parallel to the western Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 17 of 73 boundary of Potential Staging Area 2. Common vegetation on the flood terrace includes alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), spearscale (Atriplex prostrata), bentgrass, sharp dock (Rumex conglomeratus), rabbit’s-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Italian wild rye (Festuca perennis), Bermuda grass, and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). Some freshwater marsh species are present in the area mapped as seasonal wetland north of the bridge; however, freshwater marsh is not dominant west of the creek. Seasonal wetland cover in the ditch includes bentgrass, hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), Bermuda grass, hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and pepperweed. The wettest portion of the ditch contains spearscale, rabbit’s-foot grass, cattail, nutsedge (Cyperus sp.), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). 6) Unvegetated Flood Terrace. A small (0.07 acre) unvegetated area occurs in the floodplain on the western side of the low-flow channel in Walnut Creek. Unvegetated flood terrace is limited to areas under Marsh Drive Bridge that are below the ordinar y high water mark of Walnut Creek. Due to shading from the bridge, there is less than 5 percent vegetated cover, consisting of bentgrass and ruderal grasses and forbs. 7) Vegetated Berm. Two natural levees/berms occur on either side of the low-flow channel. These areas are at or slightly below the OHWM but contain upland plant species similar to those found in ruderal grassland (wild oat, wild radish, alkali-mallow, field bindweed, and bristly ox-tongue). In addition to these species, other common grasses and forbs are present along the low-flow channel, including Italian wild rye, soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), Harding grass, and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). 8) Stream Channel. The lower reach of Walnut Creek channel is a maintained, earthen, trapezoidal flood control channel with an unvegetated, perennial low-flow channel. The low-flow channel, which formed naturally, ranges in width from approximately 28 feet to 35 feet. The low-flow channel is unvegetated due to persistent, deep flow. Table 2: Potential Temporary and Permanent Impacts By Land Cover Type Land Cover Type Total within Biological Study Area (acre) Permanent Impacts (acre) Temporary Impacts (acre) Developed 3.557 1.27 2.287 Landscaping 0.593 0.112 0.481 Ruderal grassland 6.894 0.197 6.697 Freshwater marsh 0.342 0.057 0.285 Seasonal wetland 0.473 0.081 0.392 Unvegetated flood terrace 0.119 0.048 0.071 Vegetated berm 0.184 0.041 0.143 Stream channel 0.187 0.034 0.153 Total 12.349 1.84 10.509 The ruderal grassland, freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, unvegetated flood terrace, vegetated berm, and stream channel are considered environmental sensitive areas (ESA) and provide suitable Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 18 of 73 habitats for special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the BSA as listed in Table 3. No special-status plant species have the potential to occur. Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the BSA Common Name (Species Name) Listing Status Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Federally Threatened Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) California Species of Special Concern Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) California Species of Special Concern Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) California Species of Special Concern IMPACT BIO-1: Suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species is present within the BSA. Mitigation Measure BIO- 1 below includes best management practices to avoid and minimize for general impacts, however, specific species measures are discussed further below in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through BIO-6. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: The following best management practices/avoidance and minimization measures would be used for protection of the biological resources within the BSA. 1) Prior to start of construction, temporary high visibility ESA silt fence will be placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site from the top of one levee to the top of the opposite levee to preclude impacts beyond the project footprint and to deter species from entering the work area. The limits will be staked by a qualified biologist. Fencing will be removed at the end of the first year of construction and reinstalled at the beginning of the second year. 2) Prior to the start of construction in each year, construction personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements. 3) Flowing water will be protected from demolition and construction activities by diverting the stream into pipes/culverts through the active construction zone. Downstream flow will be maintained at all times. 4) Temporary coffer dams used to redirect flow will consist of sheet piles, gravel bags, water- filled bladder dams, or another agency-approved material. Any water pumped from the work area will be allowed to settle to reduce turbidity prior to being released back into the creek. Temporary coffer dams and diversion pipes will be removed from the creek prior to the winter rainy season in each year. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a water diversion plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. 5) During removal of the existing bridge, a tarp or other approved method will be used below the bridge to prevent debris from falling into Walnut Creek. The tarp will be left in place until the bridge is removed. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a demolition plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. As described in Section III.b, best management practices will be implemented to control dust which will minimize impacts to biological resources. 6) During excavation for the demolition and replacement work, the contractor will be required to separately excavate and stockpile wetland topsoils from soil layers beneath. These soil layers Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 19 of 73 will be backfilled in the same order as excavated. Stockpiled soils will be windrowed no higher than 6 feet and shall be covered with a filter fabric or burlap; not plastic. 7) Within 1 month of completion of temporary excavation and re-grading work, the surfaces will be smoothed to pre-project grades and will be re-seeded using a wetland erosion control seed mix containing native wetland plant species currently found on the project site. 8) CCCPWD will require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Construction General Permit as required under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP will identify water pollution control and construction-waste containment measures to be implemented during and after Project construction, including but not limited to:  Trash general by the Project will be promptly and properly removed from the site daily.  All refueling of construction and maintenance vehicles will occur in paved areas away from the top of bank of the Walnut Creek channel. Runoff from these paved areas will not be allowed to flow into the creek.  Hazardous material absorbent pads and similar materials will be available on site in the event of a spill that could potentially impact jurisdictional waters.  Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Fiber rolls will not contain plastics of any kind. Erosion control blankets will be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians.  No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks.  Active construction areas will be watered regularly. 9) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre-Project conditions. Before October 31 and/or immediately after construction is complete, all exposed soils will be stabilized to reduce the effects of erosion. IMPACT BIO-2: The Project could accidentally introduce new invasive species to the Project site. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: To prevent the accidental introduction of new invasive species into the Project site during construction, CCCPWD will require that the Project construction 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 as specified in the plans and specifications. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 20 of 73 Special-Status Plant Species A special-status plant habitat assessment and late summer/fall protocol-level botanical survey of the BSA was conducted on August 28, 2018. One special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii) was considered to have potential to occur in the BSA. However, the results of a protocol-level plant survey conducted during the flowering period for this species confirmed that Congdon’s tarplant does not occur on the Project site. Therefore, the project will have no impact on this species. Special-Status Wildlife Species A special-status wildlife survey of the BSA was conducted July 25, 2018. As listed in Table 3 above, one federally-listed species, the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), has the potential to occur in the Project area. However, the potential for occurrence is low, and there are no self-sustaining anadromous populations remaining in Walnut Creek or its tributaries. No state-listed species have the potential to occur. Other special-status species that may occur in the project vicinity are fall/late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) as described below. The Project site provides marginally suitable habitat for fall/late-fall run Chinook salmon and suitable habitat for western pond turtle and western burrowing owl, although none of these species were observed during the surveys. Species observed during the survey were western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), great egret (Ardea alba), black phoebe, European starling, red- winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) (flocks of young birds), house finch, house sparrow, and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). There was also evidence of use by barn owl (Tyto alba) (dead bird), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) (scat), coyote (Canis latrans) (scat), river otter (scat), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (tracks). Old cliff swallow and house finch nests were observed on the bridge structure. Gopher holes and Canada goose scat were observed at Potential Staging Area 1. A turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and California ground squirrel burrows were observed at Potential Staging Area 2. Central California Coast steelhead The Central California Coast Steelhead is listed as a federally threatened species. This fish is known to occur in the creek, and occasional attempted spawning events have been reported upstream of the Project site, below a drop structure. There have been occasional observations of redds (depressions made to deposit eggs) above the drop structure, however, the habitat below the drop structure is unsuitable spawning habitat for salmanids, and they are unlikely to be present except for an occasional fish. The National Marine Fishseries Service (NMFS) concurred (in an email dated April 24, 2019) agreed with the conclusion that steelhead are unlikely to occur in Walnut Creek any time of year and that self-sustaining populations have been extirpated. There are numerous passage impediments throughout the Walnut Creek Watershed, and drainages associated with Lower Lanust Creek no longer provide conditions for self-sustaining polulations of steelheads. The Project would involve work within the low-flow channel of Walnut Creek, including dewatering and removal of the existing bridge columns. This work in the channel would occur between May 1 and October 31, outside of spawning season, and would therefore not present a barrier to fish passage. The Project will have no impact on this species. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 21 of 73 Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon The Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon are considered California Species of Special Concern. They are not federally or State-listed and have no designated critical habitat. No Chinook salmon were observed during the general survey on July 25, 2018, however, adult Chinook salmon carcasses and redds were found in Walnut Creek between Highway 4 (downstream of the Project site) and the first drop structure upstream of the Project site. NMFS (in an email dated April 11, 2006) concluded that Chinook salmon observed in the lower reach of Walnut Creek are hatchery strays that have never successfully reproduced in the creek, and that existing habitat within the reaches of Walnut and Grayson creeks which includes the reach containing the BSA) does not allow for successful spawning. As described above, Project work in the channel includes the installation of a dewatering system. There are potential indirect impacts to salmon due to temporary loss of habitat while the flow diversion is in place, and other indirect impacts related to construction activity (such as runoff or sedimentation). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 will be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to Chinook salmon to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-3: The Project could impact Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon, a California species of Special Concern. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: 1) The Project will limit construction within the channel to the period between May 1 and October 31 to largely avoid the spawning season. 2) Prior to installation of the flow diversion, a qualified fisheries biologist will install a fish barrier (e.g., ¼-inch galvanized hardware cloth) upstream and downstream of the work area, including the area needed for coffer dam installation and flow diversion pipes. A qualified biologist will then use a seine and/or a dip net to capture fish within the work area and relocate them to a suitable area downstream of the fish barrier prior to the installation of the coffer dams. The qualified biologist will be present during coffer dam installation and dewatering of the work area. During dewatering, the biologist will visually survey the work area and will use a seine and/or a dip net to capture and relocate any remaini ng fish. Electrofishing may be implemented to ensure that all of the fish are removed from the work area. Western Pond Turtle Western pond turtles occupy permanent and intermittent ponds and creeks. They prefer deep (great than 2 feet), quiet pools along streams. Important habitat features include basking sites and suitable aquatic hiding areas such as undercut banks, logs, rocks, aquatic vegetation, and/or mud and leaf - litter. Nesting areas include grassy, sunny slopes adjacent to aquatic habitat. This species is known to occur in the Project vicinity. The nearest California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrence is 0.19 miles away. No western pond turtles were observed during the general survey on July 25, 2018, however the BSA provides potential movement and breeding habitat. There will be approximately 1.044 acres of temporary impacts and 0.261 acres of permanent impacts to western pond turtle aquatic habitat. Once constructed, the new bridge structure will have fewer support piles and overall increase habitat available to western pond turtles. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 22 of 73 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-4: The Project could impact western pond turtle, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles on the first day of work immediately prior to the start of work to ensure that no individuals are present. Once a temporary high visibility fence is installed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site and all vegetation has been cleared, a designated construction monitor (trained by the qualified biologist), will inspect the work area for western pond turtles anytime work activity ceases for two days or more. If a western pond turtle is observed by the construction monitor in the immediate work area, no work will commence in the area of the sighting until the turtle has moved out of harm’s way or the qualified biologist has arrived at the site and relocated the turtle. Western Burrowing Owl Western burrowing owl occur in open, well-drained grasslands with abundant small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground squirrels. The nearest CNDDB Occurrence is 0.92 mile from the bridge replacement site and 0.05 mile from Potential Staging Area 2. The ruderal grassland habitat at Potential Staging Area 2 provides potential breeding, wintering, and/or foraging habitat, based on proximity to a known occurrence and appropriate habitat, including the presence of ground squirrel burrows. No burrowing owls or evidence of occupied burrows was observed during the general wildlife survey conducted within the BSA. The suitability of Potential S taging Area 1 and the bridge replacement site is limited. Potential Staging Area 1 lacks ground squirrel burrows, and the bridge replacement site has few ground squirrel burrows, tall vegetation, and substantial human disturbance that likely preclude occupation by burrowing owls. The Project would result in minor indirect impacts to western burrowing owls – the temporary loss of 2.068 acres of marginally suitable breeding and wintering habitat within Potential Staging Area 2. The Project site and Potential Staging Area 1 do not provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Implementation Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to western burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT BIO-5: The Project could impact western burrowing owl, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey within Potential Staging Area 2 to identify potential burrows and owls no more than 30 days prior to construction. The survey will be conducted in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines. During the breeding season (February 1 - August 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey is conducted. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 23 of 73 If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the Project will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by Project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the non- breeding season (September 1-January 31), the Project should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone or within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. The doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation, and the Project site should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation in accordance with CDFW guidelines. Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. The applicant may conduct burrow management (i.e., regular surveys to find and proactively collapse unoccupied yet suitable burrows) in advance of and during construction to lower the likelihood of owls occupying burrows within the Project area. Nesting Birds and Raptors Bird and raptor species that are not special-status species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5. Most existing vegetation within the BSA has at least some potential to support birds and their nests. In addition, the bridge itself provides nesting habitat for black phoebes, cliff swallows, and house finches. As noted above, old cliff swallow and house finch nests were observed on the bridge structure. The birds likely return to the bridge to nest each year and are likely to be present at the time of construction. Other bird species observed during the wildlife survey included great egret, European starling, red-winged blackbird, and house sparrow. There was also evidence of use by barn owl, and Canada goose. Project construction could have direct impact on nesting birds, and increased noise and human presence from Project construction could result in indirect impacts on nesting birds in the BSA through modifications to behavior resulting in lower breeding success. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would ensure direct and indirect impacts on nesting birds are reduced to less-than- significant levels. IMPACT BIO-6: The Project could impact nesting birds and raptors, if present in the BSA during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) To reduce the likelihood of birds establishing nests in the construction zone, vegetation in the project vicinity may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (February 15). Similarly, potential nest trees that will be eliminated as part of the project and old, inactive swallow and finch nests on the bridge may be removed prior to the start of th e nesting season. Swallows and finches may also be prevented from nesting on the bridge through the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 24 of 73 installation of netting or other exclusionary measures if they are installed prior to the start of nesting. 2) A preconstruction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities that take place during the nesting season (February 15-August 31), including any removal of vegetation at the project site. The survey will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. Buffers will be placed around any nests that are found during the survey. No work will be conducted within the buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the nesting attempt is complete. Buffers for songbird nests are generally on the order of 50 to 100 feet, with the precise distance determined by the qualified biologist conducting the preconstruction survey based on species, nest site characteristics, and the acclimation of the nesting birds to disturbance. Repeated bird nesting surveys of the existing bridge and removal of nest starts may be needed to prevent swallow and house finch nesting throughout the construction season. The project is not expected to result in direct impacts to nesting birds with implementation of these measures. The Project is not anticipated to substantially impact any special-status species with implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6. Therefore, Project impacts will be less 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? As described in Section IV.a, the Project would result in permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitat and other natural communities, which are regulated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Permanent impacts include installation of bridge piles and abutments and additional fill. Temporary impacts include a stream diversion system, site mobilization, excavation, and grading within the creek channel and banks. The stream diversion system and associated materials will be removed prior to the winter rainy season after the first year of construction, and then reinstalled at the beginning of the second construction season. Disturbed wetland vegetation would be restored within one growing season upon completion of the Project. There are no riparian trees in the BSA. Permits will be obtained from CDFW (Streambed Alteration Agreement) and RWQCB (Water Quality Certification). Permit requirements will be followed to minimize impacts to water quality and riparian habitats. Temporary impacts to the riparian habitat will be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? An aquatic wetland delineation was conducted on July 10, 2018 by LSA (LSA 2018). In addition to the creek, there are three types of seasonal wetlands in the BSA – freshwater marsh, vegetated flood Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 25 of 73 terrace, and a vegetated ditch (see Table 2 above and Figure 3). The Project would result in 0.261 acres of direct and indirect permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with the addition of fill, removal of old piles, and installation of new bridge supports within the Walnut Creek channel. The vegetated ditch in Potential Staging area 2 would not be modified. A permit will be obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) which has policies to mitigate for any loss of wetlands, streams, or other waters of the U. S. No compensatory mitigation is anticipated because the Project will result in fewer bridge supports than the current bridge and will not result in any net loss of wetland or other aquatic habitat (there will actually be a net increase of 0.001 acre of aquatic habitat). Temporary impacts to waters and wetlands will be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and are expected to fully recover within one year of disturbance. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? The BSA and Project vicinity are in an area mapped as essential fish habitat (EFH) for Chinook salmon. However, as described in Section IV.a, the lower reach of Walnut Creek does not provide suitable spawning habitat for salmonids. Suitable habitat may occur upstream of the Project site, in tributaries to Walnut Creek, but salmon are precluded from moving into those areas by two drop structures upstream of the Project site. The NMFS list for the Vine Hill USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle includes EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics, and highly migratory species because of its inclusion of Suisun Bay. EFH for these species does not occur at the Project site. There are no wildlife nurseries within the Project site. Walnut Creek provides a movement corridor for wildlife species, including river otters and western pond turtles, and adjacent habitats provide a movement corridor for migratory birds and small mammals. The Project would not result in permanent disruption to movement of fish and wildlife species in the area, as the Project involves the replacement of an existing bridge and no new permanent features would pose a barrier to movement. The Project will reduce the number of bridge support piles in the channel, which will reduce obstruction to wildlife movement once the Project is constructed. Temporary construction-related activities such as noise and dewatering activities may temporarily inhibit dispersal, migration, and dail y movement of wildlife however impacts will be minimized in accordance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 through BIO-6. Therefore, Project impacts 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. Tree removal is not anticipated. However, if necessary, the trees that would be removed occur within the County right-of-way which is not subject to the County Tree Ordinance (Contra Costa County Code [CCCC] Title 8, Chapter 816-6.10(6). Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 26 of 73 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 27 of 73 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) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? To determine if the Project site contains potential significant historic resources and to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact those resources, a records search within a 0.5 mile radius of the Project’s area of potential effect (APE), which includes all areas that have potential to be directly (archaeology) and indirectly (architectural history) affected by the Project. The records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park on September 1, 2018 which included a review of the of the California Resource Information System, National Historic Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, National Historic Landmark, and California Points of Historical Interest. No resources within or adjacent to the Project APE were identified. The results are reported in the Historic Property Survey Report/Archaeological Survey Report prepared for Caltrans (LSA 2019c). In addition, LSA contacted the Contra Costa County Historical Society which had no records within or adjacent to the Project APE. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory identifies Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) as a category 5 for historic significance (not eligible for listing on the NRHP). The APE also includes vertical impacts which represents the maximum subsurface vertical extent of Project-related activities which could yield unanticipated ahistorical archaeological resource if present in the Project APE. The depth varies throughout the Project site depending on Project activities, which includes: 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) for abutment demolition and excavation, drain pipe excavation, and utility excavation; 15 feet bgs for bent demolition and excavation; and 5 feet bgs for approach grading. Pile drilling will extend to approximately 100 feet bgs. The potential for unanticipated subsurface historical resources cannot be completely ruled out therefore, the Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will be followed in the event that subsurface resources are discovered during Project construction. In addition, Project contract specifications will 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 28 of 73 IMPACT CUL-1: Project construction could impact previously unidentified historical resources during ground-disturbing activities. MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: The following will be implemented during Project construction if unanticipated potential historic or pre- historic archaeological resources are encountered. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic or pre-historic archaeological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic 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 CCCPWD 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 will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Project impacts on historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? The records search at the NWIC did not identify any recorded archaeological resources within or adjacent to the Project APE. Three archaeological sites were identified in the general area outside of the APE: one site approximately 400 feet outside of the APE, one site approximately 2,000 feet outside the APE, and one site approximately 2 miles north of the APE. In addition, LSA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on July 13, 2018 for a Sacred Lands File search to determine if any recorded Native American sites occur within the Project APE. The NAHC replied, via an email dated August 15, 2018, that no records were found. The NAHC provided a list of Native American tribal representatives and organizations that may have knowledge of unrecorded sites within the vicinity of the Project. LSA sent emails dated August 20, 2018 to the Native American contacts on the list requesting any information or concerns they may have regarding the APE. The following responses were received:  One Native American representative of the Ohlone Indian Tribe responded via email on August 24, 2018 that there is a site in the vicinity of the Project where he previously served as a monitor, and recommended that if that site were to be disturbed, there should be an archaeological and a Native American monitor. LSA conducted supplemental research about the site and concluded that the site could be anywhere in the vicinity of Concord, and corresponded further with the representative about the location of the site. LSA contacted the representative on February 13 and 21, 2019 asking if he had any further information, and no response has been received to date. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 29 of 73  One Native American representative from the Indian Canyan Mutsun Band of Castanoan Indians stated that the tribe recommend that a Native American representative and archaeologist be present during ground-disturbing activities.  One Native American representative from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that construction crews receive cultural resources sensitivity training prior to ground disturbance taking place.  A representative from Wilton Rancheria (who was also contacted about AB 52 consultation, see Section XVIII) left a voicemail requesting a meeting to discuss the tribe's concerns about the APE's proximity to the archaeological site that is approximately 400 feet outside of the APE. In subsequent emails, LSA provided Wilton Rancheria with a geographic file of the APE in advance preparation of a meeting to be held at the tribal headquarters. The meeting has not been held to date; however, coordination with the tribe is pending. Considering no recorded archaeological or Native American sites were identified within or adjacent to the Project APE and that there has been extensive previous disturbance of the Project site due to the channelization of Walnut Creek and fill for the adjacent levees and airport, no monitoring during Project construction is warranted. However, the potential for subsurface resources cannot be completely ruled out. The cultural resource assessment reports prepared for Caltrans (LSA 2019c) was provided to the Native American tribal representatives that responded. The deepest Project impacts would be for installing the foundation piling approximately 50 feet bgs and for bridge abutments and bents approximately 20 feet bgs. Utility relocation would occur approximately 15 feet bgs and roadway work would occur approximately 5 feet bgs. Despite the investigations previously described, Project construction may unearth unanticipated historical, pre-historic archaeological, or Native American resources; however with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 provided in V.(a), and CUL-2 provided in V.(c) below, Project impacts on potential significant subsurface resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) 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 did not identify any recorded sites within or adjacent to the Project APE and contacts with the Native American tribal representative did not reveal any unrecorded Native American burial sites. Despite the investigations previously described, Project construction may unearth unanticipated historical or pre-historic archaeological resources; however with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 provided in V.(a), and CUL-2 provided below, Project impacts on archaeological resources, including Native American resources, 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 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 NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Most Likely Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 30 of 73 Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of t he 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 CCCPWD and the Northwest Information Center. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 31 of 73 VI. ENERGY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The Project is limited to the replacement of an existing bridge and will not require energy use once constructed. Project construction will result in an incremental increase in energy usage associated with construction equipment (i.e. fuel in vehicles and power generators). However, energy usage during construction would be minimal and would not require excessive amounts of wasteful usage of energy. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Although the Project will result in a temporary increase in energy usage during construction, the operation of the Project would not require change from the existing condition. As such, the Project does not have potential to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 32 of 73 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic groundshaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? Fault Rupture. The Project site is within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (SCDC 2017). The main trace of the Concord Fault line runs directly through the Project site along the Walnut Creek Channel. The Concord Fault line is capable of producing earthquakes and may cause strong ground shaking at the Project site. A Geotechnical Memorandum (Parikh, 2018) was prepared to evaluate the site and provide preliminary foundation design recommendations for the Project. The report found that a large earthquake on the Concord fault could cause a surface rupture resulting in 0.38 to 1.87 feet of horizontal displacement and 0.07 to 0.19 feet of vertical displacement according to deterministic and probabilistic modeling. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 33 of 73 Ground Shaking. Contra Costa County is located within a region of high seismicity. The possibility of ground shaking from fault rupture at the Project site is considered high based on available geological and seismic data. The duration and intensity of shaking will depend upon both the magnitude of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and ground conditions. Seismic-Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction. According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the general Project area has generally high potential for liquefaction. The preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum, however, reported that no potentially liquefiable soil was encountered in previous geotechnical borings that were conducted approximately 300 feet north of Project site for the State Route 4 widening. The generalized soil profile consists of loose to medium dense sand and soft clay, underlain by very stiff to hard lean clay and dense to very dense sand. An additional geotechnical study is being conducted to confirm these findings. IMPACT GEO-1: There is a potential for impacts from fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction, and locating the Project on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1a: The Project design and construction will take the existing seismic and soil conditions into account. The Project will be designed in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the regulations detailed in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1b: Potential surface deformation resulting from aseismic creep (measurable surface displacement along a fault in the absence of notable earthquakes) can be mitigated by a regular maintenance program to repair the road surface, curbs, and other engineered facilities. Annual inspection should be carried out to assess ongoing creep damage. MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1c: A geotechnical and foundation study will be completed to inform the final design, and the recommendations would be incorporated into the Project plans. The study will include site-specific exploratory borings and laboratory testing to delineate potentially liquefiable materials. Potentially liquefiable deposits will either have to be removed or the foundation designed to extend beyond potentially liquefiable deposits. Project structures would be designed for seismic loading identified in the geotechnical studies. Incorporating recommendations from geologic and geotechnical investigations performed during the final design. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Landslides. According to Figure 10-6 of the General Plan, the Project site is not located within a potential landslide area. The topography of the Project site is generally flat. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Modified grades associated with the completed Project would result in negligible changes in topography. Construction of the Project would temporarily increase the exposure of soils to wind Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 34 of 73 erosion from grading and excavation activities. However, standard erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 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? According to Figure 10-5 of the General Plan, the Project site has generally high liquefaction potential (Contra Costa County 2005d). 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. Moreover, the Project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge, which will not introduce new land uses that could be impacted by unstable soil. 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property? The Project site is located on interbedded layers silt and clay type soils. Clay tends to be an expansive soil. The Project will be engineered according to standard industry practice, which includes design considerations for soil type. Moreover, the Project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge, 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. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Based on the Geologic Map of the Walnut Creek Quadrangle, the Project is located on surficial sediments characterized as “alluvial gravel, sand, and clay of valley areas.” Holocene alluvial deposits and fill are generally considered too recent to contain significant paleontological resources and therefore have low paleontological sensitivity. 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 35 of 73 VIII. 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? 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 GHGs 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 version 9.0.0 (RoadMod) it is estimated that the Project will generate approximately 751.8 metric tons of CO2e during construction of the Project. The Project’s emissions will be short term and the Project will implement BMPs stated in Section III.b 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 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognized that California is a 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 (CARB) to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHGs to reach the GHG reduction goals by 2020. In December 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 21.7 percent from the State’s projected Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 36 of 73 2020 CO2e emission level under a business-as-usual scenario (CARB 2008). In May 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals, evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012, and report the trends in GHG emissions from various emission sectors (e.g., transportation, building energy, agricult ure) (CARB 2014). In November 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan Update), which lays out the framework for achieving the 2030 reductions as established in more recent legislation (CARB 2017). The 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. The Project would not conflict with GHG reduction goals set forth in Assembly Bill 32, including the Recommended Actions identified by the 2017 CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Contra Costa Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in In December 2015. 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. 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). Based on Section III.b, 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 37 of 73 IX. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires. 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, construction vehicles will travel to and from the Project site. Examples of construction vehicles 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 bridge replacement would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or involve potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment beyond than what exists currently from the traveling public. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 38 of 73 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? The Project does not propose land uses that are associated with hazardous substances therefore long- term operational impacts will not occur. However, during construction there is potential for accidental release of hazardous substances through disturbance from bridge demolition and potentially contaminated soils or waters, or accidental spills. An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) and Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) were conducted for the Project area (WRECO, 2018). As part of the ISA, a site reconnaissance, governmental records search, and environmental database records review were conducted. The report identified several current and potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). Soils adjacent to the roadway could be contaminated with aerially deposited lead (ADL) from historic use of leaded gasoline and by fuels (volatile organic compounds) and total petroleum hydrocarbons from historic fuel cleanups. Lead may be present in roadway striping. Surfaces of the bridge were suspected to contain lead based paint (LBP) and potential asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM). As part of the ISA, shallow creek bed soil sampling, shallow groundwater sampling, an ADL study, a LBP survey and a pre-demolition survey were conducted to verify the presence of the RECs. The soil and water samples were analyzed for heavy metals identified in California Code of Regulat ions (CCR) Title 22 and for diesel motor oil and semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOC). The studies revealed the presence of arsenic in shallow creek bed soils, metals and petroleum byproducts in shallow groundwater, ADL along roadway approach shoulders. On surfaces of the bridge, the studies confirmed the presence of LBP in bridge rail wall paint and ACM in expansion joint insulation. These materials will be removed and disposed of in accordance with professionally prepared construction specifications and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations as part of the planned bridge demolition activities. Project construction could also cause accidental release of hazardous materials such as a hazardous materials spill or equipment leakage. 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 for potential lead in striping. Demolition of the existing bridge will be performed in accordance with the Caltrans specifications supplemented by CCCPWD standards modified to meet environmental permit requirements. All concrete and other debris resulting from the demolition of the existing bridge and roadway will be removed from the Project site and properly disposed of by the contractor. Prior to demolition, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit a bridge demolition plan including creek diversion and bypass details for review by CCCPWD as well as other agencies as required by the environmental permits. While the Project will not have long-term operational impacts, temporary impacts could occur during construction due to disturbance of potentially contaminated soils. The disturbance will be limited in Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 39 of 73 nature and potential for accidental release will be minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1. IMPACT HAZ-1: Soil movement and bridge demolition activities could mobilize contaminants exposing construction workers, the general public, and the environment. MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-1: CCCPWD will follow the following recommendations provided in the PSI to minimize potential for accidental release of contaminants. Recommendations include:  The Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be notified through their Asbestos Notification System prior to bridge demolition in compliance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazards Air Pollutants (NESHAP).  Waste management guidance for the proper disposal of excavated shallow soil, lead-based paint, and bridge expansion joint insulation (which must be removed prior to demolition).  Worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities.  Untreated groundwater should not be discharged into natural channels or storm drains. Groundwater and any water comingled with groundwater should be treated under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest schools are Concord Christian School (0.75 miles away), Glenbrook Middle School (1.2 miles away), Sun Terrace Elementary (1.4 miles away), and Mt. Diablo High School (1.5 miles away). 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? The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database is an online search and Geographic Information System (GIS) tool for identifying sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. It also identifies facilities that are authorized to treat, store, dispose or transfer (TSDTF) hazardous waste. The EnviroStor database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priority List [NPL]); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites . The EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases were searched to identify sites of concern within 1 mile of the Project site (SWRCB 2018, DTSC 2018). Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 40 of 73 The EnviroStor database did not identify any contamination sites within the footprint of Project site. One voluntary cleanup site, one military evaluation site, five tiered permit sites, and one non-operating permitted site were identified within 1 mile of the Project location. The GeoTracker database identified 10 closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites, one land disposal site, one active cleanup program, and one military cleanup site within 1 mile of the Project. To evaluate if contamination sites represent potential environmental and/or health hazards (RECs) with respect to the Project area, the proximity of the site (within 1/8 mile), occurrence of a hazardous substance release, and flow of groundwater is considered. Though groundwater generally flows to the northwest in the Project vicinity, flow directions and depths can fluctuate due to seasonal and other environmental factors. There are several sites that contribute to the potential for the Project to encounter groundwater contamination during proposed dewatering activities. Two results from the EnviroStor database is a potential concern – the military evaluation site and one of the tiered permit sites. The Concord Army Air Field military evaluation site is located 0.7 miles upstream of the Project site at the c urrent Buchanan Field Airport. Historical records indicated that soil testing was not performed following removal and disposal of fuel tanks and an onsite waste dump. The Micropump Corps tiered permit site is located 0.5 miles upstream of the Project site. The site is currently under evaluation, and is a concern because the risk is unknown. Two results from the GeoTracker database are potential concerns – including the active cleanup program and the military cleanup site. The active cleanup site is the Kinder Morgan Concord Station, which is located 0.3 miles northeast of the Project and has a current status of “Open – Remediation as of 8/16/2008.” Potential contaminants of concern at this site include benzene, diesel, gasoline, toluene, and xylene. Although the site is located downstream of the Project, it has the potential to affect groundwater quality at the Project due to its close proximity. The military cleanup site is the Point Ozol, Fuel Terminal DFSP – Concord Pump Station, which is located 0.3 miles northeast of the Project and has a current status of “Open – Assessment & Remedial Action as of 10/24/2018.” Potential contaminants of concern for this site include aviation, fuel benzene, and TPH. Petroleum pipelines were also identified within the Project footprint that may have historically leaked petroleum hydrocarbons to soil or groundwater. As described in Section IX.b, soil and water sampling was conducted to verify the presence of the RECs. Due to the historic and ongoing cleanup sites surrounding the Project site, there is potential for contaminated groundwater at the Project location that would require appropriate dewatering measures to be implemented during construction. The results of the sampling analysis and the recommendation for dewatering informed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce construction impacts from potential contamination from hazardous material sites 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The nearest airport to the Project is Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 0.1mile southwest of the Project site, and both of the potential staging areas are located within the airport property. As described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities. As discussed in Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 41 of 73 Section XIII.a, the Project will not generate excessive noise levels. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Emergency vehicles will have access at all times during construction. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is in an area identified as at risk for wildland fires (ABAG 2016). However, 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 beyond what currently exists for the traveling public. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 42 of 73 X. 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 or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The Project is located within the Walnut Creek Watershed. This watershed drains the east side of the Berkeley hills and the west side of Mount Diablo. The upper watershed is formed of steeply sloped canyons, and the lower watershed is formed of gently sloping alluvial floodplains with residential and urban development. The portion of the watershed that drains the Project site is 117 square miles. The Walnut Creek channel flows north under the existing bridge and merges with Grayson Creek to form Pacheco Creek, which then empties into Carquinez Strait 3.8 miles north of the Project site. Walnut Creek is designated as an impaired waterbody under the Federal Clean Water Act due to the presence of diazinon, which is a pesticide. The drainage area in the Project site is expected to be subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 43 of 73 Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Impacts to the drainage area would require authorization from a Section 404 and 408 Nationwide Permits from the USACE, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the SFBRWQB, and a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. The Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil and must comply with the SWRCB (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which states Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control. There is groundwater contamination present at the Project site. Groundwater and non-stormwater discharges collected during Project construction would require authorization from a SFBRWQCB VOC and Fuel General Permit (ORDER No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. Permanent impacts to water quality result from the addition of impervious area; this additional impervious area prevents runoff from naturally dispersing and infiltrating into the ground, resulting in increased concentrated flow. The Project is anticipated to create 0.53 acres of new impervious surface because of the widening of the bridge, sidewalk, and roadways. Table 4, below, displays the disturbed soil area (DSA), existing, newly created, and replaced impervious area for the Project sites. The added impervious surface from the Project would not substantially increase the impervious surface area within Walnut Creek Watershed, which is approximately 117 square miles. Table 4. Project Impervious Area Impervious Areas Area (sq ft) (ac) Existing Impervious Area 61,201 1.40 Removed Impervious Area 5,516 0.13 Replaced Impervious Area 55,686 1.28 Added Impervious Area 23,241 0.53 Source: LSA 2018 Provision C.3 of the County Municipal Permit addresses source control, site designs, and stormwater treatment measures for new development and redevelopment projects. Upon review by the staff at the Contra Costa County Watershed Program, it was determined that the Project does not trigger C.3 requirements because it is a roadway project that does not propose additional traffic lanes. As noted above, the Project will result in additional impervious area, which increases the amount of runoff not infiltrating into the ground. This non-infiltrated and concentrated runoff can result in the direct discharge of sediment-laden flow from the roadway to receiving water bodies if not properly stabilized. During construction, Temporary impacts to surface water quality could occur from sediment-laden discharge from disturbed soil areas, pollution laden discharge from storage or work areas, and discharge of contaminated groundwater during excavation or concrete slurries during pile installation. The Project would comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would include the preparation and implementation will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed for the Project that will identify potential for construction related erosion and associated sedimentation as well as accidental spill and other potential construction related water quality impacts. The SWPPP will identify BMPs to avoid and minimize this potential and will be approved by CCCPWD prior to construction. Temporary impacts are anticipated to be minimal with implementation of the SWPPP measures and BMPs. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 44 of 73 The Project would not add additional lanes or otherwise trigger County C.3 requirements for stormwater runoff treatment, and will not directly create wastewater discharge or degrade surface or ground water quality. Accidental releases could occur during construction. However, as stated above and in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a SWPPP 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. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The Project will not require any withdrawals from an aquifer or groundwater table and will have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge as the Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. 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: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? As discussed in Section X.a, above, although the Project would have an incremental increase in impervious surface by widening the bridge and its roadway approaches, this would not substantially increase the impervious surface area within the Walnut Creek watershed. The increase in impervious area can result in the modification of existing receiving water body hydrographs by increasing the flow volumes and rates and peak durations from the loss of unpaved overland flow and native infiltration (hydromodification). However, the Project will not result in substantial changes to the Walnut Creek hydrograph, and therefore associated impacts will not occur. The impacts of erosion on receiving waters are anticipated to be minimal. Further, although the new bridge will have higher elevation profile, a wider span, and a reduced number of supports in the channel to improve hydraulics, the existing drainage patterns would be maintained in its current condition. BMPs for erosion and sediment control as identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will be implemented during construction of the Project. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? As discussed in (i), above, the Project would introduce wider lanes and shoulders which would result in a minimal increase in impervious surface as compared to existing conditions. Surface runoff would not substantially increase. Following construction, use of the bridge and roadway would result in pollutant discharges from existing and new impervious surfaces similar to those under current conditions. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. iii Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system in the area. The runoff from the bridge over Walnut Creek is transported via storm drain systems and ditches to a local stormwater drain system at Marsh Drive, approximately 1,500 feet west of the centerline of the creek. The design criteria of the Project will maintain the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 45 of 73 existing drainage patterns. The Project will not add additional travel lanes and therefore does not trigger C.3 stormwater treatment requirements. As previously discussed, the wider lanes and shoulders would result in a minimal increase in impervious surface as compared to existing conditions. Following construction, use of the Project site (as a bridge and roadway) would result in pollutant discharges from existing and new impervious surfaces similar to those under current conditions. Improved facilities for bicyclists may encourage alternative modes of transportation, which could reduce potential for polluted runoff from vehicles. Appropriate authorizations related to water quality would be obtained from regulatory agencies prior to construction, as described in Section X.a. The bridge would be constructed to current design standards and project construction would implement BMPs during construction to avoid adverse impacts to the drainage area. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? The existing bridge structure obstructs the flow of Walnut Creek, resulting in debris and flood water backing up during heavy rain events. The new bridge structure would be constructed with a higher elevation profile, a wider span, and a reduced number of supports in the channel. This would improve hydraulics and reduce backwater from storm events. The new bridge would provide adequate freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and flood waters. In addition, the Project does not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface; thus, the existing drainage patterns would be maintained in its current condition and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Walnut Creek channel is within the Project area, which merges into Pacheco Creek and then travels 3.8 miles north to empty into the Carquinez Strait. The Carquinez Strait feeds into the San Francisco Bay and the open ocean. Waterfront areas along the Carquinez Strait could have possible risk of inundation from seiches or tsunamis. The Project, however, is limited to replacement of a bridge on an existing road and will not introduce new land uses that could be subject to inundation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produced Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) which show Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). According to the associated FIRM, the Project site is located within a Zone A, which represent areas within the 100-year base floodplain where the base flood elevation has not been determined (FEMA 2009). The FEMA FIRM also shows levees along both sides of Walnut Creek in the Project vicinity. Outside of the levees, the existing commercial area east of Marsh Drive is within SFHA Zone AH, which represents areas subject to shallow flooding by the 100- year flood event (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between one and three feet. Buchanan Airport southwest of Marsh Drive is within SFHA Zone X, which represents areas subject to the 500-year flood event. Although the Project site is located within flood hazard areas, the Project would have no adverse impacts to flood conditions, as described in Section X.c.ii. The Project would reduce flood conditions upstream because the new bridge structure would be raised in profile elevation and have less flow obstruction (WRECO, 2019a & 2019b). As described in Section X.c., the pollutant load would not be significantly different from the existing conditions because the amount of additional impervious surface that the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 46 of 73 Project would construct is minimal. Therefore, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation and Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? This Project is located in both the City of Concord and in the unincorporated area of Pacheco. This area of Contra Costa County is within the limits of the San Francisco RWQCB, which established the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (SFRWQCB 2018). The Basin Plan identifies general water quality objectives for inland surface waters. Generally, roadway runoff can contain the following pollutants: total suspended solids, nitrate nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, phosphorus, ortho-phosphate, copper, lead, and zinc. The primary pollutants associated with transportation corridors are heavy metals associated with vehicle tire and brake wear, oil and grease, and exhaust emissions. These sources of pollutants are anticipated to be negligible because the Project will not increase capacity of the road. Further, the Project construction would implement source controls to prevent stormwater runoff pollutants from discharging into Walnut Creek. The Basin Plan lists the following beneficial uses for Walnut Creek: cold freshwater habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, warm freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, contact water recreation, and non-contact water recreation. Increased stormwater runoff from the new impervious area could degrade the beneficial use for freshwater habitat, fish migration, and fish spawning at Walnut Creek. This impact would be minimal due to the small amount of impervious area. As such, the Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 47 of 73 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impa ct Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The Project would not physically divide an established community; rather, it would likely improve commuter accessibility to areas on either side of the bridge. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 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 within Pacheco and the City of Concord. 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 2005a):  Roadway and Transit Goal #5-A: To provide a safe, efficient and integrated multimodal 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-K: To provide basic accessibility to all residents, which includes access to emergency services, public services and utilities, health care, food and clothing, education and employment, mail and package distribution, freight delivery, and a certain amount of social and recreational activities.  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 maintained by eliminating structural and geometric design deficiencies. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 48 of 73  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 #5-23: 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. The Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2018), formerly designated a Class I bicycle lane proposed for Marsh Drive, which provides for a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Such paths are often located along creeks, canals, and rail lines. However, the current Plan has re-designated it as low stress bikeway. Considering the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Iron Horse Trail (Trail) terminates at the southeastern side of the bridge, the EBPRD and CCCPWD have been working closely to determine a safe Trail extension and crossing of Marsh Drive. This Project is the opportunity for EBPRD to close this gap. Connecting to the west side of Walnut Creek is the first crucial step to connecting the Trail westward to Martinez and the San Francisco Bay Trail across Benicia Bridge. EBPRD has identified the preferred alignment of this trail to the north of Marsh Drive. The EBPRD has identified the safest connection to be a Class IV bikeway with a concrete barrier separated bike/pedestrian pathway or bikeway. While the Plan formally designated a Class I bicycle facility along Marsh Drive bridge, the bridge can accommodate a Class IV facility. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Plan. CCCPWD has an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan; however the Project is not within the plan’s inventory area. Based on the analysis above, the Project is consistent with environmental land use policies or plans. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 49 of 73 XII. 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? 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? 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. According to the Conservation Element chapter in the County General Plan (Contra Costa County 2005b), 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 50 of 73 XIII. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The general land use in the bridge vicinity is urban with commercial properties surrounding the bridge and Marsh Drive. Buchanan Field Airport is located on the southwestern side of the bridge. The closest noise receivers are various residents located along Marsh Drive, approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the Project site. In addition, residences are located within 50 feet of the temporary construction staging area location near Marsh Drive and Sahara Drive/Sally Ride Drive. Contra Costa County does not have a noise ordinance for construction noise, however, the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element of 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 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 (Contra Costa County 2005e). Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, as described below, complies with the Noise Element. The City of Concord noise ordinance states that the Concord Municipal Code section 62-32(1)cc restricts the hours that construction work can take place, unless otherwise allowed by prior authorization of the City of Concord. The allowed construction times are Monday – Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and if necessary, weekends 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. unless prior approval from the CCCPWD Resident Engineer, and City is obtained to work beyond these hours. Long-term operation of the Project would not contribute to noise levels in excess of standards. The Project will not increase capacity of the road and no significant changes to topography would occur. The bridge replacement will not change the distance of the travel way from nearby receptors and related changes in roadway noise will be negligible. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 51 of 73 The Project will have construction impacts caused by an increase in ambient noise associated with Project construction. These impacts, however, 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 55 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a and NOISE-1b would reduce this short-term construction period noise impact to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT NOISE-1: Project construction will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1a: Construction activities shall be limited to non-sensitive hours for adjacent land uses (generally between 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element and the City of Concord Noise Ordinance. If work is necessary outside of these hours, the City and CCCPWD shall both approve the extended work hours and the Project construction contractor/Resident Engineer will be available to address any noise concerns during construction. MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1b: The Project Contractor shall employ the following noise-reducing practices during Project construction: 1) Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active Project site during all Project construction. 3) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project generate of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Excessive ground-borne vibration from construction activities resulting from equipment such as pile drivers will not be used to construct the Project. As an alternative to reduce noise and vibrations compared to driven piles, cast-in-drilled hole shafts would be used for the abutment and bent piles. 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) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? The Project is adjacent to the Buchanan Field Airport. As described above in Section XIII.a, the Project will not generate excessive noise levels beyond existing conditions. While Project construction will result in an increase in ambient noise, it will be temporary and Mitigation Measures Noise 1a and 1b will be implemented. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 52 of 73 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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 vehicle capacity of the roadway. 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 or any people; as such, no replacement housing is necessary. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 53 of 73 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) 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? i. Fire Protection? ii. Police Protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? 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? 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 could 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 54 of 73 XVI. 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? One recreation facility is located in the Project area. The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a multi-use hiking and bicycle trail that is managed and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). The trail currently terminates at Marsh Drive on the southeast corner of the existing bridge. The EBRPD has a master plan for the Iron Horse Trail to cross the Walnut Creek channel along the Marsh Drive bridge and then continue north along the west side of the channel (EBRPD 2013). Upon learning of this Project, EBRPD requested for CCCPWD to include their planned trail on the new bridge and provided planning documents. The Project will include a separated path on the south side of the new bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail, which would support the EBRPD master plan. The Project will increase bicycle and pedestrian access to Iron Horse Regional Trail, and therefore may increase trail usage. Any additional usage would not reasonably contribute to substantial deterioration of facilities, as the trail was designed for public usage and is consistent with long term plans. Further, the Project will have a beneficial impact as it will provide a safe connection over the new bridge for a future trail extension along the west side of Walnut Creek planned by EBRPD. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. 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 described in Section XVI.a., the Project will construct a separated bike path on the new bridge. Project-related activities include minor improvements necessary to connect to the existing Iron Horse Regional Trail, and will not affect the main elements of the existing trail. Any potential physical adverse effect on the environment would be addressed by the mitigation measures discussed in Section IV. Biological Resources, Section V. Cultural Resources, and Section XII. Noise. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 55 of 73 XVII. TRANSPORTATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) functions as the County’s principal transportation planning agency and Congestion Management Agency. The applicable plans adopted by CCTA are the 2017 Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CCTA 2017) and the 2018 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (CCTA 2018). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan includes transportation goals and policies (Contra Costa County 2005a). The Project does not include elements that could increase traffic on local roadways (for example residential or commercial land uses). Changes to the roadway are limited to the replacement of an existing bridge, the addition of a multi-use trail, and roadway realignment adjacent to the bridge to bring the bridge up to current design standards. This would 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 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, a Class I bicycle lane has been proposed for the Project segment along Marsh Drive to connect the Iron Horse Regional Trail, which currently terminates at the southeast corner of the bridge. A Class I bicycle lane is defined as a completely separated pathway that is designated for the use of pedestrians and bicycles. Through Project implementation, a separated path will be constructed that meets the Caltrans definition of a Class IV Protected Bikeway – which is consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This is also consistent with General Plan Policy 5-L, which encourages increased opportunity for bicycle use for recreation as well as transportation. According to the East Bay Regional Park District 2013 Master Plan Map, the Iron Horse Regional Trail (which connects to the Anza National Historic Trail) is the only Trail or Parkland along the Project length (EBRPD 2013). It is planned for the Iron Horse Regional Trail to continue north of the bridge, which would be facilitated by this Project. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 56 of 73 County Connection provides public transit for central Contra Costa County, including the City of Concord. There is a bus stop on each side of the road on the west side of the bridge, however, they are no longer serviced because County Connection restructured its routes in 2019. The existing bridge will be demolished while the new bridge is being constructed which will provide for traffic to move through the Project area, however there will be some temporary construction impacts to vehicle traffic on Marsh Drive. Minor delays will occur, and up to 30-minute delays during bridge girder installation, however, no full vehicle detours are anticipated and traffic lanes will be maintained using staged construction. In order to ensure traffic impacts to the Iron Horse Regional Trail in the Project area are minimized during construction activities, the Project contract specifications will require the construction contractor to implement the following avoidance measures: IMPACT TRA-1: The Project will result in temporary disruption to traffic on Marsh Drive and access to Iron Horse Regional Trail. MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-1: 1) Publish press release in local newspapers seven days before construction start date. 2) Letter notification to local residents seven calendar days in advance of construction. 3) Advance letter notification to local emergency response services to allow them to plan for alternate routes. 4) Placement of portable changeable message signs at various locations in Project vicinity with construction start and road closure dates and period at least seven calendar days in advance of start dates. 5) Provide accessibility to driveways to properties outside the Project area throughout the project. 6) No full lane closures allowed during commute hours; at off-peak hours one lane of Marsh Drive may be temporarily closed during active construction; reopening of lanes at the end of each working day. 7) Temporary lane closures may be scheduled at times of minimal traffic volumes such as nights, weekends, and off-commute hours where low traffic volumes are expected. 8) Traffic control including flaggers will be used as warranted to adjust flow as vehicle volume increases in either direction. 9) Placement of construction zone speed limits. 10) Emergency vehicle access at all times. While the traveling public and trail users may be temporarily impacted by Project construction, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 will minimize potential impacts. For the reasons stated, the Project does not conflict with applicable plans. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? According to Section 15064.3 (b) (2), transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. The Project will not impact vehicles miles traveled because it will not increase capacity. Further, the Project will provide Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 57 of 73 a bicycle facility which provides an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce number of VMT. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric 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. The purpose of the Project is to bring Marsh Drive road up to current design standards, including to realign the roadway approaches at the bridge to increase the curve radiuses for driver safety. During construction, the Project contract specifications will require the Contractor to implement measures to minimize potential construction impacts. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) 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 le ast 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 58 of 73 XVIII. TRIBAL 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 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. 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) As discussed in Section IV, no listed or eligible resources are present in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Marsh Drive bridge was determined not eligible for listing according to the Caltrans Bridge Inventory. ii) 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 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 Contra Costa County under AB52. On April 25, 2016 an offer to consult was sent to the AB52 contact designated in the Wilton Rancheria general request letter. No responses were received from Wilton Rancheria in regards to AB52 consultation. See Section V. Cultural Resources for a discussion regarding consultation efforts under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 59 of 73 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 60 of 73 XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications 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. There are no existing overhead utilities at the project site; however, there are existing electrical and communication utility lines located along the south side of the bridge deck. These utility lines will need to be relocated onto the northern portion of the new bridge after the first stage of construction is complete. Accommodations will be made to provide utility openings within the new bridge structure for these utilities as well as space for potential future underground utilities. There is also an existing 21-inch-diameter Central Contra Costa Sanitary District line running north-south along the eastern levee, and there are utilities that have been bored under the creek on both the northern and southern sides of the bridge. Utilities that are bored under the creek on the southern side of the existing bridge include high-risk, 8-inch-diameter Kinder-Morgan and 16-inch-diameter Phillips 76 petroleum pipelines, as well as a 30-inch-diameter Contra Costa Water District water line. There is another abandoned 16-inch-diameter Phillips 76 petroleum pipeline bored under the creek on the northern side of the existing bridge. At this time, there are no anticipated relocations of any lines bored Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 61 of 73 under the creek for the Project (LSA 2019b). CCWD owned hydrant and valving on 8” waterline will require relocation west of the bridge to accommodate the project. The impacts associated with minor drainage modifications are analyzed in Section X and were found to be less than significant. No other stormwater drainage facilities are proposed or will be necessary for implementation of the Project. Utility and drainage relocations would be done in compliance with all applicable regulations and would not cause a significant environmental impact. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The Project will not require water service, and any water needed during construction would be provided by water trucks from off-site water sources. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. c) 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. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? The Project will not generate operational waste. However, a small amount of construction waste including vegetative matter, asphalt, and concrete will be generated. The County has active solid waste facilities with capacity to accommodate any construction waste that may be generated (CalRecycle 2018). In addition, Project contract specifications will require that the Contractor dispose of solid waste, including demolition material, in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state and local management and reduction 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. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 62 of 73 XX. WILDFIRE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Emergency vehicles will have access at all times during construction. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. No improvements are proposed that would exacerbate a wildfire risk. Construction activities may result in unanticipated fires however the Project construction contractor will have a fire safety plan and will be equipped appropriately. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Construction activities, including utility relocations, may result in unanticipated fires however the Project construction contractor will have a fire safety plan and will be equipped appropriately. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant. d) Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 63 of 73 Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project will not change the nature of the Project site. Therefore, the Project will have no impact. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 64 of 73 XXI. 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 substantially 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, substantially 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? Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 65 of 73 References In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553) were consulted: 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 June 20, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017a). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed June 12, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2017b). 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website: 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 June 11, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD 2018). 2018. San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2008). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed: June 12, 2019. 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. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Air Resources Board (CARB 2017). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: June 12, 2019. California Department of Conservation (DOC 2016 ). 2016. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2016. Contra Costa County Important Farmland . Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/con16.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2019. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle 2018). 2018. Website: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/. Accessed June 11, 2019. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2018) 2018. EnviroStor. Website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: July 27, 2018. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2017). 2017. List of eligible and officially designated Scenic Highways. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/sce nic-highways/2017-03DesigandEligible.xlsx. Accessed September 5, 2018. 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. Website: www.capcoa.org/download/CAPCOA+White+Paper. Accessed June 11, 2019. Concord. 2005. 2030 General Plan. Chapter 3. Land Use. Planning Division, Concord, CA. (Concord 2005). Website: https://www.cityofconcord.org/463/2030-General-Plan. Accessed June 3, 2019. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, CA. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 66 of 73 2005a: Chapter 5. Transportation and Circulation Element. 2005b: Chapter 8: Conservation Element. 2005c: Chapter 9: Open Space Element: 2005d: Chapter 10. Safety Element 2005e: Chapter 11. Noise Element Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (CCCDCD 2015). 2015. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. Website: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/39791. Accessed: June 12, 2019. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2018). 2018. 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Website: http://keepcontracostamoving.net/documents/. Accessed June 3, 2019. Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA 2017). 2017. Update of the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Plan . Website: https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5ab2d91647fa9-1.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2019. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD 2013). 2013 Master Plan. Website: https://www.ebparks.org/about/planning/mp/. Accessed June 13, 2019. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2009). June 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas Panel 06013C0281F. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2018). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Wetland Delineation Report. July 2018. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019a). Construction Emissions Analysis for the Marsh Drive Bridge Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project. January 2019. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019b). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project Natural Envir onment Study. May 2019. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2019c). Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement Project Cultural Resources Assessment Report. March 2019. State of California Department of Conservation (SCDC 2017). 2017. California Geologic Survey – Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/geologicmaps/apfaults.php . Accessed June 5, 2019. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB 2018). GeoTracker. 2018. Website: http://geotracker.waterboard s.ca.gov/. Accessed July 27, 2018. WRECO (WRECO 2019). Initial Site Assessment for the Marsh Drive Bridge over Walnut Creek Replacement Project. June 2019. Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 67 of 73 FIGURES Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 68 of 73 FIGURE 1: Project Location Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 69 of 73 FIGURE 2: Project Area Overview Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 70 of 73 FIGURE 3a: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 71 of 73 FIGURE 3b: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 72 of 73 FIGURE 3c: Biological Study Area Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contra Costa County Public Works Department September 2019 Project No.: 0662-6R4119 County Project No.: 16-35 Page 73 of 73 APPENDIX A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PLAN Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project September 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies the Mitigation Measures that will be impleme nted as part of the Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) Over Walnut Creek Replacement 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, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: Biological Resources Protective Measures 1) Prior to start of construction, temporary high visibility ESA silt fence will be placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the Project site from the top of one levee to the top of the opposite levee to preclude impacts beyond the project footprint and to deter species from entering the work area. The limits will be staked by a qualified biologist. Fencing will be removed at the end of the first year of construction and reinstalled at the beginning of the second year. 2) Prior to the start of construction in each year, construction personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements. 3) Flowing water will be protected from demolition and construction activities by diverting the stream into pipes/culverts through the active construction zone. Downstream flow will be maintained at all times. 4) Temporary coffer dams used to redirect flow will consist of sheet piles, gravel bags, water -filled bladder dams, or another agency-approved material. Any water pumped from the work area will be allowed to settle to reduce turbidity prior to being released back into the creek. Temporary coffer dams and diversion pipes will be removed from the creek prior to the winter rainy season in each year. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a water diversion plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. 5) During removal of the existing bridge, a tarp or other approved method will be used below the bridge to prevent debris from falling into Walnut Creek. The tarp will be left in Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-2 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats place until the bridge is removed. The contractor will be required to prepare and submit a demolition plan for review and approval by CCCPWD as well as other regulatory agencies as required by the environmental permits. As described in Section III.b, best management practices will be implemented to control dust which will minimize impacts to biological resources. 6) During excavation for the demolition and replacement work, the contractor will be required to separately excavate and stockpile wetland topsoils from soil layers beneath. These soil layers will be backfilled in the same order as excavated. Stockpiled soils will be windrowed no higher than 6 feet and shall be covered with a filter fabric or burlap; not plastic. 7) Within 1 month of completion of temporary excavation and re-grading work, the surfaces shall be smoothed to pre -project grades and shall be re-seeded using a wetland erosion control seed mix containing native wetland plant species currently found on the project site. 8) CCCPWD will require the construction contractor to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Construction General Permit as required under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The SWPPP will identify water pollution control and construction-waste containment measures to be implemented during and after Project construction, including but not limited to:  Trash general by the Project will be promptly and properly removed from the site daily.  All refueling of construction and maintenance vehicles will occur in paved areas away from the top of bank of the Walnut Creek channel. Runoff from these paved areas will not be allowed to flow into the creek.  Hazardous material absorbent pads and similar Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-3 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance special-status species and their habitats materials will be available on site in the event of a spill that could potentially impact jurisdictional waters.  Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Fiber rolls will not contain plastics of any kind. Erosion control blankets will be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians.  No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks.  Active construction areas will be watered regularly. 9) Temporarily affected areas will be restored to pre -Project conditions. Before October 31 and/or immediately after construction is complete, all exposed soils will be stabilized to reduce the effects of erosion. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-2: Accidental Introduction of New Invasive Species MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: Invasive Species Protective Measures 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 as specified in the plans and specifications. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-4 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-3: Disturbance to Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: Fall/Late-fall Run Chinook Salmon Protective Measures 1) The Project will limit construction within the channel to the period between May 1 and October 31 to largely avoid the spawning season. 2) Prior to installation of the flow diversion, a qualified fisheries biologist will install a fish barrier (e.g., ¼-inch galvanized hardware cloth) upstream and downstream of the work area, including the area needed for coffer dam installation and flow diversion pipes. A qualified biologist will then use a seine and/or a dip net to capture fish within the work area and relocate them to a suitable area downstream of the fish barrier prior to the installation of the coffer dams. The qualified biologist will be present during coffer dam installation and dewatering of the work area. During dewatering, the biologist will visually survey the work area and will use a seine and/or a dip net to capture and relocate any remaining fish. Electrofishing may be implemented to ensure that all of the fish are removed from the work area. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-4: Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: Western Pond Turtle Protective Measures A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles on the 1st day of work immediately prior to the start of work to ensure no individuals present. Once a temporary high visibility ESA silt fence is installed at the upstream and downstream ends of Project site and all vegetation has been cleared, a designated construction monitor (trained by the qualified biologist), will inspect the work area for western pond turtles anytime work activity ceases for 2 days or more. If a western pond turtle is observed by the construction monitor in the immediate work area, no work will commence in the area of the sighting until the turtle has moved out of harm’s way or the qualified biologist has arrived at the site and relocated the turtle. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD BIO-5: Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: Western Burrowing Owl Protective Measures A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey within Potential Staging Area 2 to identify potential burrows and owls no more than 30 days prior to construction. The survey will be conducted in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines. During the breeding season (February 1-August 31), surveys will Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-5 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-5: Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl document whether burrowing owls are nesting in o r directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), surveys will document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the sea son (breeding or non-breeding) during which the survey is conducted. All burrows or burrowing owls will be identified and mapped. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1–August 31), the Project will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by Project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), the Project should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone or within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. The doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation, and the Project site should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation in accordance with CDFW guidelines. Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. The applicant may conduct burrow management (i.e., regular surveys to find and proactively collapse unoccupied yet suitable burrows) in advance of and during construction to lower the likelihood of owls occupying burrows within the Project area. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-6 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-6: Disturbance to Nesting Birds MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: Nesting Bird Protective Measures The following will be completed to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds: 1) To reduce the likelihood of birds establishing nests in the construction zone, vegetation in the project vicinity may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (February 15). Similarly, potential nest trees that will be eliminated as part of the project and old, inactive swallow and finch nests on the bridge may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season. Swallows and finches may also be prevented from nesting on the bridge through the installation of netting or other exclusionary measures if they are installed prior to the start of nesting. 2) A preconstruction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities that take place during the nesting season (February 15-August 31), including any removal of vegetation at the project site. The survey will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. Buffers will be placed around any nests that are found during the survey. No work will be conducted within the buffers until the qualified biologist has determined that the nesting attempt is complete. Buffers for songbird nests are generally on the order of 50 to 100 feet, with the precise distance determined by the qualified biologist conducting the preconstruction survey based on species, ne st site characteristics, and the acclimation of the nesting birds to disturbance. Repeated bird nesting surveys of the existing bridge and removal of nest starts may be needed to prevent swallow and house finch nesting throughout the construction season. The project is not expected to result in direct impacts to nesting birds with implementation of these measures. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Biologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-7 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date V. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Disturbance to unidentified historical resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: BMPs The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during Project construction if unanticipated potential historic or pre-historic archaeological resources are encountered. 1) Contractor will be notified of the possibility of encountering historic or pre-historic archaeological materials during ground-disturbing activities and will be educated on the types of historic and pre-historic 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 will develop a research design and treatment plan outlining management of the resource, anal ysis, and reporting of the find. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD CUL-2: Impact to previously undiscovered human remains Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work and Notification Procedure 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 NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC 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 CCCPWD and the Northwest Information Center. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor; Qualified Archaeologist CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-8 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date VII. Geology and Soils GEO-1: Impacts from fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and unstable soil Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Project design and inspection The Project design and construction will take the existing seismic conditions and soil conditions into account. The Project will be designed in in accordance with the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the regulations detailed in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Prior to construction CCCPWD CCCPWD Potential surface deformation resulting from aseismic creep can be mitigated by a regular maintenance program to repair the road surface, curbs, and other engineered facilities. Annual inspection should be carried out to assess ongoing creep damage. After Construction CCCPWD CCCPWD Ongoing A geotechnical and foundation study will be completed to inform the final design, and the recommendations would be incorporated into the Project plans. The study will include site-specific exploratory borings and laboratory testing to delineate potentially liquefiable materials. Potentially liquefiable deposits will either have to be removed or the foundation designed to extend beyond potentially liquefiable deposits. Prior to and during construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Mobilization of Contaminants Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Waste Management, Worker Safety, and Groundwater procedures The CCCPWD will follow the following recommendations to minimize potential for accidental release of contaminants. Recommendations include: • The Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be notified through their Asbestos Notification System prior to bridge demolition. • Waste management guidance for the proper disposal of excavated shallow soil, lead-based paint, and bridge expansion joint insulation (which must be removed prior to demolition). • Worker safety recommendations for employees working at the site follow state and federal hazardous material handling regulations during construction activities. • Untreated groundwater should not be discharged into natural channels or storm drains. Groundwater and any water comingled with groundwater should be treated under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048) prior to discharge Prior to construction CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-9 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date HAZ-1: Mobilization of Contaminants or be discharged to the nearest sanitary sewer under pretreatment permit from either the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District or City of Concord. Prior to construction CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD XIII. NOISE NOISE-1: Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Ambient Noise Construction activities shall be limited to non-sensitive hours for adjacent land uses (generally between 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element and the City of Concord Noise Ordinance. If work is necessary outside of these hours, the city and county shall both approve the extended work hours and the contractor/Resident Engineer will be available to address any noise concerns during construction. During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD The Project Contractor shall employ the following noise -reducing practices during Project construction: 1) Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2) Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active Project Site during all Project construction. 3) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD XVII. TRANSPORTATION TRA-1: Temporary Disruption to traffic Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Traffic Control and Notifications 1) Publish press release in local newspapers seven days before construction start date. 2) Letter notification to local residents seven calendar days in advance of construction and lane closure start date(s). Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD Marsh Drive Bridge (28C-0442) over Walnut Creek Replacement Project Septmeber 2019 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works County CEQA No.: (CP# 16-35) Project No.: 0662-6R4119 A-10 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date TRA-1: Temporary Disruption to traffic 3) Advance letter notification to local emergency response services to allow them to plan for alternate routes. 4) Placement of portable changeable message signs at various locations in Project vicinity with construction start and road closure dates and period at least seven calendar days in advance of start dates. 5) Provide accessibility to driveways to properties outside the Project area throughout the project. 6) No full lane closures allowed during commute hours; at off - peak hours one lane of Marsh Drive may be temporarily closed during active construction; reopening of lanes at the end of each working day. 7) Temporary lane closures may be scheduled at times of minimal traffic volumes such as nights, weekends, and off - commute hours where low traffic volumes are expected. 8) Traffic control including flaggers will be used as warranted to adjust flow as vehicle volume increases in either direction. 9) Placement of construction zone speed limits. 10) Emergency vehicle access at all times. Prior to and During construction CCCPWD; Construction Contractor CCCPWD CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Drive Bridge over WC\CEQA\NOD_11-5-19.doc Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Form updated: May 7, 2019 To: Office of Planning and Research From: Contra Costa County P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 Dept. of Conservation & Development Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 County Clerk County of: Contra Costa State Clearinghouse Number: SCH# 2019099070 Project Title: Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement over Walnut Creek Project No. 0662-6R4119, CP# 16-36 Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 Project Location: Marsh Drive, approximately 0.2 miles west of Solano Way, Concord and Pacheco, Contra Costa County Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Description: Contra Costa County Public Works Department (CCCPWD), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to replace Marsh Drive Bridge (#28C-0442) over the Walnut Creek Channel (Project). The existing bridge is identified as structurally, seismically, and hydraulically deficient. The purpose of the Project is to replace the existing bridge to meet current design standards to provide safe public access. Project construction is expected to begin in fall 2021 or spring 2022 and take approximately 24 – 30 months to complete. The existing bridge was originally built as a 6-span concrete slab bridge in 1938, and was lengthened in the 1960s to a 10-span bridge. The bridge is currently 325 feet long by 34 feet wide. The new bridge will be designed to correct all of the existing bridge deficiencies and handle the seismic loads as well as the hydraulic flows within the channel. The proposed bridge replacement will be a 5-span bridge, pre-stressed concrete slab structure on concrete piles that is longer and wider than the existing bridge, at approximately 340 feet long and 55 feet wide. The bridge will be raised approximately seven feet with fewer supports in the channel to meet hydraulic standards. The proposed bridge will re-align Marsh Drive slightly to the north while utilizing a larger horizontal curve on the east in order to improve safety. To improve the roadway alignment and horizontal curve at the bridge, there will be approximately 350 to 500 linear feet of roadway approach work at each end of the bridge. In its final configuration the proposed bridge will accommodate two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) with pedestrian facilities on each side of the road. The Project will also inclu de a separated path along the south side of the bridge that will tie into the existing Iron Horse Trail at the southeastern side of the bridge. The Project will use staged construction to avoid bridge closure and traffic detours. Two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction) and a pedestrian access route will be maintained during each phase of construction. Standard traffic control will be used during construction. Work will occur in the creek and dewatering and/or stream diversion is anticipated. Ground disturbance w ill be necessary; depth will vary between Project elements. The maximum depth of excavation for Project work will be approximately 50 feet for the installation of foundation piles (using drilling), approximately 20 feet for bridge abutments and bents, approximately five feet for general roadway work, and approximately 15 to 20 feet for some utility relocations. Vegetation removal may be necessary throughout the Project area. Disturbed areas will be stabilized following construction. A public outreach presentation was he ld at the Buchanan Airport in December 2018. The project was approved on: 1. The project [ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [ were were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ was was not] adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was was not] adopted for this project. 6. Findings [ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Notice of Determination sent to Office of Planning and Research.* This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and reco rd of project approval, or the Negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 Signature (Contra Costa County): Title: Date: Date Received for filing at OPR: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on ____________________________________________ I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Drive Bridge over WC\CEQA\NOD_11-5-19.doc Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Form updated: May 7, 2019 *Notice of Determination may be sent by fax to (916) 323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department EIR - $3,271.00 Total Due: $2,354.75 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $2,354.75 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: Laura Cremin County Clerk - $50 Receipt #: Environmental Services Division Conservation & Development - $25 Phone: (925) 313-2015 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2019/4489 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles at all times on the east side of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), beginning at the prolongation of the south curb line of Driftwood Circle South (Private) and extending southerly a distance of 50 feet; thence on the west side of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), beginning at the prolongation of the north curb line of Driftwood Circle South (Private) and extending southerly a distance of 60 feet, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Traffic Section of the Public Works Department received multiple complaints from residents about limited sightlines for motorists entering Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A) from Driftwood Circle South. The Traffic Section conducted an investigation in October of 2019, which included measuring sightlines and checking collision history. Parked vehicles just south of the intersection (east side of Driftwood Drive) were found to be limiting sight lines for both pedestrians using the crosswalk and vehicles egressing from Driftwood Circle South. Similarly, parked vehicles in close vicinity to the crosswalk on the west side of Driftwood Drive also limit sight lines. Therefore, it is recommended that parking of vehicles be prohibited on both sides of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Monish Sen, 925.313.2187 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles at all times on a portion of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), Bay Point area. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in the vicinity of the crosswalk at Driftwood Circle (South). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Parking will remain unrestricted. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Resolution 2019/4489 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Traffic Resolution No. 2019/4489 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on November 19, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2019/4489 Supervisorial District V TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2019/4489 SUBJECT: Prohibit stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles at all times on a portion of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), Bay Point area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on the recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22507 and 21458 of the California Vehicle Code, stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the east side of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), beginning at the prolongation of the south curb line of Driftwood Circle South (Private) and extending southerly for 50 feet; thence on the west side of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A), beginning at the prolongation of the north curb line of Driftwood Circle South (Private) and extending southerly a distance of 60 feet, Bay Point area. JS:sr Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department 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: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/20 Dougherty Valley Maintenance County Service Area M-29 budget totaling $24,761,768, as summarized in Exhibit 1, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% County Service Area M-29 Funds. BACKGROUND: Dougherty Valley is an 11,000 +/- unit development that was approved by and is being processed through Contra Costa County. This territory is annexed into the City of San Ramon as Final Maps are approved, and improvements are accepted as complete. Dougherty Valley began construction in 1996 and currently 95% of the development area has been annexed into San Ramon. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Jocelyn LaRocque - (925) 313-2315 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Slava Gospodchikov - Engineering Services , Jocelyn LaRocque- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Liza Mangabay - Finance, Shirley Lau - Finance, Chris Low - City of San Ramon, Candace Daniels - San Ramon Finance Manager, Eva Howard-Phelps- San Ramon, Robert Campbell, Auditor Controller, Francisco & Associates, Inc., David Twa. CAO C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budget for Dougherty Valley Maintenance for County Service Area M-29, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) A 1994 Settlement Agreement that allowed for the development of Dougherty Valley also laid out a plan to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the increased municipal services provided in Dougherty Valley. These increased services include Police Protection, Park Maintenance, Landscape Maintenance, Street Lighting, Library Services, and the operation and maintenance of three Community Facilities Buildings: Community Center, Senior Center, and Service Center. In a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Contra Costa County and the City of San Ramon, it was decided that these increased services would be provided by the City of San Ramon and reimbursed through property tax and special assessment revenue of CSA M-29. CSA M-29 was created in 1998 to collect property tax and special assessment revenue. However, the Dougherty Valley Maintenance Budget includes all revenue from CSA M-29 in addition to sales tax, real property transfer tax and contributions from the City of San Ramon General Fund. At the end of the fiscal year funds are to be reimbursed to the City of San Ramon for various municipal services provided within the Dougherty Valley area. On December 20, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved a Reimbursement Agreement between the County, the City of San Ramon, Shapell Industries and Windemere BLC Land Company to provide reimbursement to the City of San Ramon for providing services within the boundaries of Dougherty Valley. The Reimbursement Agreement outlined the annual process for the City of San Ramon to receive reimbursement of funds for services rendered in Dougherty Valley. The process laid out in the agreement calls for the annual budget for Dougherty Valley Maintenance to be approved at the San Ramon City Council level and then subsequently approved at the County Board of Supervisors. On June 11, 2019, by Resolution 2019-066, the San Ramon City Council approved the FY 2019/20 citywide operating and capital budgets, including line items for the Dougherty Valley Maintenance, which totaled $24,761,768 in projected expenses. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Dougherty Valley Maintenance budget will not be approved and the City of San Ramon will not receive reimbursement for city services performed in Dougherty Valley as agreed to under terms of the Reimbursement Agreement and the 1994 Settlement Agreement. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1, Dougherty Valley Maintenance FY 2019-20 Annual Budget EXHIBIT 1 Actual Actual Actual Budget2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20REVENUEI. Direct Revenues (excluding CSA M-29 Tax/Assessment) a. CSA M-29 Advalorem Property Taxes $3,001,638 $3,217,890 $3,429,643 $3,835,870b. Real Property Transfer Tax $443,486 $373,608 $388,448 $467,738Subtotal $3,445,124 $3,591,498 $3,818,091 $4,303,608II. Indirect Revenue (City of San Ramon Contribution)a. Sales Tax $1,533,512 $1,641,141 $1,776,153 $1,875,845b. Fines and Forfeitures $79,850 $79,421 $98,195 $101,320c. Licenses/Permits/Franchise Fees $380,564 $407,218 $362,902 $448,459d. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees $508,369 $591,176 $662,282 $741,491Subtotal $2,502,294 $2,718,957 $2,899,532 $3,167,115III. CSA M-29 Special Tax/Assessment Revenue $12,082,826 $13,144,249 $13,886,010 $14,603,227IV. San Ramon General Fund Contribution to cover GAP $3,040,555 $4,453,943 $2,969,707 $2,955,401TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUE $21,070,799 $23,691,984 $23,392,763 $24,761,768EXPENDITURESa. Internal Road Maintenance ($991,305) ($1,309,453) ($1,337,079) ($1,222,158)b. Street Landscaping ($5,112,145) ($6,673,161) ($6,327,520) ($6,264,164)c. Park Maintenance ($3,987,628) ($4,058,724) ($3,914,628) ($4,294,539)d. Open Space Maintenance ($109,569) ($108,028) ($120,228) ($241,452)e. Flood Control Services ($71,829) ($67,139) ($81,514) ($120,389)f. Police Services ($7,389,835) ($7,793,983) ($8,026,360) ($8,695,734)g. Community Facilities (no Library Operations) ($1,320,391) ($1,333,642) ($1,267,232) ($1,530,547)h. Overhead to City @ 11% ($2,088,097) ($2,347,854) ($2,318,202) ($2,392,785)TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($21,070,799) ($23,691,984) ($23,392,763) ($24,761,768)Dougherty Valley MaintenanceFY 2019-20 Annual Budget RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program, Brentwood area. [Project No. 7521-6D8277] DCD-CP# 19-13 (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 that the Program will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the lead agency, Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District). ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Program. SPECIFY that the Chief Engineer is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record 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 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Claudia Gemberling (925)313-2192 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigated Monitoring & Reporting Program for the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) with the County Clerk. AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of $2,354.75 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: Preparing the documents for this Program was funded 100% by American Rivers, with minor District and Department of Conservation and Development staff costs for review and processing. This Program does not authorize any future expenditures of District or County funds. BACKGROUND: The Program is a creek restoration and flood risk reduction program proposed by the District and American Rivers, a national nonprofit organization that protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature. Implementation of the proposed Program will result in: 1) improved habitat conditions for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians by providing a mosaic of riparian, floodplain, wetland, and aquatic habitat types for these species to utilize, 2) expanded creek flow capacity to meet or exceed flood standards, 3) improved local water quality by shading the creek and reducing mobilization of fine sediments, and 4) improved public recreational opportunities. This Program will also complement three existing conservation planning efforts: the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), the District’s 50 Year Plan: Channel to Creeks (2009), and American Rivers’ Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Master Plan (2015) (Master Plan). The goal of the Program is to incentivize willing landowners and developers to work with the District and other local partners to transition the existing 75-foot creek setbacks on Marsh Creek and 50-foot creek setbacks on Deer and Sand creeks, as required by the HCP/NCCP for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP, into ecologically functioning riparian habitat corridors. As such, the CEQA document was developed to put in place the environmental compliance mechanism necessary to alleviate uncertainty and complexity associated with implementing creek restoration projects, which would further incentivize landowners and developers to participate. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Program is not approved Marsh Creek restoration project planning opportunities and grant funding could be lost. ATTACHMENTS CEQA documents INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LOWER MARSH CREEK STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION PROGRAM Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Claudia Gemberling (925) 313-2192 Prepared by American Rivers Contact: John Cain (510) 809-8010 Alnus Ecological Contact: Jim Robins (510) 332-9895 Vinnedge Environmental Consulting Contact: Brook Vinnedge (510) 541-5663 March 2019 (Public Draft) Revised May 2019 (Final) TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Program Information........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 A1. Program Description .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................................................ 32 C. Lead Agency Determination ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 D. Evaluation of Environmental Effects ....................................................................................................................................... 34 E. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 36 E1. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 E2. Agriculture and ForestRY Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 E3. Air Quality............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 E4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 E5. Cultural Resources / Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 66 E6. Energy .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72 E7. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 E8. Greenhouse Gas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 E9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................................................ 78 E10. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 81 E11. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................................................. 84 E12. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 E13. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 E14. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 93 E15. Public Services .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 94 E16. Recreation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 E17. Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 97 E18. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................................................... 99 E19. Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101 E20. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................................................................... 105 F. References ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 107 G. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Draft Initial Study Checklist (Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act) FIGURES Figure 1. Marsh Creek Watershed......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Area ......................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Typical Creek Cross–Sections Showing 50’ and 75’ HCP/NCCP Stream Setbacks from Top of Bank, Existing Conditions (Top) and Example of Widened Channel with Riparian Vegetation (Bottom) ................. 6 Figure 4. Photos of Downgraded, Homogenous Creek Channels and Beds ....................................................................... 11 Figure 5. EBRPD Marsh Creek Regional Trail ................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Important Farmland Map Categories ............................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 7. Mineral Land Classification Map...................................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 8. 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map ............................................................................... 102 Figure 9. 2009 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map showing Local Responsibily Areas. ........ 103 TABLES Table 1: Program Implementation Elements ................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 2: General Individual Project Dimensions ......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3: Preconstruction Related Measures .................................................................................................................................. 22 Table 4: Construction-Related Best Management Practices ................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Work Day) ................................. 46 Table 7. Special Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Program Area ................................................................. 54 Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................................................................ 90 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 1 CCCFCD INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended A. PROGRAM INFORMATION 1. Project title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program 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: Claudia Gemberling, Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District; 925-313-2192 4. Program location: Multiple project sites on Marsh Creek, Sand Creek and Deer Creek lo cated in eastern Contra Costa County within the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and in unincorporated Contra Costa County. 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 6. Applicable Land Use plan designation: Zoning designations along Marsh Creek, Deer Creek, and Sand Creek corridors within the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and in unincorporated Contra Costa County, include low, medium and high density residential as well as commercial, agricultural and open space. A1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A1.1. Program Goals and Objectives The Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program (Program) is a creek restoration and flood risk reduction Program proposed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“CCCFCD” or “District”) and American Rivers, a national nonprofit organization that protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature. Implementation of the proposed Program will result in: 1) improved habitat conditions for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians by providing a mosaic of riparian, floodplain, wetland, and aquatic habitat types for these species to utilize, 2) expanded channel capacity to meet or exceed flood channel conveyance capacity, 3) improved local water quality by shading the creek and reducing mobilization of fine sediments, and 4) improved public recreational opportunities. This Program will also comple ment three existing conservation planning efforts: the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006) (HCP/NCCP), the CCCFCD’s 50 Year Plan: Channel to Creeks (2009), and American Rivers’ Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Master Plan (2015) (Master Plan). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 2 CCCFCD The goal of the Program is to incentivize willing landowners and developers to work with the CCCFCD and other local partners to transition the existing 75-foot stream setbacks on Marsh Creek and 50-foot stream setbacks on Deer and Sand creeks (referred to collectively hereafter as stream corridors), as required by the HCP/NCCP for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP, into ecologically functioning riparian habitat corridors. As such, this CEQA document has been developed to put in place the environmental compliance mechanism necessary to alleviate uncertainty and complexity associated with implementing creek restoration projects, which would further incentivize landowners and developers to participate. Primary Program objectives include: • Enable restoration of riparian vegetation, both woody and herbaceous, within the expanded stream corridors; • Improve aquatic and wetland habitats within the stream corridors; • Improve water quality and lower water temperatures within the stream corridors; • Provide enhanced flow capacity within the stream reaches that are either meeting or exceeding critical flood conveyance targets; • Reduce the need for and impact of routine channel maintenance by reducing local stream velocities/sheer stress and resulting bank erosion, and allowing riparian trees to grow and shade out nuisance nonnative plants in restoration areas; and • Enhance local recreational experiences along existing and future creek trails by creating shaded woodland areas throughout the trail system. While the 2015 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan identified a number of discrete parcels that would be appropriate for implementing multi-benefit restoration projects, this Program expands the limits of the Master Plan to include all streamside parcels in the Program area. A1.2. Purpose of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq), an Initial Study (IS) is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the Lead Agenc y as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration is required for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines require that the Initial Study contain a project description; a location map; a description of environmental setting; an identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form; an explanation of environmental effects; and a discussion of mitigation for potentially significant environmental effects. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070 provides that if all the impacts can be mitigated to a less -than-significant level, the Lead Agency may instead prepare a MND whereby mitigations measures will be implemented. As such, the purpose of this IS is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Program. The Program goals and objectives would be achieved, in part, through use of this CEQA document to provide future project applicants with: (a) clear design guidelines; (b) accepted avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; and (c) a simplified and transparent compliance process for implement ing the types of projects envisioned under the Program. The CEQA document analyzes a range of construction and operational activities associated with increasing the width and configuration of the stream corridors to allow for inset floodplain benches and development of mature riparian vegetation while meeting or exceeding CCCFCD’s Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 3 CCCFCD flood control targets. This IS has been prepared in compliance with the 1970 CEQA (as amended), codified in California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA G uidelines in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. As such, the CCCFCD has opted to prepare a Program IS/MND to achieve these goals and objectives. A1.3. Regional and Program Setting The proposed Program is located within the Marsh Creek Watershed in eastern Contra Costa County approximately 40 miles northest of San Francisco, and includes the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated areas (Figure 1). It is the second largest watershed in the County. The watershed drains 128 square miles of the eastern side of Mt. Diablo from Marsh Creek at its headwaters in Morgan Territory for approximately 30 miles through rangeland, farmland, and urban lands to its mouth at Big Break in the Delta just north of Oakley. Marsh Creek Watershed is an important link between the Delta and the Diablo Range. Figure 1. Marsh Creek Watershed Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 4 CCCFCD Marsh Creek’s major tributaries – Briones, Dry, Deer, and Sand creeks – all flow southeasterly draining the eastern highlands of Mount Diablo State Park and/or Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. Briones Creek, which drains the undeveloped Briones Valley, flows into Marsh Creek at the Marsh Creek Reservoir within Cowell Ranch south of the city of Brentwood, while Dry, Deer, and Sand creeks all flow into Marsh Creek within the city limits of Brentwood. Much of the land in the northern lowland section of t he watershed is privately owned and lies within the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley as well as unincorporated County land. All of the privately-owned land in the watershed’s southern uplands is unincorporated and falls within the planning jurisdiction of the County. Although most of the land within the watershed is under private ownership, the watershed is bounded by large areas of publicly owned open space including Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, Los Vaqueros watershed lands, Round Valley Regional Preserve, Mount Diablo State Park, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, Contra Loma Regional Park, and the Big Break Regional Shoreline. The Program Area is focused on Lower Marsh Creek watershed as it flows through the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and a small portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County, upstream of Marsh Creek’s confluence with the western Delta at Big Break. While Marsh Creek has 4 tributaries, due to the heavily degraded ecological conditions and the flood risk concerns, the Program is focused on potential future actions in the urbanized reaches of Deer and Sand Creek as well as the lower mainstem of Marsh Creek (below the Marsh Creek Reservoir). In this area, Marsh Creek flows due north at a relatively gentle slope of appr oximately 0.3% or 15 vertical feet per mile of stream. The sub-watersheds of Deer Creek and Sand Creek function as important conduits of surface flow, sediment, agricultural return flow, and urban runoff into lower Marsh Creek. CCCFCD has constructed large detention basins on each of these three creeks, which are designed to attenuate peak flows and capture sediment. Deer Creek is a seasonal creek that drains 6.6 square miles of foothill and flows for approximately one stream mile through flat floodplain lands into a large detention basin ¾ of a mile upstream of its confluence with Marsh Creek. Between the detention basin and Marsh Creek is a constructed, trapezoidal channel. Sand Creek, the largest of the lower zone tributaries, drains 14.4 square miles fro m its headwaters in Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve to its confluence with Marsh Creek approximately 700 feet downstream of the Deer Creek confluence. Sand Creek appears to have seasonal flow in its more natural upland reaches, and perennial flow supported by agricultural return flows and urban runoff in the lowland reaches. The reaches of Sand Creek upstream of the Program Area, between its urban boundaries with Antioch and Brentwood and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, still contains reaches of intact aquatic and riparian habitat. CCCFCD completed the final phase of construction on the Upper Sand Creek Basin in 2014, which now has the capacity to store 900 acre - feet of water and provide 100-year storm protection to the downstream community. A1.4. Program Area Location and Ownership Individual projects that would be covered under this Program are anticipated to occur primarily on undeveloped lands adjacent to Marsh, Deer, and Sand creek corridors. The Program Area in its entirety includes the Marsh Creek corridor from Balfour Road in Brentwood in the south, to the Contra Costa Canal in Oakley in the north. It also includes Sand Creek from Highway 4 in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek, and D eer Creek from the Deer Creek Detention Basin to its confluence with Marsh Creek. See Figure 2 for a map of the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 5 CCCFCD Figure 2. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Area Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 6 CCCFCD The Program will focus on working with willing partners to facilitate creek corridor restoration actions along Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Deer Creek. All work will be conducted within stream setbacks of 75 feet on Marsh Creek and 50 feet on Deer and Sand Creeks, as required by the HCP/NCCP for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 6, Conservation Measures 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6-2). These setbacks are calculated from the existing top of bank for each watercourse (Figure 3). The HCP/NCCP encourages trails to be sited outside stream setbacks and constructed with permeable or semi- permeable surfaces. When trails cannot be sited outside the required setback, they should be sited as far from the stream channel as possible and should adhere to limitations on exc eptions to stream setback requirements (HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.7 and Table 6-2). While the CCCFCD owns between 50-100 feet from the centerline of the three creeks within the Program Area (except for a small stretch on Sand Creek between Highway 4 and the Lower Sand Creek Basin, just downstream of Shady Willow Lane, which is owned by the City of Brentwood), ownership of the additional area within the setback will vary across a range of pub lic and private landowners. Right-of-way acquisition or offers of dedication to public agencies such as the CCCFCD or East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) may be necessary to implement projects proposed under this Program. Figure 3. Typical Creek Cross–Sections Showing 50’ and 75’ HCP/NCCP Stream Setbacks from Top of Bank, Existing Conditions (Top) and Example of Widened Channel with Riparian Vegetation (Bottom) A1.5. Planning Context There are a number of pertinent planning documents that collectively form the technical foundation for the Lower Marsh Creek Corridor Restoration Program. Based on Marsh Creek’s unique location, providing a natural link between the ecologically rich Diablo Range and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, planning efforts such as the Delta Plan, the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, and various planning documents related to the park units in the upper watershed (Mount Diablo State Park and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve) all point to the value of this natural asset. Each of these plans, which focus on the larger region, discuss the importance of maintaining and improving connectivity in this corridor for both terrestrial and aquatic species as well as the need to improve the quality of water flowing through these creeks and into the Delta. At a more granular level, the following planning documents that span the past 15 years, provide finer detail on the vision for realizing ecological uplift of the critical creek and riparian resources that link the Diablo Range t o the Delta. In 2007, the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) and the Delta Science Center (DSC) published the 4th edition of The Past and Present Condition of the Marsh Creek Watershed (Marsh Creek Watershed Report). This Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 7 CCCFCD document provided the first detailed analysis of land-use change and the resulting impacts to the watershed’s ecological resources. The document was specifically focused on the wholesale manipulation of Marsh Creek and its tributaries throughout the previous 100 years and the massive impact agricultural production, suburbanization, and flood control activities had on these resources. NHI followed up on earlier editions of this report with the first edition of the Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood CA (Walking et al. 2002). This report provided a parcel by parcel analysis of opportunities to develop multiple benefit creek restoration projects that would also provide the community with additional benefits such as increased flood conveyance, improved water quality, and enhanced recreational experiences. This report was adopted as Appendix IX of the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan (City of Brentwood 2002). In 2006, the HCP/NCCP was finalized and in 2007 ordinances were adopted by the participating cities and the County to establish procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP highlighted some opportunities along Marsh Creek as a “key restoration priority” and parcels within the Program Area are considered potential preserve sites for the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 5, page 5-42). In 2015, American Rivers developed the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan (Master Plan), which updated NHI’s 2002 report to include the entire lower Marsh Creek Watershed. In the intervening years between publication of the original Corridor Width Report in 2002 and the updated Master Plan, the CCCFCD was working a number of parallel efforts. In 2009, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted CCCFCD visionary document, The 50 Year Plan: from Channels to Creeks. This new approach was born out of a decade of collaboration between the CCCFCD, NHI, the Delta Science Cent er, and a number of community watershed groups, dating back to Contra Costa County’s first Watershed Symposium in 1999. An excerpt from the document summarizes the sea change: “As with most Flood Control Districts, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed to provide flood protection infrastructure and improvements for a rapidly developing County. Our mandate at that time was defined as simply providing flood protection in the most economical manner... Today, however, communities desire a broader range of services. The citizens of our county still want flood protection, but they also want a healthy and natural looking eco-system in their drainage channels and creeks (while minimizing the amount on their tax bill for ma intenance and new infrastructure costs). They want good water quality and a sustainable and rich plant and animal habitat in their creeks and watersheds.” This Program is in direct response to needs and direction outlined in the regional and local planni ng documents described above. This vision, coupled with a growing population and the continued shifting of land-use from agriculture to suburban development posed serious challenges for the CCCFCD and its partners to develop forward-looking flood control plans that improved the quality and quantity of creek habitat. The Program is also situated within the general plan areas and planning documents of both Brentwood and Oakley and both municipalities have moved forward partnership projects as pilots for this Program. The first is the City of Oakley’s Creekside Park. In 2008, Oakley received a grant from the California Natural Resources Agency’s California River Parkways Program to widen the floodplain, restore habitat along Marsh Creek, and improve trails and public access. The project was completed in 2012 and resulted in restoration of approximately 3 acres of riparian habitat and conversion of approximately 850 linear feet of trapezoidal flood control channel to a diverse floodplain habitat. The project als o included an 8-foot wide pedestrian trail and a pedestrian bridge across Marsh Creek that connects Creekside Park with East Bay Regional Park District’s (EBRPD) Marsh Creek Regional Trail. The City of Brentwood, in partnership with the CCCFCD and American Rivers will be completing the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (estimated completetion date is fall 2020). Like the Oakley Creekside Park project, the Three Creeks Project includes widening of Marsh Creek to accommodate a floodplain bench, riparian planting, improved flood conveyance capacity, and enhanced recreational opportunities. These two Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 8 CCCFCD projects demonstrate that the CCCFCD, working in partnership with Brentwood and Oakley, as well as an array of nongovernmental partners, can effectively design and implement projects like those proposed in this Program. A1.6. Purpose and Need The overarching purpose of the Program is to help implement a 21 st century vision of flood management that focuses on working collaboratively with landowners on creekside parcels to widen the existing corridors to provide the community with both high levels of flood protection, restored aquatic and riparian habitats, and improved recreational experiences. A few key studies have documented the historical ecology of Marsh Creek (Marsh Creek Watershed Report; Standord et al. 2012) and provide historical context that informs present day management challenges. The following excerpts from the Marsh Creek Watershed Report provide a compelling narrative that clarifies the purpose and need for this Program: “The tendency of Marsh Creek to meander across the gently sloping topography of the lower watershed and regularly inundate its broad floodplain was not compatible with agricultural and urban development. Beginning at the turn of the century, humans began to confine the channel to its present location and build levees to protect the rich farmland on the eastern side of the channel…By the late 1930s, expansion of agriculture had reduced the riparian corridor along Marsh Creek to a fringe of trees no more than 50 feet wide on either side….As Brentwood grew and more floodplain lands were converted to both agriculture and suburban/commercial use, the effects of frequent flood events began to have significant financial impacts in the lower zone of the Marsh Creek watershed. Contra Costa County’s 1959 Watershed Work Plan cites flooding as the major problem facing the watershed. ‘Damaging floods have occurred, on the average, once in three years, with three of the worst since January 1952. It is not uncommon to have several floods in the same year, as happened in the winter of 1955–1956 and again in 1958. When such events occur, some damage is suffered to roads, bridges and stream banks in the middle reaches of the creek. The great bulk of the damage however, takes place on the flood plains of Marsh and Kellogg creeks. In the case of Marsh Creek, floodwater leaves the inadequate channel at various points but is prevented by topographic conditions from returning... Such flows have inundated as much as 4,900 acres to depths of four feet.” (Eastern Contra Costa Soil Conservation Service et al. 1959)’ This series of flood events in the 1950s compelled the County flood control district and the Soil Conservation Service to implement a major flood control program that channelized lower Marsh Creek and constructed two flood control dams on Marsh Creek and Dry Creek. These flood control improvements straightened and confined the existing channel, removed all of the existing near channel riparian vegetation, and increased the channel cross section to efficiently convey floodwaters through the lower zone into the Delta…Channel excavation, clearing, and straightening over the past century has resulted in the loss of more than 50% of the total stream channel length in the lower zone. Similarly, these flood control improvements have eliminated nearly all the riparian and floodplain habitat that once flourished along the margins of Marsh Creek. Habitat in the stream channel itself has been further impacted by the loss of natural complexity associated with a meandering stream channel. Prior to the flood control improvements, the channel form was highly variable with pools, gravel riffles, gentle bars, and steep cut-banks...” The report then summarizes the current condition of Marsh Creek in these stark terms, “Today, flood protection activities such as levee maintenance, channel dredging, and vegetation removal have transformed the creeks of the lower Marsh Creek watershed from dynamic living systems to static, confined, and ecologically impoverished Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 9 CCCFCD water conveyance structures.” Over the last 20 years, the pace and scale of development in the watershed has seen an ebb and flow, but overall development has increased substantially, to a point where the flood control channels designed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are significantly under capacity in many locations along lower Marsh Creek. This dynamic of increased flood management needs, combined with the community’s desire for these channels to provide habitat for a wealth of fish and wildlife species and recreational opportunities is the backdrop to the Program. A1.7. Baseline Conditions Determining whether a project or Program may have a significant effect on the environment plays a critical role in the CEQA process. In order to evaluate effects of project or Program implementation, it is critical to understand baseline conditions. This section briefly summarizes the curr ent, baseline conditions in terms of ecological resources, hydraulic conditions, routine maintenance, and recreation. A1.7.1. Ecological Conditions There is almost no woody riparian vegetation along the creek corridor and wetland vegetation is very limited to a narrow 1–3-foot wide string along the low flow channel. While these systems are degraded, they continue to provide habitat for a surprising diversity of native fish and wildlife include western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), occasional adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), warm water fish such as hitch (Lavinia exilicauda) and roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus) and periodic foraging for California river otters (Lontra canadensis). Another example of the wildlife still thriving al ong the degraded creek corridor is the snowy egret (Egretta thula) and night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) rookeries established in neighborhood street trees close to Marsh Creek (B. Margesson, 2018). That said, the current conditions from an ecological perspective are in a severely degraded condition. The areas 75 feet from the top of bank are generally covered by ruderal, nonnative vegetation and provide significantly limited ecological services (e.g providing habitat, filtering out pollutants, providing shade, enabling carbon sequestration, etc.), which could be restored through a suite of well- designed restoration projects. Moreover, the HCP/NCCP has required 50-foot and 75-foot setbacks from these creeks for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with HCP/NCCP to allow for future riparian and creek restoration actions. In accordance with the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 6, Section 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6 -2), the stream setback measure is intended to achieve the following purposes: • Maintain or improve water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants from urban runoff before they reach the stream. • Allow for protection of preserved and restored riparian woodland and scrub within and adjacent to the stream channel. • Maintain a buffer zone between urban development and existing and restored nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and other bird species. • Maintain and enhance the water quality of the stream to protect native fish populations, including populations of special-status species that occur in downstream reaches (e.g., fall-run Chinook salmon in Marsh Creek). • Maintain a more viable wildlife corridor for some species (e.g., California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], foothill yellow-legged frog [Rana boylii]) than would be present with a narrower buffer zone. • Maximize the natural flood protection value of the floodplain. • Provide for recreational trails along the corridor that are compatible with wildlife use. In order to achieve these purposes, the setback could be more than just an area that is outside of development, but rather an area that is actively enhanced for multiple benefits. This Program focuses explicitly on developing multiple-benefit projects within the setbacks that will transition these ruderal undeveloped areas to effective natural resource areas that can provide the services articulated in the HCP/NCCP a nd other plans. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 10 CCCFCD For summary purposes, the six photos below (taken in August 2017) demonstrate the degraded and homogeneous nature of the creek channel and its banks. Photo 1. Marsh Creek in Brentwood between the Union Pacific Railroad and O’Hara Ave. Taken 08/07/17. Photo 2. Marsh Creek in Oakley downstream of Barnard Road. Taken 8/07/17. Photo 3. Marsh Creek at the Oakley Creekside Park restoration site. Taken 08/07/17. Photo 4. Sand Creek near Old Sand Creek Road, upstream of Shady Willow Ln. Taken 08/07/17 Photo 5. Deer Cr looking West from San Jose Avenue (date unknown). Photo 6. Deer Cr looking toward confluence with Marsh Creek (date unknown). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 11 CCCFCD Figure 4. Photos of Downgraded, Homogenous Creek Channels and Beds A1.7.2. Hydraulic Conditions CCCFCD prepared two reports in 2010 that document the status of Marsh Creek and its tributaries in meeting the District’s flood control targets of containing the 100-year water surface and the 50-year water surface plus freeboard (Boucher 2010 and Louis 2010). The modeling outputs and recommendations from these reports conclude that multiple locations along the Marsh Creek channel are currently under capacity and that new development along the creek corridor will require CCCFCD to coordinate with both the cities of Brentwood and Oakley to ensure that future development be designed to address these inadequacies. Moreover, both reports state that in their current condition, these creek channels do not have the capacity to ac commodate the co-benefits of flood control, riparian habitat restoration, creation of wildlife corridors and improved recreational opportunities. The CCCFCD recently completed one of the major flood risk reduction projects that came out of these studies, t he Upper Sand Creek Basin. This project is a multi-benefit flood protection project that significantly reduces peak flow contribution from the upper Sand Creek watershed into Marsh Creek from 2,870 to 134 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 100-year storm event. Moreover, the design of this basin incorporates the Sand Creek channel, creating an “in-line” basin behind the dam. Approximately 3,612 feet was reconstructed with a fluvial geomorphic design to restore and enhance Sand Creek within the basin. An additional 264 feet was constructed as wetland acreage. In the project work plan, the CCCFCD explicitly notes in the purpose and need section that, “…If the Project is not implemented, the ecosystem along Sand Creek will continue to be unsupportive of native s pecies and lack critical habitats.” This project is emblematic of the 21st century approach to flood control being practiced by the CCCFCD and creates a context for developing and implementing multiple benefit projects that reduce flood risk, improve ecological conditions, and enhance recreational opportunities. Because the Marsh Creek channel, within the Program Area, is currently under capacity in multiple locations this Program represents a unique opportunity for the CCCFCD to partner with developers, the cities and nongovernmental organizations to design and implement multi-benefit projects like the Upper Sand Creek Basin project and those envisioned under this Program. A1.7.3. Routine Maintenance Nearly all of Marsh, Sand and Deer creeks within the Program Area, with the exception of a small reach between on Sand Creek between Highway 4 and the Lower Sand Creek Detention Basin, are either owned in fee -title or easement by CCCFCD. Routine maintenance in the areas owned by CCCFCD is governed by the terms and conditions of Streambed Alteration Agreement for Routine Maintenance Activities (Agreement) 1600-2010-0367- R3 (April 18, 2011) between California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and CCCFCD. The Agreement identifies routine maintenance activities for all flood control facilities in Contra Costa County, including Marsh Creek. For the purposes of the Agreement, routine maintenance activities are generally defined as periodic activities necessary to maintain the water transport capacity of streams and channels and the structural and functioning integrity of existing flood control and sediment detention structures on or affecting streams. Routine maintenance activities authorized under the Agreeme nt include both seasonal activities and year-round activities. Seasonal maintenance takes place between April 15 and October 31 and includes: • Sediment removal • Vegetation management (via mechanical and/or chemical treatment) • Maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing structures • Bank stabilization activities • Temporary water diversions • Temporary access roads or structures Annual maintenance activities can take place either within the seasonal window or outside of that window. Annual activities are limited to debris removal from creeks, channels and/or basins and a subset of vegetation Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 12 CCCFCD management activities including: removal of cattails, beginning in September and continued through the end of November and chemical mowing (application of herbicide to retard growth), from December through February. A1.7.4. Recreational Conditions The Marsh Creek corridor is an integral part of both local and regional trail systems. The EBRPD owns and maintains the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which follows the mainstem of Marsh Creek approximately 6.5 miles from Big Break in Oakley to Concord Avenue in Brentwood (Figure 5). EBRPD has proposed an expansion of the trail that would link it to the future Marsh Creek State Park, providing a link by Briones Creek to the proposed Deer Creek State Park, and to Round Valley Regional Preserve upstream of the Marsh Creek Reservoir. Connecting the Marsh Creek Regional Trail to Round Valley provides further connections to Los Vaqueros Watershed, Morgan Territory, and Mount Diablo State Park. The current Marsh Creek Trail also links to the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail at Sunset Road in Brentwood, the Big Break Regional Trail along the Delta to the north, and the Delta De Anza Regional Trail near Cypress R oa d in Oakley. In addition to these regional trail linkages, the Marsh Creek Regional Trail links a number of small community parks or pocket parks in Brentwood and Oakley. In its current condition, the existing trail is heavily used and run along the creek segment for much of it’s length. Unfortunately, the trail lacks shade, greatly impeding it’s utility and safety for users during the warmer months. The existing recreational experience could be greatly improved with riparian woodlands providing both shade for recreational users and habitat for a wealth of bird species. While Sand Creek currently supports a small recreational trail that extends from Fairview Avenue to Minnesota Avenue and Deer Creek has a trail from Fairview Avenue to San Jose Avenue, neither of these trails currently have a formal connection to the larger Marsh Creek Trail. This condition is expected to change soon. In February of 2019, the City of Brentwood adopted an Updated Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan that includes a detail ed and updated Trail Map. This map specifically identifies existing and future planned segments of the Sand Creek and Deer Creek Trails within the City Limits and creating connections to the Marsh Creek Trail. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 13 CCCFCD Figure 5. EBRPD Marsh Creek Regional Trail The figure shows the northern reach from Big Break to Central Boulevard (left) and southern reach from Central Boulevard to Concord Avenue, and proposed trail from Concord Avenue to Round Valley Regional Preserve (right). A1.8. Program Implementation Elements The Program will focus on working with willing partners to facilitate multi-benefit, creek corridor restoration actions in the Program Area. Except in rare circumstances, all work will be conducted within the existing HCP/NCCP established stream setbacks of 75 feet from Marsh Creek and 50 feet from Deer and Sand Creeks required for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with HCP/NCCP. While the Program is anticipated to occur primarily on undeveloped lands with willing landowners, it is possible that certain existing structures or infrastructure may need to be removed or relocated to accomplish the goals of the Program. Removal or modification of any existing infrastructure will be carried out in accordance with local land-use ordinances. Projects developed and implemented within this Program could include any or all of the following elements: ▪ Channel Widening ▪ Riparian and Wetland Revegetation Round Valley Regional Preserve Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 14 CCCFCD ▪ Installation of Instream Habitat Features ▪ Vegetation Maintenance ▪ Temporary Channel Crossing ▪ Channel Dewatering ▪ Removal of Existing Structures or Debris ▪ Utility Line Protection and Relocation ▪ Recreational Improvements ▪ Purchase or Donation of Land in Fee-title or Easement Table 1 provides a brief description of each element or activity that once implemented would result in creek restoration and highlights key technical analyses that will be mandatory during planning and articulates some impacts and specific mitigation measures tha t will be required during implementation. Additional planning measures and construction-related mitigation measures are described later in this section. Table 1: Program Implementation Elements Program Element Description Channel Widening (see Figure 3 for typical cross-section) The main goal of expanding the channel cross-section is to create enough conveyance capacity to allow for the planting of woody riparian vegetation (shrubs and trees), while also safely conveying large flood flows (100 y ear storm and 50 year storm plus freeboard) to protect adjacent infrastructure and neighborhoods. Floodplain benches would be constructed within the widened channel on one or both sides of the creek. Benches would be constructed at an elevation that would get inundated by annual high flow events. Bench width would range from approximately 10’ to 40’ and slopes from the benches to the top of bank set at between 2:1 to 4:1, depending on the local conditions. Current estimates suggest approximately 6cy/linear ft. of channel widened. Potential Impacts: The main environmental impacts associated with channel widening will be clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation prior to excavation and both excavation and off-haul of existing soil, rock, and debris required to widen the channel. If not mitigated, these activities could result in temporary impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, recreation, traffic and noise. Design details will be developed for each site, once the site is identified and technical analyses such as hydraulics, geology, etc. will be completed as per the measures identified in the Initial Study. Technical Requirements • Engineering designs and erosion control plan stamped by a registered civil engineer. • Hydraulic analysis by registered professional demonstrating neutral or positive effect on local flood conveyance and no net increase in water surface elevations directly upstream or downstream. • Approval by CCCFCD engineering. • Site-specific biological and cultural resource studies will be conducted prior to any earth moving which may require monitoring. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 15 CCCFCD Program Element Description • Any soils excavated as part of the channel widening will be removed from the site and placed at an approved location outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain and any jurisdictional (state or federal) wetlands or waters. Riparian and Wetland Revegetation and Short-term Vegetation Maintenance (approximately 5 yr. minimum establishment period) The goals of this activity are to (a) restore native riparian and wetland communities to the stream corridors, (b) create a shaded woodland to enhance the existing recreational opportunities along the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, and (c), provide shade to the stream corridor that will encourage aquatic wildlife and discourage growth of nonnative weedy species that require routine maintenance to maintain channel capacity. Seed and live plant material used in this activity will be sourced from local sources. This activity not only includes planting of native vegetation, but also includes monitoring and maintenance for at least 5 years after installation. Specific maintenance activities will be governed by a maintenance and monitoring plan (see Table 3 below) that will be developed by the project partners for each project under this Program. Operations and maintenance activities can include mechanical or herbicide use to contr ol nonnative invasive plants as well as pruning, limbing, otherwise maintaining and potentially replanting the vegetation to meet the project goals. Potential Impacts: Vegetation management during the initial establishment period could result in impacts to biological resources and hydrologic resources. While maintenance during the establishment period is expected to be minimal, conditions related to this activity will be consistent with the measures articulated under Vegetation Maintenance, below. Technical Requirements • Project plans will include a detailed revegetation/restoration plan as well as a 5-year maintenance and monitoring plan. Plans will include species lists, planting or seed densities, success criteria, triggers for remedial/follow-up actions and roles and responsibilities for implementing the plan. • Plant pallets for restoration sites could include the following: The upper banks and floodplain could be planted with native riparian trees such as valley oak, sycamore, live oak, blue oak, box elder, buckeye, cottonwood, and willow. Slopes and banks could also be planted with native grassland and scrub species, which would include creeping wild rye, California brome, purple needlegrass, dense-flowered lupine, mugwort, common fiddleneck, elegant clarkia, and California poppy. Areas of the floodplain and banks below the new benches could be planted with native seasonal wetland species that will include, but not be limited to, creek clover, Baltic rush, and deer sedge. Installation of Instream Habitat Features The goal of this activity is to improve instream habitat for a range of aquatic species including, but not limited to, rearing Chinook salmon, rearing and spawning for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), basking and foraging for western pond turtles and foraging and refugia for California red-legged frogs and other riparian wildlife species. This activity could include installation of either large woody debris (LWD) and/or rock features (e.g., Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 16 CCCFCD Program Element Description rock barbs) below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to improve degraded aquatic conditions by providing high flow and predation refugia, sorting sediment, and restoring pool and riffle characteristics. Augmentation of gravel could occur concurrently or in isolation and would enhance spawning opportunities for Chinook salmon and steelhead. Limited grading below the OHWM may be required to properly install and anchor i nstream features. Installation of these features will occur during the summer or early fall months when streams are either dry or experiencing low flows. It is possible that dewatering may be required for certain actions that require construction equipment to enter the channel or work in an area that would be wetted. If working in a wetted channel, where the live channel cannot be isolated from the work area via localized cofferdams, piles, etc., dewatering will be necessary. If so, see dewatering section below for details. Potential Impacts: Installation of instream habitat features may result in temporary construction related impacts to biological resources, hydrological resources, and cultural resources during dewatering and excavation, if necessary. Technical Requirements • Structures will be designed to withstand a 100-year (Q100) storm event. • Features should be designed and implemented in accordance with the CDFW’s California Salmonid Stream Habitat and Restoration Manual (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/HabitatManual.asp) or in coordination with staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or CDFW. Some examples of the features that could be utilized in Marsh Creek include Digger Logs (p. VII-26 of the manual), Spider Logs (p. VII-27), and Log, Root Wad, and Boulder Combinations (p. VII-28). • Structures designs will be stamped by a registered civil engineer or licensed landscape architect. • Hydraulic analysis will need to demonstrate that structures result in either a neutral or beneficial effect on local channel capacity and do not result in elevated water surface elevations during a Q50 or above recurrence interval storm directly upstream or downstream from the project site. • Site specific biological and cultural resource surveys and monitoring may need to be conducted if installation requires dewatering, isolation of wetted areas, and/or excavation. Vegetation Maintenance (after 5-year establishment period) Vegetation within the new widened channel may require limited maintenance in order to (a) remove nonnative invasive species, (b) maintain as-designed roughness standards to ensure post-project channel capacity, and (c) enable the maintenance of public safety via visual access through the restored sites. Vegetation maintenance will be implemented on an as-needed basis and will be conducted in accordance with the conditions of the CCCFCD’s existing (or renewed) Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW and in any maintenance plan developed in association with a restoration project. The current CCCFCD Routine Maintenance Agreement only applies to maintenance of facilities on CCCFCD fee title properties and within Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 17 CCCFCD Program Element Description CCCFCD easements. As such, any activities that occur outside of CCCFCD ownership will be required to obtain an individual agreement with CDFW. We expect the terms and conditions of any individual maintenance agreement to be similar to the existing CCCFCD agreement. Routine maintenance activities currently authorized under the Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW include clearing of debris from existing culverts, minor vegetation removal, debris removal in streams sufficient to restore water flow, bank stabilization and erosion control using bio- engineered techniques, and removal of hazardous man-made structures from water bodies for public safety and habitat improvement. Potential Impacts: Vegetation management could result in impacts to biological resources and hydrologic resources. Technical Requirements • Develop a long-term maintenance plan for any revegetation site implemented under the Program. The Plan should articulate goals and triggers for vegetation management, methods for vegetation management, responsibilities for vegetation management, and clear avoidance and minimization measures. • Follow specific terms and conditions for avoidance and minization as articulated in the CCCFCD Routine Maintenance Agreement and/or individual agreements developed for vegetation management at the project site(s). Temporary Channel Crossing During project implementation, it may be necessary for heavy equipment to cross the wetted channel. If this is the case and dewatering will not be necessary to install instream structures, a temporary instream crossing may be necessary. Temporary channel crossings could consist of either (a) 1 -3 temporary culverts placed in the stream with clean sand or gravel bags used to keep them in place, or (b) a series of industrial “super-sacks” filled with clean sand or gravel. Other options may be appropriate given the site conditions. In addition, temporary channel crossing structures would include some type of stable material for equipment to drive on top of the instream materials. Appropriate materials include, but are not limited to, crane mats, plywood, or compacted gravel. All of this material would be removed, after the temporary crossing is no longer in use or if a storm is expected that would result in flows beyond the capacity of the crossing. If the contractor uses clean river-run gravel as part of the temporary crossing, this material may be approved by resources agencies to be left in the stream to help improve instream conditions. Potential Impacts: Construction and removal of temporary channel crossing could result in impacts to biological or hydrologic resources in the form of sediment release or fluids from construction equipment, flow obstruction, and impacts to aquatic species. Technical Requirements • If the crossing requires pipes or culverts, project engineer or hydrologist would provide discharge requirements for temporary crossings. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 18 CCCFCD Program Element Description • Any sand or gravel bags will need to be filled with washed materials, so as to not result in water quality impacts. Channel Dewatering Dewatering a portion of a stream during constr uction is completed to allow equipment access to the active channel while protecting water quality and aquatic species. Dewatering involves isolating the work area using temporary structures such as cofferdams and the pumping of water around the worksite in order to maintain flows downstream. Cofferdams are generally installed at the top and bottom of the dewatered site and are constructed of clean sand or gravel bags wrapped in visqueen or plastic with pipes for gravity feeding water past the work area. Prior to installing the cofferdam, approved/qualified biologists should clear the site of aquatic species and install block nets above and below where the cofferdams are to be located. If salmonids or other fish are expected to be in the dewatered area, fish biologists will capture and relocate all native aquatic species the area prior to dewatering. In addition to gravity feed, subsurface pumps may be necessary to collect groundwater and allow for excavation. Clean stream water that is flowing through a gravity feed system would be discharged downstream of the bottom cofferdam. Groundwater or excess water removed from the site via pumps or sumps may require treating before it is returned to the creek (depending of turbidity levels). Baker boxes, temporary stilling basins or discharge into uplands is acceptable for turbid water. It should be noted that dewatering is implemented to protect resources such as aquatic biota and water quality. If localized isolation of a small (25x 25) area or a portion of the channel is possible to accomplish the construction tasks, it is ideal to avoid dewatering and focus on local isolation techniques. Local isolation has a smaller impact footprint and generally can be installed rapidly, removed immediately after construction is complete, and provide an appropriate level of resource protection. These techniques might include silt fences, clean sand or gravel bags and small 1-2 “trash” pumps to enable a limited earth moving or structure installation within the active channel. Potential Impacts: To be effective, cofferdams need to be trenched into the channel bottom and this work occurs prior to dewatering and can result in localized, temporary sediment mobilization and impact to hydrologic, biological, and cultural resources. Groundwater pumping to reduce flow can also result in turbid water on-site and downstream. Aquatic species need to be removed and relocated prior to dewatering, which can result in impacts to these species related to handling. Technical Requirements • Dewatering system should be designed by a registered engineer and be included as part of the stamped project plans. Plan should include pipe sizing, approximate locations of cofferdams, cofferdam design concepts, and specifications on addressing potential turbidity of removing groundwater or shallow seepage. • Pumps will be screened to meet current CDFW and NOAA screening criteria. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 19 CCCFCD Program Element Description • CDFW, RWQCB, and/or other agencies may require approval of dewatering plans prior to onset of construction. • Capture and relocation of aquatic species would be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols from NMFS and CDFW. The HCP/NCCP does not provide coverage for listed fish. Removal of Existing Structures or Debris Removal and disposal of unwanted structures and debris from waterways and/or areas to be restored, will occur as-needed. Unwanted structures could include old out-buildings, barns, or other structures within the footprint of the specific project to be implemented. Debris could include large appliances, concrete, car parts, and garbage found during grubbing or excavation (items that are anthropogenic and not natural to the system). Anthropogenic material will be removed, hauled away and disposed of at approved recycling facilities or landfills. Potential Impacts: Removal of debris could result in impacts to historic structures, biological resources, or impact to water quality through disturbance of associated soils and materials that are part of the debris. Technical Requirements • Any structures to be relocated or demolished should be clearly shown on the project design plans. Removal of any structures must comply with the applicable local Building Ordinances and cultural resource regulations. • If debris could contain hazardous materials (e.g., coolant in a refrigerator or oil in a motor), removal will be completed in a way that avoids any further release of hazardous materials. Utility Line Protection and Relocation Utility lines such as sewer lines, drainage outfalls, power lines, and/or other utilities will need to be protected and/or be relocated/modified in order to accommodate grading and excavation work associated with implementing projects within this Program. Protection of utility lines is preferred over relocation and modification. For example, a 33” municipal sewer line runs 15 feet under either the east or west bank of Marsh Creek in the City of Brentwood and this line needs to be avoided. If a line cannot be avoided and requires either relocation or modification, engineering will be designed and implemented in coordination with the utility company, the applicable City, and the CCCFCD. Potential Impacts: Impacts to utility lines could affect ability of utilities to deliver essential services to the communities that rely on them. Moreover, inadvertent impacts to sewerlines could result in water quality impacts. Depending on location, removal and relocation could result in removal of vegetation and ground-distrubance, which could result in impacts to biological and/or cultural resources. Technical Requirements • Project design team must coordinate and work with the owner of the utility to ensure that appropriate protections are in place to avoid impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided and lines must be relocated or modified, plans are to be approved by the owner of the utility and all necessary authorizations are to be obtained before work begins, operations are not to be disrupted to the greatest extent practicable during construction, and relocated utility lines are constructed as-designed and operate as-designed. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 20 CCCFCD Program Element Description • For the sewer line running along Marsh Creek through Brentwood, the City has stated 1) no trees should be planted within a buffer of 6 feet on either side of the sewer line as measured from the point above ground directly above the sewer line, 2) all existing manholes have to remain at or above the 100-year water surface elevation, and 3) the channel cannot be widened above the sewer line. Recreational Improvements Projects implemented under this Program could enhance opportunities for walking, hiking, and biking in the Program Area. In certain cases, the existing Marsh Creek Regional Trail or other local trail routes may need to be relocated to accommodate the widened channel and the newly created top of the bank. Any relocated trail sections would be designed in collaboration with EBRPD, City of Brentwood and/or City of Oakley Parks and R ecreation Department to ensure that the materials, specifications, and practices meet or exceed existing parameters and are consistent with long-term trail planning. Recreational improvements consistent with local trail plans, EBRPD plans, and/or the HCP/NCCP may include trail realignments, new trail connections, free-span pedestrian bridges, benches, interpretive signs, and educational features. Potential Impacts: Construction related to recreational improvements could impact biological, cultural and wat er quality resources. Hardened infrastructure developed in areas that are currently undeveloped could result in a small but permanent loss of habitat. Technical Requirements • Project design team must coordinate and work with the owner of all trails and recreational facilities to ensure that: (a) relocation or modification plans are approved by the owner and meet the operating agencies design standards, (b) all necessary authorizations are obtained before work begins, (c) trails and recreational facilities are not disrupted, to the greatest extent practicable during construction, and (d) relocated trails and recreational facilities are constructed as-designed and operate as- designed. • Trails are subject to the limitations on exceptions to HCP/NCCP strea m setback requirements. Project proponents are encouraged to site trails and access roads outside the required setback to reduce disturbance to wildlife that use adjacent streams and riparian habitats. When roads and trails cannot be sited outside the required setback, they must be sited as far from the stream channel as practicable, must adhere to limitations on exceptions to stream setback requirements described in HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.7 and Table 6-2. • Project proponents are encouraged to use permeable or semi-permeable surfaces on roads and trails within stream setbacks. • Any trails or recreational facilities to be added, improved or relocated should be clearly shown on the project design plans. Acquisition of Property in Fee-title or Easement In order to implement the Program, public and private lands within the Program Area may need to be sold, donated or deed restricted. Land sales or transfers in fee-title or easement to public agencies such as CCCFCD, Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 21 CCCFCD Program Element Description EBRPD, or others is considered a key component of this program. While the sale or donation of a right-of-way will not, in and of itself, result in changes to the environment, it is assumed that land transactions that are a part of this program will be completed in order to enable ecological restoration activities to occur. Potential Impacts: There are no direct impacts from the transfer, donations or sale of land and all indirect impacts are described in the Program elements above. Technical Requirements • Indirect impacts from sale, transfer or donation of real property, right-of- way, or deed restrictions that are completed as part of implementing the Program are considered in the Initial Study for the Program. In general, projects within this Program would range from being as small as < 0.5 acre to being as large as 6.5 acres. Table 2 provides average dimensions and maximums for potential individual projects. These numbers were developed using data from the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project as well as opportunities identified in the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan (American Rivers 2015). Table 2: General Individual Project Dimensions Length of Channel Improved Average: 750’; Max: 5,000’ Width of Cross-section Improved* Average: 30’; Max: 90’ Area Improved** Average: 0.75 acre; Max: 6.5 acres. Volume of Soil Removed Average: 5000 cu. yards; Max: 45,000 cu. yards. *max of 90ft includes 75ft from top of bank and 15ft below top of bank on either side of the stream. ** max area of improvement limited to 6 acres to allow for 0.5 acres of staging and accessories impacts. A1.9. Planning/Preconstruction Measures Projects implemented under this Program will be required to develop stamped engi neering plans and specifications from the Project Applicant as well as appropriate technical analyses that will enable meaningful review of the project by the CCCFCD and other responsible agencies. Table 3 is a summary of the key site/project-specific analyses that will be required for each project to ensure impacts are mitigated to a less-than- significant level and benefits to flood conveyance, habitat restoration, and recreation are maximized to the greatest extent practicable. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 22 CCCFCD Table 3: Preconstruction Related Measures Measure ID Name Measure Pre-Con 1 Hydraulic Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND are required to provide a hydraulic analysis that demonstrates the project, as-designed and expected to evolve over the initial 5-year period, has either a neutral or positive benefit for local flood conveyance capacity as well as water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the site. Pre-Con 2 Biological Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to follow the HCP/NCCP biological survey protocols to document site- specific existing biological conditions and any known or potential habitat for special-status species. Consistent with the HCP/NCCP planning survey protocols, any new records of sensitive species will be submitted to the CNDDB. Additional studies may be required to address non-HCP-covered species and for Section 7 Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or species listed under California Endangered Species Act, to address any potential impacts to listed fishes or critical habitat. Pre-Con 3 Cultural Resource Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to conduct a record search of the database at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University (NWIC) to determine if known archaeological or historic resources would be impacted by the site-specific project. If the project could result in impacts to know cultural resources, additional field surveys may be required. Project specific cultural resource analyses should be developed to meet CEQA requirements, AB 52 requirements, as well as the Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Pre-Con 4 Geotechnical Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to submit a project-specific geotechnical analysis to ensure that slopes, soils, and design elements meet current geotechnical standards for slope stability and earth movement. Pre-Con 5 Maintenance Plan All projects covered under this Programmatic Programmatic IS/MND will be required to develop a maintenance plan to (a) provide for specific goals and triggers for maintenance in the first 5 years after implementation, (b) articulate roles and responsibilities for short-term and long-term maintenance of the site, and (c) be in accordance with resource agency permits. This plan will also contain an Adaptive Management element, which will guide future modifications of the sites to ensure that target ecological benefits continue to accrue into the future and an Invasive Species Management element to ensure that sites do not become source areas for invasive plants. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 23 CCCFCD A1.10. General Construction Sequencing and Work Window The following provides a sequential list of the general steps that would occur during construction: ▪ Preconstruction surveys completed and submitted to resource agencies, sensitive areas are flagged. ▪ Project area is staked by engineer or survey firm for rough grading. ▪ Material and equipment mobilized to the staging area. ▪ Erosion and sediment control practices installed (see Table 4). ▪ Material and equipment mobilized to project site. ▪ Fish relocation, dewatering, etc., if applicable. ▪ Rough grading completed and then final grading, after approval. ▪ Areas temporarily disturbed during construction restored to pre-construction conditions. ▪ Material and equipment removed from the project site. ▪ Final erosion control measures installed, including seeding of native pla nt species. ▪ Planting of live plants in riparian and wetland areas, plants fenced or protected. All grading, earthwork outside of the active channel and channel banks will be conducted between April 15 th and October 31st. Grading and earthwork in and adjacent to the active channel and erosion control work will take place between July 1st and October 31st. Restoration planting will occur between October and February after structural erosion control practices and seeding has been implemented. A1.11. Construction Equipment Typical heavy equipment including scrapers, excavator, backhoes, and tracked trucks would be used. Low ground pressure (LGP) equipment would be used to transport exported material between cut and fill areas. Equipment and vehicles would be staged along existing access roads or dedicated staging areas. Access would be limited to pre- established access routes/roads. All equipment would be steam-cleaned prior to arrival on-site to reduce the chances of non-native seeds or species being introduced by construction equipment. A1.12. Construction-Related Best-Management Practices Table 4 provides a list of general construction-related measures that will be applied to all projects that are implemented under this Program. This list is not exhaustive but BMPs are consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 (pages 6-33). Key preconstruction planning measures are listed in Table 3 and measures specific to each resource area are listed in the appropriate Initial Study sections. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be prepared for this IS/MND will provide an acc ounting of all measures required for projects being implemented under this Program. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 24 CCCFCD Table 4: Construction-Related Best Management Practices Measure ID Name Measure C1 Erosion Control and Construction- Related Turbidity 1 Gravel/sand bags or other erosion control measures will be employed to prevent runoff and construction-related turbidity. 2 Upland soils exposed due to construction activities will be stabilized using native or noninvasive seed and, if necessary to control erosion, straw mulch. 3 Any erosion control fabric will consist of natural fibers that will biodegrade over time. No plastic or other nonporous material will be used as part of a permanent erosion control approach. 4 Other erosion control measures shall be i mplemented as necessary to ensure that sediment or other contaminants do not reach surface water bodies for stockpiled or reused/disposed sediments. 5 Any fertilizer required for erosion control will be low nitrogen to avoid favoring invasive species. C2 Staging and Stockpiling of Materials 1 All construction equipment will be staged in upland areas, away from sensitive natural communities or habitats. 2 All construction-related items, including equipment, stockpiled material, temporary erosion control treatments, and trash will be removed within 72 hours of project completion. All residual soils and/or materials will be cleared from the project site. 3 Building materials and other construction-related materials, including chemicals, will not be stockpiled or stored where they could spill into water bodies or storm drains, or where they could cover aquatic or riparian vegetation. C3 Spill Prevention and Response Plan A Spill Prevention and Response Plan will be developed prior to commencement of construction activities and will summarize the measures described below. The work site will be routinely inspected to verify that the Spill Prevention and Response Plan is properly implemented and maintained. Contractors will be notified immediately if there is a noncompliance issue. 1 Equipment and materials for cleanup of spills will be available on-site. 2 All spills and leaks will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. 3 Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material control, and cleanup of accidental spills. 4 Field personnel shall implement measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means. 5 Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). All field personnel shall be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate use. 6 Absorbent materials will be used on small spills located on impervious surfaces rather than hosing down the spill; wash waters shall not discharge to surface waters. For small spills on pervious surfaces such as soils, wet Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 25 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure materials will be excavated and properly disposed of rather than buried. The absorbent materials will be collected and disposed of properly and promptly. 7 As defined in 40 CFR 110, a federal reportable spill of petroleum products is the spilled quantity that: ▪ Violates applicable water quality standards; ▪ Causes a film or sheen on, or discoloration of, the water surface or adjoining shoreline; or ▪ Causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent will notify the Project applicant and the Project applicant will take action to contact the appropriate safety and cleanup crews to ensure that the Spill Prevention and Response Plan is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the appropriate RWQCB and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). This submittal must contain a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases will be documented on a spill report form. If an appreciable spill has occurred, and results determine that project activities have adversely affected surface water or groundwater quality, a detailed analysis will be performed to the specifications of DTSC to identify the likely cause of contamination. This analysis will include recommendations for reducing or eliminating the source or me chanisms of contamination. Based on this analysis, the Land Trust or contractors will select and implement measures to control contamination, with a performance standard that surface and groundwater quality must be returned to baseline conditions. These measures will be subject to approval by the Project applicant, DTSC, and the RWQCB. C4 Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance and Cleaning 1 All vehicles and equipment will be kept clean. Excessive build-up of oil or grease will be prevented. 2 Vehicle and equipment maintenance activities will be conducted in a designated area to prevent inadvertent fluid spills from adversely impacting water quality. This area will be clearly designated with berms, sandbags, or other barriers. 3 Secondary containment, such as a drain pan or drop cloth, to catch spills or leaks will be used when removing or changing fluids. Fluids will be stored in Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 26 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure appropriate containers with covers, and properly recycled or disposed of off - site. 4 Cracked batteries will be stored in a nonleaking secondary container and removed from the site. 5 Spill cleanup materials will be stockpiled where they are readily accessible. 6 Incoming vehicles and equipment will be checked for leaking oil and fluids (including delivery trucks and employee and subcontractor ve hicles). Leaking vehicles or equipment will not be allowed on-site. 7 Vehicles and equipment will not be washed on-site. Vehicle and equipment washing will occur at an appropriate wash station. C5 Refueling 1 All fueling sites shall be equipped with secondary containment and avoid a direct connection to underlying soil, surface water, or the storm drainage system. 2 For stationary equipment that must be fueled on-site, secondary containment such as a drain pan or drop cloth shall be provided in such a manner to prevent accidental spill of fuels to underlying soil, surface water, or the storm drainage system. C6 On-Site Hazardous Materials Management 1 The products used and/or expected to be used and the end products that are produced and/or expected to be produced after their use will be inventoried. 2 As appropriate, containers will be properly labeled with a “Hazardous Waste” label and hazardous waste will be properly recycled or disposed of off site. 3 Contact of chemicals with precipitation will be minimiz ed by storing chemicals in watertight containers or in a storage shed (completely enclosed), with appropriate secondary containment to prevent any spillage or leakage. 4 Quantities of equipment fuels and lubricants greater than 55 gallons shall be provided with secondary containment that is capable of containing 110 percent of the volume of primary container(s). 5 Petroleum products, chemicals, cement, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water or water contaminated with the aforementioned materials shall not be allowed to enter receiving waters or the storm drainage system. 6 Sanitation facilities (e.g., portable toilets) will be surrounded by a berm, and a direct connection to the storm drainage system or receiving water will be avoided. 7 Sanitation facilities will be regularly cleaned and/or replaced, and inspected regularly for leaks and spills. 8 Waste disposal containers will be covered when they are not in use, and a direct connection to the storm drainage system or receiving water will be avoided. 9 All trash that is brought to a project site during construction activities (e.g., plastic water bottles, plastic lunch bags) will be removed from the site daily. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 27 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure C7 Fire Prevention 1 All earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustio n engines will be equipped with spark arrestors. 2 During the high fire danger period (April 1–December 1), work crews will have appropriate fire suppression equipment available at the work site. 3 On days when the fire danger is high, flammable materials will be kept at least 10 feet away from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame. 4 On days when the fire danger is high, portable tools powered by gasoline - fueled internal combustion engines will not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials unless at least one round-point shovel or fire extinguisher is within immediate reach of the work crew (no more 25 feet away from the work area). C8 Work Site Housekeeping 1 The work site will be maintained in a neat and orderly condition, and left in a neat, clean, and orderly condition when work is complete. 2 Materials or equipment left on the site overnight will be stored as inconspicuously as possible and will be neatly ar ranged. C9 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Required Dust Control Measures 1 The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD basic fugitive dust control measures, including: ▪ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ▪ All visible mud or dirt track-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. ▪ All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ▪ Paving shall be restored as soon as possible after construction/repair is complete. ▪ A publicly visible sign shall be posted at each active worksite with the telephone number and person to contact at the CCCFCD regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A1.13. Potential Permits and Approvals from Public Agencies A critical component of planning projects is understanding the jurisdiction of multiple regulatory agencies and the types of approvals or permits that might be necessary to implement a project. The following is a list of potentially affected agencies and the corresponding type of approval that may be required. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 28 CCCFCD • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): A Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permit would be required for placement of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States and work within navigable waters respectively. Individual projects under the Program would be designed to meet the conditions described in the Sacramento USACE Regional General Permit #1 (SPK -2001-00147), which covers discharge of dredge material or fill into Waters of the US under Section 404 of the CWA within the HCP/NCCP Program Area. • California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) implementing regulations, as set forth in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 800 et. seq., require federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with stakeholders, including SHPO, on potential effects to resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For projects covered under this Program, the most likely Federal agency to consult with SHPO will be the USACE through the 404 process. • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and Magnuson- Stevens compliance would be required for potential effects on anadromous fish species federally-listed as threatened or endangered and effects on Essential Fish Habitat. Fall -run Chinook salmon are the salmonids known to currently use Marsh Creek at this point in time. This run is not listed unde r the FESA and neither juveniles nor adults would likely be in Marsh Creek during the late summer or early fall due to their life history. Marsh Creek is not considered Essential Fish Habitat by NMFS. For projects in Marsh Creek that are being conducted during the summer and early fall, consultation with NMFS may not be necessary, but changed circumstances such as observations of listed steelhead could result in the need for Section 7 consultations with NMFS. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): FESA compliance would be required for potential effects on federally listed wildlife and resident aquatic species as threatened or endangered. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would be necessary to protect active nests of native birds. For projects under this Program, with the exception of any listed or special-status fishes, this compliance should mainly be accessed through the HCP/NCCP process (see below). • East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP): The Program is located within HCP/NCCP inventory area and projects will be required to submit a Planning Survey Report (PSR). Projects within the Program would be consistent with Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 and all applicable conditions articulated in Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources and special -status species recovery in eastern Contra Costa County while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on these species and associated habitats. The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of Federal Endangered Species Act and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are author ized for incidental take of HCP/NCCP covered species. Projects completed under HCP/NCCP coverage may be subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed b y the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Project implemented under this Program may be required to pay HCP/NCCP fees. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Section 401 of the CWA requires that any person applying for a federal CWA (Section 404) authorization, which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, must obtain a Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 29 CCCFCD state water quality certification that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. No authorization may be issued by a federal agency until 401certification has been granted. • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Construction General Permit (CGP: Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land, and construction on smaller sites that are part of a larger project, must comply with a Construction General Permit that regulates stormwater leaving construction sites (Section 402 of the CWA). Site owners must notify the state, prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and monitor the effectiveness of the plan. The contractor will need this permit right before construction as part of the Notice of Intent. • San Francisco Bay RWQCB, Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Any creek restoration done in conjunction with a project (i.e. subdivision development, or parking lot construction) to discharge stormwater to Marsh, Sand or Deer creeks would require compliance with the NPDES permit. Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) section 402(p), storm water permits are required for discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 or more. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have adopted NPDES permits to regulate storm water for municipalities. The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2 -2015-0049) is the governing stormwater permit for all of Contra Cos ta County.)1 • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, would be required for work within the bed, channel or bank of the marsh. The project would also be required to comply with Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code, and compliance with California Endangered Species Act (which may require obtaining an Incidental Take Permit), as applicable for non-HCP/NCCP covered species. In addition, all native bird species that occur in the project site are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW. • Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCD): Any proposed work, activity, or encroachment in/on CCCFCD property or right of way requires that a CCCFCD Permit be obtain from the CCCFCD. The CCCFCD also requires an environmental document be adopted for most Flood Control Permit applications. In additi on, work on private and public watercourses and drainage facilities in the unincorporated County areas is regulated by the Contra Costa County 1010 Drainage Ordinance. The 1010 Drainage Ordinance may require a drainage permit from the County for any work that involves man-made drainage facilities or natural watercourses. Some of the activities covered by this 1 The eastern portion of the County, which drains to the Delta and includes portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County, Flood Control District jurisdiction, and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, is located within the geographic jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Wa ter Board. The other County municipalities, including portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County and remaining Flood Control District jurisdiction, drain to the San Francisco Bay and are regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, and are Permittees subject to the San Fra ncisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049). This stormwater permit is commonly known as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP. Permittees located within the Central Valley Region were previously regulated under the East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Board (Order No. R5-2010-0102). In a designation letter issued pursuant to Water Code 13228(b), dated January 6, 2017, an agreement was reached between the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Boards to transfer regulatory authority of the communities in the eastern portion of the County from the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. Therefore, the MRP is th e governing NPDES permit for the entire County. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 30 CCCFCD permit requirement include: Construction of creek improvements or bank stabilization, creek cleanup, removal/alteration of creek bank-stabilizing vegetation, construction of improvements within drainage easements or within natural watercourses, and construction or modification of drainage facilities. • Contra Costa County Environmental Health (CCEH): Any proposed work that requires coring, boring, or we ll drilling will require a subsurface exploration permit from CCEH. In addition, any abandoned wells or septic systems that will be impacted during construction must be destroyed under a permit from CCEH. • Delta Stewardship Council (Council): The Council will require a Certification of Consistency for this Program and possibly projects implemented under the Program. Created by the legislature in 2009, the Council is composed of members who represent different parts of the state and offer diverse expertise in fields such as agriculture, science, the environment, and public service. Of the seven, four are appointed by the Governor, one each by the Senate and Assembly, and the seventh is the Chair of the Delta Protection Commission. The Council is charged with implementing the Delta Plan. Projects implemented under this CEQA document have been specifically developed to be consistent with the Delta Plan as they are all multi-benefit projects that will reduce flood risk associated with a changing climate, improve Delta water quality, restore denuded stream-side habitat, and enhance the Delta as a place. In addition, the Delta Plan’s 2013 MMRP has been reviewed and cross-referenced with the MMRP for the Program and two documents are generally consistent across resources areas. In addition, this Program directly supports the Delta Plan’s co-equal goals as well as the following policies: o General Policy 1 (G P1): Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan- This has been done through review of the MMRP, use of best available science in future restoration and flood management planning, and development of an adaptative management framework (note that while the Delta plan technically requires projects demonstrate funding for implementation of adaptive management, this unfunded mandate will not be possible for small, grant funded restoration projects like those covered under this Program). o Ecosystem Restoration Policy 3 (ER P3): Protect Opportunities to Restore Habitat - While this Program does not control land-use decision making, it has been developed specifically to incentive local agencies, landowners, and developers to not only protect opportunities to restore habitat, but to implement habitat restoration. o Ecosystem Restoration Policy 5 (ER P5): Avoid Introductions of and Habitat Improvements for Invasive Nonnative Species- Each project implemented under the Program will follow best management practices to avoid introductions during construction and will have a Management Plan with specific triggers for vegetation management and control/eradication of invasive plants from within the project site. o Delta as Place Policy 2 (DP P2): Respect Local Land Use when Siting Water or Flood Facilities or Restoring Habitats- This Program has been explicitly developed in collaboration with the Contra Costa County and both the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. o Risk Reduction Policy 3: Protect Floodways- This Program has been designed with co-equal benefits, much like the Delta Plan, and focuses on increase the capacity of existing floodways through permanent protection and restoration of streamside parcles on Ma rsh, Sand and Deer creeks. All work will be done in coordination with CCCFCD to ensure that local flood risk is reduced through implementation of the Program. • East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Encroachment Permit: Any restoration work on the east ba nk of Marsh Creek will most likely impact the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, operated by the EBRPD. The EBRPD has an easement to maintain and operate the trail on CCCFCD property. The EBRPD also maintains and manages parks, staging areas and other facilities along the creeks. The EBRPD requires an encroachment permit for any project that impacts their trails or facilities. The encroachment permit Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 31 CCCFCD requires a brief narrative description of the project and the exact location of the project. Larger projects require construction drawings and a trail re-routing plan if the Marsh Creek Trail will need to be closed or re-routed during construction. If a project will require a realignment of an existing trail, a new trail connection, or new trail infrastructure, this should be done in consultation with EBRPD. • Cities of Brentwood or Oakley: The cities will likely require encroachment permits, grading permits, and possibly building or planning permits, depending on the scope and scale of the project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 32 CCCFCD B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED All of the following potential environmental impacts are evaluated in this Initial Study. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by t he proposed program. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources / Tribal Cultural Resources Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions Geology / Soils Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance None with Mitigation Incorporated For the environmental issue areas where there is no potential for signifi cant environmental impact, there is no potential for significant environmental impact to occur from construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project. This finding can be made using the project description, environmental setting, or other information as supporting evidence, which is provided in the Environmental Checklist below. For those environmental issue areas where there is potential for significant environmental impact, mitigation measures have been identified in this document that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 33 CCCFCD C. LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name Title Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 34 CCCFCD D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS2 The Environmental Checklist and discussion that follows is based on sample questions provided in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), which focus on various individual concerns within 17 different broad environmental categories, such as air quality, cultural resources, land use and traffic (and generally arranged in alphabetical order). The Guidelines also provide specific direction and guidance for preparing responses to the Environmental Checklist. Each question in the Checklist essentially requires a “yes” or “no” reply as to whether or not the project will have a potentially significant environmental impact of a certain type, and, following a Checklist table with all of the questions in each major environmental heading, citations, information and/or discussion that supports that determination. T he Checklist table provides, in addition to a clear “yes” reply and a clear “no” reply, two possible “in-between” replies, including one that is equivalent to “yes, but with changes to the project that the proponent and the Lead Agency have agreed to, “no”, and another “no” reply that requires a greater degree of discussion, supported by citations and analysis of existing conditions, threshold(s) of significance used and project effects than required for a simple “no” reply. Each possible answer to the questions in the Checklist, and the different type of discussion required, are discussed below: ▪ Potentially Significant Impact. Checked if a discussion of the existing setting (including relevant regulations or policies pertaining to the subject) and project characteristics with regard to the environmental topic demonstrates, based on substantial evidence, supporting information, previously prepared and adopted environmental documents, and specific criteria or thresholds used to assess significance, that the project will have a potentially significant impact of the type described in the question. ▪ Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Checked if the discussion of existing conditions and specific project characteristics, also adequately supported with citations of relevant research or documents, determine that the project clearly will or is likely to have particular physical impacts that will exceed the given threshold or criteria by which significance is determined, but that with the incorporation of clearly defined mitigation measures into the project, that the project applicant or proponent has agreed to, such impacts will be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels. ▪ Less Than Significant Impact. Checked if a more detailed discussion of existing conditions and specific project features, also citing relevant information, reports or studies, demonstrates that, while some effects 2 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information s ources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence leading to a fair argument that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made without the possibility of mitigation, then an EIR is required. "Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact.” Mitigation measures and a brief explanation of how or whether they reduce the effect to a l ess than significant level is provided in the text of this report. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, Program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. This checklist incorporates references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document includes, where appropriate, a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantia ted. A source list is attached and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 35 CCCFCD may be discernible with regard to the individual environmental topic of the question, the effect would not exceed a threshold of significance which has been established by the Lead or a Responsible Agency. The discussion may note that due to the evidence that a given impact would not occur or would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required. ▪ No Impact. Checked if brief statements (one or two sentences) or cited reference materials (maps, reports or studies) clearly show that the type of impact could not be reasonably expected to occur due to the specific characteristics of the project or its location (e.g., the project falls outside the nearest fault rupture zone, or is several hundred feet from a 100-year flood zone, and relevant citations are provided). The referenced sources or information may also show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A response to the question may also be "No Impact" with a brief explanation that the basis of adequately supported project-specific factors or general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a basic screening of the specific project). The discussions of the replies to the Checklist questions must take account of the whole project involved in the project, including off-site as well as on-site effects, both cumulative and project-level impacts, indirect and direct effects, and construction as well as operational impacts. Except when a “No Impact” reply is indicated, the discussion of each issue must identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance, with sufficient description to briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the Guidelines). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis” c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 36 CCCFCD E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS E1. AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. X c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. X E1.1. Setting Within its boundaries, Contra Costa County (the County) identifies scenic ridges and waterways as the two main scenic resources, in addition to many localized scenic features. Scenic ridges include hillsides and rock outcroppings and scenic waterways include the San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays. 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 Program Area. Views of Mount Diablo and the foothills are scenic resources within the Program Area. These scenic views provide an important balance to current and planned development (Contra Costa County 2005). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State Scenic Highway Program, provides guidance, and assists local government agencies, community organizations, and citizens with the process to officially designate scenic highways. There are no officially designated scenic highways in the proposed Program Area; however State Route 160 near Antioch and Highway 4 in Brentwood are currently categorized as Eligible State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2018). Would the Program: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views of a hig hly valued landscape. Public views of the Program Area in some locations could be considered expansive and a scenic vista. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 37 CCCFCD Implementation of the projects moving forward under the proposed Program would change these views by widening the floodplain and planting riparian vegetation along the creek(s). The views may be temporarily impacted during construction of individual projects. Some views may be permanently impacted a s a result of riparian vegetation growth. These impacts would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista because after project implementation the views of restored parcels would consist of riparian vegetation – an improvement over the current condition of undeveloped (ruderal) parcels. Views of distant foothills and Mt. Diablo may be obscured by the growing vegetation; however, users of the open space would have access to alternative views of the scenic resources from within the Program Area. Less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Projects within the Program Area would not result in any damage to scenic resources . Existing, non-native trees may be removed to accommodate the restoration project but the transition from ruderal habitat to riparian habitat would result in improved views from and within the Program Area. Less than significant. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the projec t conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Program Area primarily consists of open water, trapezoidal channels with little to no riparian vegetation surrounded by ruderal habitat. The proposed Program would improve the visual character of the individual project sites and their surroundings through riparian planting. Implementation of the Program would not result in degradation to the visual character of the area not conflict with any regulations governing scenic quality. No impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Construction of projects under the proposed Program would not result in a new source of nighttime lighting as no night work is permitted. No permanent lighting would be installed or allowed under the proposed Program. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 38 CCCFCD E2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 nonagricultural use. X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. X 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 Public Resources Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X 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. X E2.1. Setting This section describes the environmental setting, regulatory setting and any potential impacts on agricultural and forestry resources that would result from the implementation of the proposed Program. Because the Program covers multiple Creekside parcels within the Program Area, the following discussion and impact evaluation applies generally to the region, but focuses specifically on parcels designated as prime, unique or of statewide importance that are within the Program Area. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in F orest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Contra Costa County currently has 26,484 acres of Prime Farmland, 3,205 acres of Unique Farmland and 7,420 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2010 a). These figures include unincorporated portions of the County and those lands designated by the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005) as Important Agricultural Areas. The County has identified agricultural resources as very valuable and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 39 CCCFCD important. The County has established goals and policies in their General Plan (2005) to enhance and protect farmlands and minimize conflicts with other land uses. Moreover, the voters approved an Urban Limit Line (ULL) for Contra Costa County with Measure C in 1990 an d extended it to 2026 in 2006 with Measure L. The ULL was developed to guide future development, while protecting Open Space land use designation - including agriculture - both in unincorporated and incorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The entire Program Area is within the ULL, which allows for development and is also outside of the defined Agricultural Core to the east of Brentwood (City of Brentwood 2014). The 2014 Brentwood General Plan Land Use Map a nd the 2015 Zoning Map and General Pla n Land Use Map for the City of Oakley reflect the updated land use and zoning designations, consistent with the County General Plan in regards to current and future agricultural land use designations and zoning (City of Oakley 2015). Additional information about the Program Area and vicinity was obtained from review of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). FMMP is a nonregulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Creation of the FMMP was supported by the Legislature and a broad coalition of building, business, government, and conservation interests (California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2016). Data from the FMMP is presented in Figure 6, below. The 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map for Contra Costa County was used to analyze potential impacts from implementation of the Program on properties under the Williamson Act protection. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 40 CCCFCD Figure 6. Important Farmland Map Categories Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 41 CCCFCD Would the Program: 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 nonagricultural use? The entire Program Area is within Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) which allows for development and is also outside of the defined Agricultural Core to the east of Brentwood (City of Brentwood 2014). The FMMP shows Farmland of Local Importance in Oakley, north of Delta Road and west of Sellers Avenue. These parcels are slated for residential development with approved development maps and therefore, implementation of this Program would not result in any additional impact to these FMMP farmlands. There is an additional 1,000 linear ft of Marsh Creek, in Brentwood, that is adjacent to Farmland of Local Importance (upstream of O’Hara Avenue). If fully implemented, the Program could result in impacts of up to 1.8 acres of farmland of this designation. This area is designated by the City of Brentwood as Regional Commercial and Business Park and within the County’s ULL. There is Farmland of Local Importance that is mapped along Sand Creek, upstream of Fairview Avenue. This area is designated by the City of Brentwood in their General Plan as Residential Low Density and Public Facility. If fully implemented, the Program would impact up to 3.7 acres of farmland. There is an additional 1,000 linear ft of stream within the Program Area on Sand Creek, just downstream of Highway 4, which is designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland. This is the only Prime Farmland within the Program Area and, if fully implemented, the Program could impact 0.9 acres of this land. These lands are currently designated by the City of Brentwood as Mixed-Use Transportation and Regional Commercial and they are within the ULL. There is an approximately 3,500 linear ft reach of the Program Area along Marsh Creek, south of Delta Road, in unincorporated Contra Costa County that is designated Agricultural Land, and contains Farmland of Statewide and Farmland of Local Importance. Only 250 linear ft of stream is adjacent to Farmland of Statewide Importance. If the Program were fully implemented along this 250-ft reach of Marsh Creek, a maximum of 0.25 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance would be impacted. An additional 6.75 acres of Farmland of Local Importance could be converted to open space in the form of riparian, wetland or stream habitat, if the Program were fully implemented in this area. However, the conversion or loss of agricultural habitat within t he County’s ULL program is considered less than significant because these lands are no longer designated as agriculture. Agricultural loss or conversion that lies within the ULL is not subject to additional mitigation beyond what has already been implemented through permanent protection of farmland in the Agricultural Core and outside the ULL. Implementation of the Program would have a less than significant impact on Farmland of Statewide Importance, Prime Farmland and/or Unique Farmland within the Program Area. Less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The Program Area contains 2 small parcels (both less than 2 acres) in Oakley, north of Delta R oa d that are currently zoned Limited Agriculture and a couple of parcels adjacent to approximately 3,500 linear feet of Marsh Creek in unincorporated Contra Costa County that are currently zoned as Agriculture. There are no parcels within the Program Area protected under the Williamson Act. R estoring a streamside habitat corridor on zoned farmland does not conflict with existing farmland zoning in Oakley or the County. Therefore, the project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. Less than significant. 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), Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 42 CCCFCD or timberland zoned Timberland Production or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §51104)? The Program Area is not located near land designated as Timber Resource (Christensen, et al 2015). No impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No forest land occurs in or immediately adjacent to the proposed Program Area; therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest us e. No impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? The Program is narrowly focused on work within existing 75 -ft and 50-ft stream setbacks directly adjacent to the top of bank of Marsh Creek and Sand Creek and Deer Creek, respectively. These changes in the environment, if the Program was implemented along the one reach of unincorporated Contra Costa County, would result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses. This impact is a tiny fraction of the existing farmland in Contra Costa County and is entirely within the ULL. Moreover, in nearly all cases, the existing stream setback area has already been converted from agricultural uses to either recreational trails or flood control maintenance roads. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 43 CCCFCD E3. AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. X b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. X d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. X E3.1. Setting The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) currently focus much of their air pollutant control efforts on five major air pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 micron diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 micron diameter (PM2.5). These are the most prevalent air pollutants emitted nationwide and statewide, and they are known to be harmful to human health when their ambient levels exceed certain concentrations. Consequently, federal and state ambient air quality standards have been set for each of these pollutants (known as “criteria” air pollutants”) at levels protective of human health, with an added margin of safety to afford additional protection to the young, the old and the infirm (i.e., sensitive receptors), who are more susceptible to their adverse health effects. Many other chemical compounds, termed toxic air contaminants (TACs), emitted into the air are also regulated to limit their adverse impacts to human health and welfare. In California and in the Bay Area, the majority of the estimated carcinogenic/chronic health ris ks from TAC exposures have been attributed to relatively few TACs, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM), which is responsible for about 80% of the cumulative cancer risk from all airborne TAC exposures. E3.1.1. Methodology This air quality analysis was performed using the methodologies recommended in CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017). According to the Guidelines, any project would have a significant potential for causing/contributing to a local air quality standard violation or making a cumulatively considerable contribution to a regional air quality problem if its criteria pollutant emissions would exceed any of the thresholds during construction or operation as presented in Table 5. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 44 CCCFCD Table 5. CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Construction Average Daily (lbs./day) Operational Average Daily (lbs./day) Maximum Annual (tons/year) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 54 10 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 54 54 10 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 (exhaust) 82 15 Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (Fugitive Dust) BMPsa N/A N/A Notes: BMPs = Best Management Practices for Fugitive Dust (Table 4, Item C9) N/A = Not Applicable a If BAAQMD BMPs for fugitive dust control are implemented during construction, the impacts of such residual emissions are considered to be less than significant. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. The Guidelines also establish a relevant zone of influence for an assessment of project-level and cumulative health risk from TAC exposure to an area within 1,000 feet of a project site (termed the “zone of influence”). Project construction-related or project operational TAC impacts on sensitive receptors within the zone are considered significant if they exceed any of the following thresholds: • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million • A non-cancer hazard index greater than 1.0 • An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for annual average PM2.5 concentrations Cumulative impacts from TACs emitted from various sources 3 within the zone of influence on sensitive receptors would be considered cumulatively signficant if they exceed the following thresholds: • A combined excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million • A combined non-cancer hazard index greater than 10.0 • A combined incremental increase in annual average PM2.5 concentrations greater than 0.8 μg/m3 Would the Program: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Plan), focuses on two closely- related goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate (the latter addressed in Section E 8 Greenhouse Gas). The 2017 Plan defines an integrated, multipollutant control strategy to reduce emissions of particulate matter, TACs, ozone precursors and greenhouse gases (GHG). 3 freeways, state highways or high volume roadways (i.e., the latter defined as having traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles or mo re per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and from all BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 45 CCCFCD The 2017 Plan’s proposed control strategies are based on four key priorities: • Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and TACs from all key sources • Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases • Decrease demand for fossil fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel and natural gas) • Decarbonize the energy system Compliance with approved CEQA emission thresholds are necessary conditions for determi ning whether a project would be consistent with all adopted 2017 Plan control measures and would not interfere with the attainment of 2017 Plan goals. As the analysis below demonstrates, implementation of projects under the Program would not have any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts because these projects would meet all CEQA limits on air pollutant emissions and their consequent health risks to the local population. Less than significant. Program restoration activities would occur at select locations within the Program Area. Restoration activities would take place spring to fall pending permit conditions. Individual projects would typically be approximately 20-45 working days of active construction and are expected to range from 6.5 acres/4,0 00 linear feet to about 1.5 acres/675 linear feet. In some years there could be work on more than one section of the Program Area with each restoration section having a disturbance area/length in the ranges given above. But the number of sections or projects worked on per season would be limited to two or three at most. Work on two or three projects could occur simultaneously without impacting the various thresholds for air quality and therefore no additional analysis would be needed. The Project would generate temporary emissions of criteria pollutants in construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from equipment and material movement. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to the CEQA significance thresholds. Thus, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2) was used for this purpose. Table 6 provides the estimated pollutant emissions from construction equipment, excavation material haul trucks and worker commute vehicles associated with work on each section for three work scenarios that extend over the disturbance area/length ranges given above. The average daily construction period emissions for each scenario were compared to the CEQA significance thresholds, as shown. Daily emissions of each regulated air pollutant from each scenario’s construction activities would be below the CEQA significance thresholds. This would also be the case for work activities occurring at multiple sites along the within the Program Area during the same season, provided the total number of projects in a given season be limited to three sites at most. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 46 CCCFCD Table 6. Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Work Day) Project Seasonal Restoration Effort ROG NOx PM 10 (Exhaust) PM 2.5 (Exhaust) “Large” (6.5 acres worked, extending 4,000 linear feet along creek, with 24,000 cu. yd. excavated) 1.04 14.5 0.5 0.4 “Medium” (4.5 acres worked, extending 2300 linear feet along creek, with 14,000 cu. yd. excavated) 1.05 14.2 0.5 0.4 “Small” (1.5 acres worked, extending 675 linear feet along creek, with 4,800 cu. yd. excavated) 0.93 11.3 0.4 0.4 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No Fugitive dust resulting from earth movement and travel over unpaved ground could lead to local violations of ambient particulate standards unless adequate dust suppression measures are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require a number of construction BMPs to control fugitive dust. Implementation of the Program-wide BMPs (Table 4) by the applicant’s contractor would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national ozone ambient air quality standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national PM2.5 standards; it is “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to standards for all the other major air pollutants. As discussed in s ubsection a) above, Program-related criteria pollutant emissions would be below the BAAQMD CEQA emission significance thresholds. And as discussed below in s ubsection c) below, Program-related TAC impacts would also be below the BAAQMD CEQA project-level and cumulative health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the Program would not have considerable contributions to the Bay Area’s regional problems with ozone and particulate matter, or to local TAC exposures. Less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Cancer risk is the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Following health risk assessment (HRA) guidelines established by the BAAQMD in Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, incremental cancer risks are estimated by applying established toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations. Adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured using a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of a project’s incremental TAC exposure concentration to a published reference exposure level (REL) as determined by OEHHA. If the HI is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 47 CCCFCD Ambient diesel particulate matter (DPM) produced by construction equipment could substantially affect sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the locus of construction activity if such emissions were strong enough and lasted long enough. However, the CEQA significance thresholds for TACs are based on assumptions of exposure duration of a year or longer (i.e., a year for chronic non-cancer health impacts and PM2.5 concentrations; 70 years for cancer risk). Given that only three pieces of equipment (i.e., an excavator, a grader, and a dozer) would be used within each summer-season restoration area over an active period of 20 to 45 working days, the DPM emissions would be relatively minimal and the exposure period for any nearby residential receptors would be short in comparison to the exposure times needed to threaten adverse health impacts. Estimates of DPM emissions from a “large” restoration project (see PM2.5 emissions in Table 6) when used in the SCREEN3 dispersion model (Lakes Environmental, SCREEN View Screening Air Dispersion Model [SCREEN3] User’s Guide) indicate that maximum cancer risk, non-cancer hazard, and annual PM2.5 concentration to nearby residential receptors would be 1.2 per million, 0.03, and 0.16 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM2.5, all substantially below the BAAQMD project-level thresholds. Less than significant. The Program Area includes land uses that are predominantly agricultural or low-density suburban residential. There are a number of BAAQMD-permitted stationary TAC sources in this part of the County, mostly gas stations (sources of benzene emissions, which are carcinogenic) or emergency diesel-powered generators (which emit DPM during periodic, short-duration test operations). Most cluster along the major roadways or in its population/commercial centers and not along the Program Area corridors. The TACs emitted by these stationary sources contribute to local cancer risks and ambient PM2.5 concentrations that are low in comparison to the BAAQMD cumulative CEQA significance thresholds. In the few instances where stationary TAC sources are close to Marsh Creek, their local TAC impacts, in combination with the low cancer risk and PM 2.5 concentration added during short periods (i.e., 20-45 days) of future restoration work, would also be low in comparison to the BAAQMD cumulative thresholds. Less than significant. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BAAQMD CEQA odor criteria considers any project with the potential to frequently expose substantial populations to objectionable odors as causing a significant odor impact. Program activities include odors from equipment exhaust from construction sites, which would be small in scale and short in duration. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 48 CCCFCD E4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identi fied in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. X 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. X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. X E4.1. Setting The Program Area considered in this evaluation covers a maximum of 150 acres in eastern Contra Costa County. Individual projects moving forward under the proposed Program would be situated within predetermined stream setback areas located 75 feet from top of bank of Marsh Creek (with a maximum of 32,870 linear feet) and/or within a stream setback area located 50 feet from the top of bank along 11,445 linear feet of Sand Creek and along 4,185 linear feet of Deer Creek (Figure 2). At this point in Program development, the exact location of project sites is not available; therefore, this impact evaluation considers all biological resources located within the larger 150-acre Program Area. Full build-out of the Program Area would not occur; however, for the purpose of this evaluation a full build-out scenario would represent the “worst case” scenario with regard to temporary, construction-related impacts. From a biological Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 49 CCCFCD perspective, full build-out would represent a best-case scenario for the benefit of the ecological systems and biological resources within the Program Area. Existing conditions within the Program Area primarily consist of anthropomorphic habitats, ruderal, nonnative annual grassland and freshwater marsh habitats. There is little to no woody riparian vegetation along the stream corridors and wetland vegetation in some areas is limited to a narrow 1–3-foot wide fringe along the low flow channel. Though the Program Area is generally degraded it does provide habitat for several common and special- status species including, but not limited to, western pond turtle, occasional adult Chinook salmon, western burrowing owl and periodic foraging California river otters. A brief description of habitat types within the Program Area is provided below. E4.1.1. Habitat Descriptions Anthropogenic Habitat Anthropogenic habitat is dominated by plant species introduced by humans and established or maintained by human disturbances or activities (Holland and Keil 1990). Some are entirely artificial such as areas under active cultivation (e.g., rowcrops, orchards, vineyards). Others include areas used as rangeland or pasture, and areas influenced by urban or suburban landscaping or plantings. Cleared areas that are planted with or colonized by non‐indigenous plant species can create distinct communities dominated by annual grasses and forbs, shrubs, or trees. Some of these communities are only perpetuated with direct human intervention such as irrigation or grazing, while some have naturalized and are able to persist without artificial means. In some situations, introduced non‐indigenous species invade native habitats, altering the composition of the native understory or canopy, or both (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). Ruderal Habitat Ruderal habitat is that from which the native vegetation has been completely removed by grading, cultivation, or other historic surface disturbances. Left undeveloped, such areas typically become recolonized by invasive exotic species. Scattered native species might recolonize the site after disturbance has ceased. Ruderal sites are typically dominated by herbaceous species, although scattered woody shrubs and trees may also begin to appear if left undisturbed long enough. Typical vegetation within the Program Area’s ruderal habitat consists of ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Ruderal sites are scattered throughout the Program area and are characteristic of road sides, fallow agricultural fields, vacant lots, and large landslides. Nonnative Annual Grassland Habitat Non-native annual grassland habitat within the Program Area is present in disjunct locations throughout the Program Area, but primarily within two relatively undisturbed areas just upstream of Fairview Avenue (approximately 60 acres) and upstream of Shady Willow Lane (approximately 45 acres) on Sand Creek. Unlike most of the Program Area, these areas are not in close proximity to human disturbance (e.g., residential developments). This vegetation community is dominated by a sparse to dense cover of non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands as a result of human disturbance. However, where not completely out-competed by weedy non-native plant species, scattered native wildflower species and native perennial grass species considered remnants of the original vegetation, may also be common. Non-native grassland intergrades with other vegetation communities on site, in particular ruderal areas and ornamental vegetation. Open Freshwater Habitat Open freshwater habitat may consist of lakes and impoundments (i.e., lacustrine) and rivers and streams (i.e., riverine). These systems generally lack persistent emergent vegetation and flowing or surface water is usually present, at least seasonally. Within the Program Area, open freshwater habitat is confined between the banks of Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 50 CCCFCD the creeks. The longitudinal profile of each of the stream corridors are primarily straightened, trapezoidal, unlined channels that are relatively gentle, resulting in a low flow velocity. The channel bottom consists of silty sediment and deposited rock and debris; some sections are hardened with mortared riprap. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh typically occurs in low‐lying sites that are permanently flooded with fresh water a nd lacking significant current. This plant community is found on nutrient‐rich mineral soils that are saturated for all or most of the year. Freshwater marsh is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. Freshwater marsh is distributed along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around the margins of lakes, springs, and streams (Holland 1986). There are numerous phases of freshwater marsh. Emergent freshwater marsh, for example, characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent monocots 0.3–4.6 m (1–15 ft) high that reproduce by underground rhizomes. Vernal or seasonal freshwater marsh occurs on sites that are wet following winter rains but may be completely dry by summer; such sites support mostly low‐growing annual herbs (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). There is a limited amount of freshwater marsh habitat within the Program Area situated where a narrow band of standing water persists along creek shorelines. Creeping Wildrye Creeping Wildrye (Elymus triticoides) occurs on heavy clay to clay loam soils. Stands are generally on poorly drained floodplains, drainage and valley bottoms, mesic flats and slopes, and marshes. Creeping wildrye is adapted to a wide range soil types and is tolerant of alkaline and saline conditions. Found along coastal northern, central and southern California, Creeping wildrye extend into the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta, the Central Valley, and the Mono Basin, occurring at elevations from 0 to 2,300 m (0 –544 ft). One stand of creeping rye grass, which was likely planted as part of a restoration effort, is located on the west bank of Marsh Creek just north of the Dainty Avenue Bridge (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). E4.1.2. Regulations The following section lists the various federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations that apply to this Program. Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States (comprising wetlands and other waters of the United States). CWA Section 401 requires that applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States obtain certification from the RWQCB that the proposed discharge will comply with state water quality standards. The authority to issue water quality certifications in the project area is vested with the Central Valley RWQCB and the State Water Board. Project applicants may need to obtain a permit from USACE and RWQCB for restoration activities that may impact wetland fringe habitat. Endangered Species Act FESA was enacted in 1973 for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife species (and their habitats) that have been identified by the USFWS or NMFS as threatened or endangered. USFWS and NMFS administer FESA; in general, NMFS is responsible for protection of FESA-listed marine and anadromous fish species, while FESA- listed terrestrial species and freshwater aquatic species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Specific areas within the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 51 CCCFCD geographic range of a federally listed species may be designated as “Critical Habitat” and receive protection as well. Projects moving forward under the proposed Program may impact species protected under FESA. These projects could qualify for ESA coverage through an existing permit between USFWS and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy through the HCP/NCCP (Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003). The existing permit provides FESA coverage for 28 special-status species (Jones & Stokes 2006). For those species that are covered under the HCP/NCCP and that occur within the future project area(s) the applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the HCP/NCCP through preparation of a n Application and Planning Survey Report (PSR). The PSR would be completed by CDFWS and USFWS approved biologists to identify potentially present special-status species, potential project impacts on those species, and appropriate mitigation measures as included in the HCP/NCCP. For those listed species not covered under the HCP/NCCP and within the Program Area (e.g., special-status fish) the project applicant would be required to evaluate potential impacts through preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA). The BA would be provided to the appropriate agency (either NMFS and/or USFWS) which would determine the process for compliance with FESA. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA makes it unlawful, unless expressly authorized by permit pursuant to federal regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.” Projects moving forward under the proposed Program may disturb active nests (including nestlings or eggs) which would trigger the need for compliance with the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Permits are not issued under the MBTA, but the law requires pr oject proponents to evaluate potential impacts on active nests and nesting birds. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires all federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The proposed Program Area does not contain EFH pursuant to the MSA (NMFS 2018). State Regulations California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ensures that “all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved.” Under CESA, it is unlawful to “take” a State-listed endangered or threatened species. Fish and Game Code section 86 defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Compliance with CESA would be required if the construction or operation of the project would cause the incidental “take” of any State-listed plant or wildlife species known to occur within the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 52 CCCFCD California Fish and Game Code Migratory birds are protected by California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) §3503, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Specifically, CFGC §3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs or birds in the order s Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys and falcons, among others) or Strigiformes (owls); CFGC §3511 prohibits the take or possession of fully protected birds; and CFGC §3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof as designated in the MBTA. Construction disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW. Project activities associated with vegetation removal that could disturb active nests (including nestlings or eggs) would trigger the need for GHMWC to comply with the CFGC (§§3503, 3511, and 3513). CFGC §§1600-1607 require project proponents to obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) authorization from CDFW if a project would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. An LSAA must also be issued if the project would use material from streambeds designated by CDFW in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit. County Regulations Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2007 – 53 describes implementation procedures for conserving habitat and covered species under the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by t he Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County. Rather than individually surveying, negotiating, and securing mitigation, project proponents receive regulatory permits by completing a PSR, paying a fee (and/or dedicating land) and adhering to limited protocols to avoid and minimize impacts. Fees are paid into two separate reserves, a Development Fee and a Wetland Fee. The Development Fee requires payment based on a cost per acre for all acres converted to nonhabitat with the cost per acre based on the HCP fee zone. The Wetland Fee mitigates for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, riparian woodland/scrub or stream buffers. Therefore, t he Program’s participation in the HCP/NCCP could provide a mechanism to adequately mitigate impacts to potentially occurring covered sensitive species and habitats on future project sites. However, the HCP/NCCP is not purely a mitigation program. Though Habitat Conservation Plans are generally exclusively mitigation, Natural Community Conservation Plans have a higher level of conservation and require a contribution to the recovery of species (above and beyond any mitigation obligations). The HCP/NCCP has an adopted conservation strategy that involves land acquisition, habitat restoration, monitoring and adaptive management, and management in perpetuity. Regionally, some of these conservation actions are funded with developer fees (mitigation) and some with grant funding. The East Contra Contra County HCP/NCCP has an approved funding strategy of drawing from developer fees for mitigation and public funds for contribution to recovery of species. The overall funding is approximately 48%/52% funding (or mitigation vs nonmitigation conservation). The grant funding and public funds do not off-set mitigation obligations. Rather these public funds fund conservation actions that are above and beyond mitigation requirements. The strategy is to augment the large amounts of conservation that happen as mitigation (because of mitigation though the HCP/NCCP) to achieve even greater benefits to species. The Conservancy has applied for and received both acquisition and restoration funds for this purpose (IRWMP Prop 84 & 50, USBR, CDFW- Prop 1 and Local Assistance Grants, USFWS and others). None of these funds offset mitigation obligations of developers. When a grant proposal states it is “consistent with the HCP”, it means that it is consistent with the conservation strategy of the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP highlights restoration opportunities al ong Marsh Creek as they are Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 53 CCCFCD important for creek/streamside habitat and riparian corridor restoration and protection. For example, when constructed, the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project in the City of Brentwood will not be counted toward mitigation goals. It will be counted to restoration of habitat above and beyond the mitigation requirement (A. Fatement 2016). E4.1.3. Special-Status Species A list of regionally occurring special-status species was compiled into a table based on CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and review of Special-Status Species Proposed for Coverage in the ECCC HCP/NCCP, Vol. 1/Table 3-8 and Vol. 2/Appendix D (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Biologists also reviewed the USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report for Contra Costa County (USFWS 2018), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2018), and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Special-Status Plants For the purposes of this evaluation, special-status plant species are defined as plant species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under FESA as amended (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 50, Section 17); plant species covered under the HCP/NCCP; locally rare species defined by CEQA g uidelines 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 watch lists; plant species assigned California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013); and/or Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. Due to the large and widespread area covered under this Program a focused survey for special-status plants was not conducted in support of this evaluation. Based on the site reconnaissance, a review of ava ilable databases and literature and familiarity with the regional flora, a total of 53 special-status plant species were identified as having some potential to occur in the region (table available upon request). Of these, most were ruled out based on the lack of suitable habitat, range restrictions, habitat disturbance or the fact that they have not previously been recorded from the Program Area. Rare plant surveys for species covered by the HCP/NCCP will be required on a project-by-project basis. Rare plant surveys will adhere to CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2009). Special-Status Wildlife For the purpose of this evaluation, special-status wildlife are defined as follows: • Species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under FESA as amended (CFR, Title 50, Section 17); • Species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code [USC] 703 -712); • Species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; June 8, 1940) as amended; • Species protected under California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5); • Species protected under California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1901, 2062, 2067, 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515); • Species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW; and • Species covered under the HCP/NCCP; and • 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 watch lists. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 54 CCCFCD Table 7. Special-status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Program Area Common Name Species Name Listing Status* Federal/State Listed, Proposed, Candidate and/or Fully Protected Fish and Wildlife Species Steelhead Central Valley DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FT, CH, California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, CSC, HCP/NCCP Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni ST, HCP/NCCP White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus FP Sensitive and Locally Rare Species Chinook salmon Central Valley fall/ late fall-run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha CSC Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata CSC, HCP/NCCP Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra CSC, HCP/NCCP Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea CSC, HCP/NCCP Northern harrier Circus hudsonius CSC Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC *EXPLANATION OF LISTING CODES FEDERAL FE = Federally listed as Endagered FT = Federally listed as Threatened CH = Critical Habitat (Proposed or Final) is designated STATE FP = Fully Protected SE = State listed as Endangered ST = State listed as Threatened CSC = California Species of Special Concern COUNTY HCP/NCCP = Covered species Steelhead - Central Valley DPS. Steelhead is a federally threatened species with designated Critical Habitat. This species spawns in freshwater in areas with suitable spawning gravels; juveniles require cool, clean water, cover, and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Steelhead spawn in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and tributaries before migrating to the Delta and Pacific Ocean. There is marginally suitable habitat present within the Program Area, although the Program Area is not within critical habitat for this species. The movement of fish is currently restricted to the lower 16 km (10 mi) of Marsh Creek downstream of the dam at Marsh Creek Reservoir. Chinook Salmon - Central Valley fall/ late fall-run ESU. Chinook salmon is a California Species of Special Concern. Chinook spawns in freshwater in areas with suitable spawning gravels; juveniles require cool, clean water, cover, and sufficient dissolved oxygen. The Central Valley fall/late fall-run ESU is currently the most abundant of the Central Valley races. The lower reaches of Marsh Creek are considered to provide habitat for Central Valley fall‐run chinook, possibly supporting adult migration, spawning, incubation, and rearing (Jones & Stokes 2003). This species has been documented from Oakley (CDFW 2018) and Brentwood (Robins, personal observation 2001). The movement of fish is currently restricted to the lower 16 km (10 mi) of Marsh Creek downstream of the dam at Marsh Creek Reservoir. Fall/late fall run Chinook have a truncated natal stream life history and commonly young of the year leave their natal stream and begin to smolt during the late spring. As such, this species is unlikely to be in the Program Area during the summer in-stream construction season. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 55 CCCFCD California red-legged frog. California red-legged frog is a HCP/NCCP-covered species that is listed as federally threatened and is also a California Species of Special Concern. California red-legged frog is known only from one CNDDB occurrence within the Brentwood USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (CDFW 2018). Small portions of the Program Area are within the area of modeled migration and aestivation habitat for California red-legged frog under the HCP/NCCP (HCP/NCCP Chapter 4: Figure 4-3). The Program Area may provide low quality breeding habitat for this speci es. Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Western pond turtle habitat includes ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation canals. Nests are typically constructed in upland habitat within 0.25 mile of aquatic habitat. Although there are no CNDDB occurrence records within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018), several turtles were observed in Marsh Creek during reconnaissance surveys. Silvery legless lizard. Silvery legless lizard is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Legless lizards occur in areas with sandy or loose soils. These soils allow them to construct subsurface burrows where they spend the majority of their lives. Stabilized sand dunes seem especially preferable (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The Program area contains limited suitable habitat for this species in undisturbed sandy areas along Sand Creek. There are two CNDDB occurrences for this species within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Western burrowing owl. Western burrowing owl is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls require habitat with three basic attributes: open, well drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and underground burrows or burrow facsimiles. Burrowing owls occupy grasslands, deserts, sagebrush scrub, agricultural areas (including pastures and untilled margins of cropland), earthen levees and berms, coastal uplands, urban vacant lots, and the margins of airports, golf courses, and roads. There are several CNDDB occurrences for this species throughout the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Swainson’s hawk. Swainson’s hawk is a HCP/NCCP-covered species that is listed as State threatened. The natural foraging habitat of Swainson’s hawks throughout the majority of their North American range is relatively open stands of grass-dominated vegetation and relatively sparse shrublands. The species is more abundant in areas of moderate cultivation than in either grassland or a reas of extensive cultivation. In a study of movements and habitat use, it was found that single trees or riparian areas were used most often for nesting (Estep 1989). Foraging habitat is present along lower Marsh Creek downstream of the City of Brentwood’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and upstream of Delta Road, where there is a relatively large area of agriculture (approxima tely 2,000 linear feet) that provides a large area of open space suitable for foraging. There have been recent observations of this species perched in trees adjacent to Marsh Creek within the Program Area and two CNDDB occurrences for this species within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Northern harrier. Northern harrier is a California Species of Special Concern. The northern harrier is a ground- nesting species, building its nests in large expanses of undisturbed grassland or marsh habitat where tall, dense vegetation offers concealment. Northern harriers forage for a wide variety of species in a range of open habi tats, flying low over the ground as they search for prey. It is because of their hunting methods that northern harriers require largely uninterrupted expanses of open habitat. There are no CNDDB records of northern harriers within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). The agricultural fields and non-native annual grassland habitat in the Program Area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. White-tailed kite. White tailed kite is a fully-protected species under CFGC. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research. This species breeds in a variety of habitats including grasslands, Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 56 CCCFCD cultivated fields, oak woodlands, and suburban areas where prey is abundant. Trees and orchards within the Program Area provide marginal nesting habitat for this species. The grassland land cover near Marsh Creek and Sand Creek provides suitable foraging habitat for this species. Loggerhead shrike. Loggerhead shrike is a California Species of Special Concern. Loggerhead shrikes occur through most of the low elevation areas of California and occupy a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, riparian areas, open woodlands, ruderal and developed areas, and agricultural lands. They nest in shrubs or low trees, which are present within the Program Area. There is one CNDDB occurrence of this species from within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present in the agricultural areas adjacent to Marsh Creek and in open grassland habitat adjacent to Sand and Deer Creeks . Pallid bat. Pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern. Pallid bats occur in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests and are most commonly found in dry habitats. Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees, and various human structures such as bridges (especially wooden and concrete girder designs), barns, porches, bat boxes, and both human-occupied and vacant buildings. Tree roosts occur in basal hollows of coast redwoods and giant sequoias, bole cavities of oaks, exfoliating ponderosa pine and valley oak bark, deciduous trees in riparian areas, and fruit trees in orchards (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). Maternity roosts generally occur in structures, caves, or mines that provide enough space for at least small groups of bats. There are no CNDDB records of pallid bat within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). The Program Area contains marginal roosting and foraging habitat for pallid bat. The Program Area does not contain suitable habitat for maternal roosting. Would the Program: 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 CDFW and USFWS? Post-Program activities would result in habitat modifications tha t would benefit special-status plants and wildlife through improved ecological conditions. However, construction of Program activities may adversely affect special-status species if present. Because projects moving forward under the proposed Program would be consistent with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, most of the construction-related impacts on special-status species would be covered. As described earlier, the HCP/NCCP includes measures to avoid and minimize take of covered species, which would be included as conditions on development for applicable projects as well as possible mitigation fees. It would the responsibility of future project proponents to design and implement their projects in compliance with listed measures in the HCP/NCCP. Because compliance with the HCP/NCCP requires project proponents implement specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or their habitats , it is unlikely any project moving forward under the Program would result in a si gnificant impact on any special-status species. For those special-status species that are not covered under the HCP/NCCP, and with potential to occur in the Program Area, the project applicant(s) would be required to implement minimization and avoidance measures as outlined below. Special-Status Fish Although there are no records for steelhead or Chinook salmon occurring in Marsh Creek in the CNDDB, though fall-run Chinook have been observed in the system. Due to habitat factors, steelhead are considered unlikely to be present in the system and historical analysis by Leidy et al. (2005) did suggests that no steelhead have been observed in Marsh Creek since at least 1942. Marsh Creek is not considered Critical Habitat for Central Valley Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 57 CCCFCD steelhead. While fall-run Chinook salmon are not listed under either FESA or CESA, they are a state species of concern. Fall run Chinook are known to use Marsh Creek and have been observed on multiple occasions since 2001. Fall run Chinook have the greatest potential to occur within the Program Area between November and June based on the timing of adult and juvenile migrations in and through the waterways of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (NMFS 2012). Impact BIO-1 – Disturbance to Special-Status Fish Although the vast majority of construction activities would occur above the OHWM and during the dry s eason, some limited work such as restoration of habitat or site-specific armoring could occur in the low-flow channel. To the extent that this work in the low-flow channel requires either dewatering or excavation, take of steelhead or Chinook, if present, could occur. Due to life history traits, take of Chinook during instream construction work between June-Oct is highly unlikely as juveniles are known to have vacated their natal streams by summer and are not known to over-summer in Marsh Creek or its trib utaries. Neither of these species is covered under the HCP/NCCP. To ensure there is no take of either of these species is limited to the greatest extent practicable, if work in the low-flow channel becomes necessary, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented and impacts would be reduced. In addition, consultation with NMFS will ensure these measures are sufficient to reduce and/or avoid impacting species during construction. Once the proposed improvements are constructed, the project would not impede or interfere with fish movement. In fact the project would improve conditions for movement of fish species in this area. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special-status Fish Protective Measures To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October 31. 2. In-Stream Activities. If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. b. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. c. If dewatering is proposed, monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams . d. Native aquatic species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a qualified biologist. Use of electro-fishing should be conducted per NMFS/CDFW guidelines. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with FESA. Impact BIO-2 – Disturbance to Special-Status Plants Implementation of the Program may result impacts on special-status plants as defined in Section E4.1.3 above. Implementation of project-wide BMPs (Table 4), in addition to any specific conditions and conservation measures stipulated in the HCP/NCCP combined with Mitigation Measure BIO-2 as described below would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Special-status Plant Protective Measures Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 58 CCCFCD • Project applicant(s) will retain a qualified biologist to determine if there is the potential for special-status plants to occur in the project area. • If there is the potential for their occurrence, the biologist will look for these species during the properly- timed floristic survey. • If present, construction of the project will include a buffer zone of 20 feet around the plants to avoid impacts to the plants, whenever possible. • Removal of invasive, non-native plants by hand (i.e. using hand tools, hand pulling, etc.) within this buffer may occur and is recommended to protect special-status plants. • If impacts to specialstatus plants are unavoidable, the project applicant will coordinate with the appropriate resource agencies and local experts to determine whether transplantation of special -status plant species is feasible. If the agencies concur that transplantation is a feasible mitigation measure, the biologist will develop and implement a transplantation plan in coordination with the appropriate agencies. If the impacted species are annuals, it is expected that the current seed crop from the individuals to be lost would be collected (as well as immediate soils making up the dormant seed bed) and then sown on appropriate habitat located on the project site. If the species is a perennial, it is expected that both the seed and the plants themselves would be salvaged and relocated. Seed from the populations that would be impacted may be collected and propagated at a native plant nursery, prior to planting to increase the potential for establishment and survival. Impact BIO-3 – Disturbance to Special-Status Birds Several species of birds may use the agricultural fields, fallow fields, non-native annual grassland and freshwater marsh areas within Program Area for foraging, roosting and nesting and wintering. Implementation of the Program may result temporary impacts on special-status birds including white-tailed kite, northern harrier and loggerhead shrike as well as birds protected by CFGC §3503 and birds protected by the MBTA may occur during construction of individual projects under the Program. Potential construction-related impacts may include temporary changes in foraging patterns or territories, noise disturbance, winter roost abandonment, etc. Implementation of project-wide BMPs (Table 4) in addition to Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special-Status Bird Protective Measures • To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 31. • If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. • Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31. • If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. The buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Impact BIO-4 – Disturbance to California Red-legged Frog Implementation of project activities under this Program could temporarily disturb aquatic and upland habitat with potential to support the movement and/or estivation of federally threatened California red-legged frog. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 59 CCCFCD Compensatory mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frog, if necessary, would be achieved through payment of wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP. In addition to fees, potential impacts to this species during construction would be minimized through implementa tion of Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog Protective Measures • A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify if any potential red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys) exists within the project boundaries. • If the project site contains suitable breeding habitat, then the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy of the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required. • Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to transloca te individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Impact BIO-5 – Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Silvery Legless Lizard The Program Area contains suitable foraging, dispersal, and/or breeding habitat for western pond turtle and marginal habitat for silvery legless lizard. During construction, there is potential for injury or mortality of these reptiles moving through the site, due to being crushed by vehicles, humans, or construction equipment associated with proposed project activities. Potential impacts to HCP/NCCP-covered reptile species during construction would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 which would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Compliance with HCP/NCCP In addition and consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization, the following measure will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to Western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard during construction acti vities. • The HCP/NCCP requires written notification to the USFWS, CDFW, and the ECCC Habitat Conservancy prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. If necessary, impacts to western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard, and their habitat, would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 60 CCCFCD Impact BIO-6 – Disturbance to Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site If an active nest of a Swainson’s hawk was present on or immediately adjacent to a future project during implementation of the Proposed program then construction activities could result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest. Because of the regional rarity of this species, loss of an active Swainson’s hawk nest would be significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures The Program would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for the Swainson’s hawk, which require a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If a nest is determined to be occupied, covered activities within 1,000 feet of the nest would be prohibited during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) to prevent nest abandonment. In addition, Swainson’s hawk nest trees removed from the project site during the non-nesting season would be mitigated as required by the HCP/NCCP. The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. AND either: 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: • Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. • Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first seve ral years to ensure maximum tree survival. • Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life s pan, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. • Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparia n species. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 61 CCCFCD • Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). • Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. • Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. Impact BIO-7 – Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl The proposed Program could result in conversion of habitat for Western burrowing owl, ruderal and non-native annual grassland habitat, to riparian habitat. Conversion of small parcels of ruderal and non-native annual grassland habitat within the larger Program Area is not considered a significant impact on burrowing owls because there is a relative abundance of available ruderal and non-native annual grassland habitat for this species within the Program Area and eastern Contra Costa County. In addition, because the burrowing owl is a HCP/NCCP covered species, invididual projects may be subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats. The proposed Program activities could impact nesting and/or roosting burrowing owls if present during construction. If an active nest of a burrowing owl were present on or immediat ely adjacent to a future project site during construction activities, then the project could result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest. Because of the regional rarity of this species, loss of an active burrowing owl’s nest would be significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Western Burr owing Owl Protective Measures Program projects would comply with HCP/NCCP species -level measures for burrowing owl. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW -approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable habitat for western burrowing owl. Surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establis hment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the bur row. Whenever possible, Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 62 CCCFCD burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Impact BIO-8 – Disturbance to Pallid Bat Project construction activities could impact suitable roosting and/or foraging habitat for special-status pallid bat, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Pallid bat Protective Measures Project-related impacts to pallid bat roosting habitat can be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measure: • All potential roost trees within 50-feet of the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. The survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within two weeks following the survey. • If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans. • If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by CDFW. • Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees. • No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site. • All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours. 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 CDFW or USFWS? Sensitive natural communities recorded from the project region include alkali meadow, alkali seep, cismontane alkali marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, coastal brackish marsh, northern claypan vernal pool, stabilized interior dunes, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley sink scrub (Wood 2016). However, there are no known special-status natural communities in the Program Area. Although the Program’s projects would involve the removal of some limited riparian habitat along the stream corridors in order to widen the channel, substantially greater riparian habitat would be created by converting the creek channel to a more natural channel and planting the banks with riparian trees and plant species. Impact BIO-9 – Disturbance to Riparian Habitat Removal of native trees is not anticipated under the proposed Program. However, if tree removal is unavoidable, then the project proponent shall implement measures consistent with the HCP/NCCP (outlined below), measures outlined in any CDFW LSAA permits, and local tree ordinances, if applicable. The following measures would be Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 63 CCCFCD implemented to offset potential impacts of construction activities under the proposed Program. Impl ementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9, combined with the BMPs listed in Table 4 of this document, would reduce potential impacts. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures BMPs provided in Table 4, in addition to the following general construction requirements, would be implemented: • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non- sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types. • No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Loose soil, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. • All no-take species will be avoided. • Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory nonresident species, including covered species. • Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use clean sand or gravel in bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife. • Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down-gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site. • Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate. • On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to e nsure that disturbance limits, BMPs, and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. • Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted. • Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. • Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, noninvasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. • Tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. • Heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline. • Construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees. • If the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 64 CCCFCD c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Prior to initiating any work associated with projects under the Program the project proponent/applicant will have a qualified wetland specialist to conduct a wetland delineation in accordance with the USACE wetland delineation guidelines and determine if project activities would result in impacts on protected wetlands as defined by Section 404/401 of the CWA. Project applicants will strive to design individual projects to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. If an impact is unavoidable and the project would result in direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, then the applicant will obtain the appropriate regulatory permits as determined through consultation with USACE, RWQCB and CDFW. In addition, the project proponent will comply with the HCP/NCCP and can utilize that mechanism to determine the implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and payment of applicable fees. The applicant will provide relevant information about the project site(s) to the appropriate regulatory agencies. The applicant will abide by all requirements contained in the Section 404/401 permit to ensure that there will not be a net loss of wetland function or values. Impact BIO-10 – Disturbance to Wetlands Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures during construction and post -construction ecological improvements to wetlands are anticipated to result in a net increase in wetland acreage and function at individual project sites, however, it is possible that a net loss of wetland functions or values could occur during implementation of the Program. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Wetland Protective Measures Projects under this Program would result in a net increase in wetland footprint and function; therefore, mitigation for temporary impacts would not require compensatory mitigation. If impacts on wetland resources are deemed greater than the net benefit of the project then USACE and RWCQB may require one of the following standard mitigation measures: • Establishment, reestablishment, enhancement, rehabilitation, or preservation of wetlands either on- or off- site to compensate for the wetland functions lost. USACE shall determine the compensation ratio for this option based on a variety of factors; typically, it is greater than 1:1. USACE will likely also require on- going monitoring and annual reporting for compensatory mitigation; and/or • Payment into a USACE-approved in-lieu fee fund, specifically the National Fish and Wildlife Fund (NFWF) sponsored In Lieu Fee Program (if available); or • Purchase of an appropriate number of credits at a USACE -approved mitigation bank. 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? Lower Marsh Creek corridor is contiguous with extensive open shoreline lands downstream; however, it connects to the uppermost part of the watershed only after passing through commercial, industrial and residential development and numerous buried culverts. Much of the aquatic habitat in the Program Area lacks significant riffles, pools, irregular bank features, and overhanging vegetation that provide suitable cover or ref uge for resident or dispersing wildlife. Furthermore, the adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial development bring predators such as pets, feral animals, and those attracted to human habitation. Increased human activity, noise, and lighting further inhibit the movements of wildlife species. Post-Program does not involve any activities that would interfere with the movements or migrations of fish or wildlife, or impede use of a known wildlife nursery site. Implementation of projects under the Program would result in improved conditions for the movement of native Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 65 CCCFCD fish and wildlife species over the long term. However, temporary impacts on movement of wildlife species during construction activities may occur; however these impacts would be short term and would only occur in discrete areas allowing movement of wildlife to occur in available habitat that surrounds individual project sites . Less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Vegetation within the Program Area primarily consists of ruderal habitat and non-native annual grassland. Implementation of individual projects under the proposed Program may result in conversion of these two vegetation types to riparian vegetation, seasonal wetland and/or herbaceous annual and perennial grasses and forbs. A key component of the Program is to plant numerous trees alongside the creeks to provide shade for pedestrians utilizing the trails and to shade waters within the creeks to improve water quality. The removal of native trees protected by local tree ordinances is not expected; however, if removal of native trees is unavoidable, the project applicant(s) would comply with tree replacement standards and would provide a greater number of trees than are currently on-site. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 66 CCCFCD E5. CULTURAL RESOURCES / TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. X d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 1) 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, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. X E5.1. Setting The geology of the Program Area is recent (Holocene 11,700 years ago to present) alluvial loam or clay, or sand dunes (Dibblee and Minch 2006). Prior to European contact the Program Area would have consisted of Valley Grassland (Munz and Keck 1968). Several soils are mapped within the Program Area including Brentwood, Capay, Dehli, Kimball, Rincon, Sorrento, and Sycamore (Welch 1977: Sheets 21 and 29). For the most part, these soils are well-draining soils that t ypically support the growth of grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks. Historically these soils have primarily been used for growing crops, orchards, and grains with some areas used for pasture or homesites (Welch 1977:12-13, 15, 20, 28, 42, and 49-51). At the time of European settlement, the Program Area was situated in an area near the boundary between the Bay Miwok and the Northern Valley Yokuts (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Wallace 1978). Both the Bay Miwok and the Northern Valley Yokuts were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich marsh and plains environments, which allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Wallace 1978). The Bay Miwok settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary villages were inhabited throughout the year while other sites were visited seasonally to obtain particular resour ces. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 67 CCCFCD Sites were often established near fresh water sources and at ecotones where plant and animal life were diverse and abundant. The environmental setting enjoyed by the Bay Miwok provided abundant plant and animal resources for their use (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978). The Northern Valley Yokuts also settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. While their primary village sites were occupied throughout the year, they generally were located on, or nea r, low mounds and the banks of large watercourses. Other sites were visited to procure resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Populations were not evenly distributed, but rather clustered in a narrow strip of land along the San Joaquin River and its main tributaries, in accordance with periodic flooding (Wallace 1978:463). This region provided variety and an abundance of fish, fowl, small and large game mammals, acorns, tule roots, and seeds as sources of subsistence. Historically, a large portion of the Program Area lies within the Rancho Los Meganos. The rancho was granted to Jose Noriega in 1835. Mr. Noriega built some corrals and outbuildings on the land and then sold it to John Marsh in 1837. Mr. Marsh constructed an adobe house on the land and lived in it for many years. In 1851 Marsh, a widower, married his second wife Abbie Tuck. They had a daughter, Alice, in 1852. Mr. Marsh wanted to build a stone mansion for his wife and began constructing this building, but in 1855 Mrs. Marsh died. Mr. Marsh was killed the following year (Hoover et al. 2002:62 and 63). The Marsh House had fallen into disrepair, but it is now a part of a State Historic Park, and recently local groups have been working on restoring the buil ding. The Marsh House was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. The Marsh house is located nearly two and a half miles south of the southern end of the study area. E5.1.1. Methodology Archival research included examination of the library and project files by Tom Origer & Associates. A review (NWIC File No. 17-2891) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohn ert Park. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and California Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 68 CCCFCD Points of Historical Interest as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Directory (OHP 2012). Regulations CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource (Public Resources Code § 21084, 21084.1, 21083.2). A resource can be a precontact or historic structure, object, site, or district, and is considered significant if: • It is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR); • It is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code 5020.1(k); • It has been identified as a significant in an historical resources survey, as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(g); or • It is determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency [CCR Title 14, §15064.5(a)]. The CRHR eligibility criteria are used to determine significance. A significant resource must meet one of the four criteria, as follows: • The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or California’s history and cultural heritage; • The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • The resource 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 • The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. If a significant resource would be impacted, the project applicant must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support a finding of significant effect (Section 21080(e)). CEQA requires examination of mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that would avoid or minimize any impacts or potential impacts. Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whet her or not the proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that this consideration be made separately from cultural and paleontological resources. Section 21073 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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 69 CCCFCD non–federally recognized tribes. Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as: • 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: • Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; and/or • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or • 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. Because criteria listed above also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tr ibes 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 develo p 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 (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. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? On May 31, 2018, a record search of the database at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University (NWIC) was completed by Tom Origer & Associates (TOA) to determine if archaeological or historic resources would be impacted by implementation of the program (available upon request) This archival review encompasses all land within a quarter-mile corridor centered on portions of Deer Creek, Marsh Creek, and Sand Creek (study area). The portion of Deer Creek is from Fairview Avenue in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek. The Sand Creek segment is from State Highway 4 in Brentwood to the confluence with Marsh Creek. The portion of Marsh Creek is from Balfour Road in Brentwood to Cypress Road in Oakley. A search of the archaeological base maps at the NWIC found that an estimated forty percent of the Lower Marsh Creek archival review area had been subjected to prior historical resources study as documented in 47 reports (TOA 2018). These studies resulted in the documentation of twelve historical resources within the study area; though eight of the twelve resources are components of a complex at a single location. All of the resources recorded within the study area are historic-era sites. Impact CR-1 – Disturbance to Historical Resources Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 70 CCCFCD There are known and potentially unknown historical resources within the Program study area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Identification Efforts by a Qualified Archaeologist As projects are designed and proposed, they should be reviewed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards to evaluate their potential to impact existing or unknown historical resources. If it appears that a project could impact existing or unknown historical resources, then the project area should be subjected to an historical resources study that complies with Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to identify resources (including buried archaeological resources). Mitigation Measure CR-2: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Archaeological Resources are Encountered During Construction The construction contractor shall participate in a historical resource identification training session by a qualified archaeologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If archaeological resour ces are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction contractor shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified archaeologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, archaeological test excavation and/or archaeological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Impact CR-2 – Disturbance to Archaeological Resources As discussed in subsection a) above, there are known and potentially unknown resources that could be impacted by proposed Program activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR-2 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact CR-3 – Disturbance to Human Remains Excavation has the potential of disturbing previously unrecorded Native American remains. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-3: Discovery of Human Remains. If at any time during site preparation, excavation, or other ground disturbance associated with the proposed project, human remains are discovered, the construction contractor shall immediately cease and desist from all further site excavation and notify t he District and the District shall notify the sheriff-coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and recognizes the remains are of a Native American, the sheriff-coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall notify those persons it believesto be the most likely descendants of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall be provided the opportunity to advise the l and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 71 CCCFCD owner regarding treatment or disposition of the remains with appropriate dignity pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Disturbance shall not resume until appropriate mitigations to treat the remains on the site are established. d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either: 1) 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, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission, members of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, and the Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe were contacted in writing in support of this project (letter available upon request). This contact represents notification regarding the project to provide an opportunity to comment and does not constitute consultation with tribes. The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated January 27, 2017, in which they provided a list of tribes to be contacted that have cultural affiliations within the proposed project area. The District initiated consultation with the Wilton Rancheria via a letter dated July 2, 2018 as part of the consultation effort with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area that the proposed project is within. To date, no tribe has contacted the District and the District is awaiting response from the Wilton Rancheria. No other comments have been received as of the date of this report. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 72 CCCFCD E6. ENERGY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? X b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X E6.1. Setting In 2018 former Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 committing California to obtaining 60% of its electric energy from carbon-free sources and 100% of electric energy coming from renewable sources by the year 2045. The former governor also signed an executive order establishing a target for the State to be carbon-neutral by 2045. In order to comply with the State policies, the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) for Contra Costa County presented findings of the Contra Costa Renewable Resources Potential Study in December 2018 (The Cadmus Group 2018). The study finds that there is potential for 50-83% of the electricity consumed in the County to come from local renewable sources, primarily wind and solar. The results of this study are being incorporated by DCD into the County’s General Plan update and the Climate Action Plan update, both scheduled for 2020. Would the Program: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Implementation of the Program would not require use of electric energy resources during construction activities. No impact. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed program is consistent with State goals for decreasing dependence on non-renewable sources of energy. The 2018 Renewable Resources Potential Study identified wind and solar as potential sources of renewable energy for the County (The Cadmus Group 2018). The study concluded that the stream setback areas identified in the HCP/NCCP, and which make up the Program Area considered in this evaluation, are not suitable for wind or solar developments because these areas provide habitat value and have viewshed concerns (The Cadmus Group 2018). Restoring the setback areas for flood control through planting native vegetation will not conflict with existing state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 73 CCCFCD E7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including lique- faction. X iv) Landslides. X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. X 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? X X 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. X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. X f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 74 CCCFCD E7.1. Setting According to the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Bay Area Map, liquefaction potential in the proposed Program Area is considered moderate to high (ABAG 2018). Individual projects under the Program have potential to be affected by seismic hazards, landslide potential and expansive soils. The Great Valley fault, a buried thrust fault, underlies the general Brentwood area. The location of the Great Valley fault is inferred from regional data; the fault does not extend to the ground surface and its location is not accurately known (ENGEO 2015). The geology of the Program area is recent (Holocene 11,700 years ago to present) alluvial loam or clay, or sand dunes (Dibblee and Minch 2006). A review of the paleontological database at the University of California Museum of Paleontology showed that a Pleistocene mastodon jaw was found during excavation for the Mokelumne Aqueduct (TOA 2018). The fossil was found at a depth of ten feet below the ground surface in sands with fine gravels. No exact coordinates for the collection site are with the fossil; however, based on the description provided it was collected near the intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Sunset Road in the city of Brentwood. Would the Program: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to 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? The Program Area is not delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The Program Area could experience ground shaking due to an earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region. If cut slopes to create the floodplain and flood benches are steeper than 3:1, they could become unstable or collapse as a result of ground shaking. However, projects constructed under the Program would not expose people or habitable structures to potentia l substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides because the implementation of the Program would not result in habitable structures but restored riparian habitat. That said, the proposed Program requires projects to implement Pre-Con 4: Geotechnical Analysis (Table 3, in the Program description) and comply with all recommendations specified in the report. Less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading could result in increased erosion. However, substantial erosion is considered unlikely due to the final grades for the floodplain terraces and channel banks post-construction (3:1 or lower) and required erosion control post-construction. Construction activities of one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the N ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). In addition, project-wide BMPs provided in Table 4 will be implemented and include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to stormwater runoff from these areas. Less than significant. 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? While the liquefaction potential in the proposed Program Area is considered moderate to high, implementation of Pre-Con 4: Geotechnical Analysis (Table 3, in the Program description) would not affect the stability of the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 75 CCCFCD geologic unit or soil or result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Program Area may include expansive soils, but with proper engineering, the construction and operation of the pipeline is not expected to result in any significant adverse short- or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity and there would be no substantial risk to life or property. Less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No septic tanks are proposed under the proposed Program. No impact. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Program Area primarily contains Holocene alluvial deposits, which are considered too young to be fossil bearing. However, deposits below the alluvium would be older, and could contain fossils. Impact GEO-1 – Disturb Paleontological Resources If Program projects require excavation below Holocene deposits (greater than 10 feet deep) then there could be impacts to paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the potential impact of an accidental discovery of a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Encountered During Construction. The construction contractor shall participate in a paleontological resource identification training session by a qualified paleontologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction personnel shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to trea t the resource by the qualified paleontologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, test excavation and/or paleontological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 76 CCCFCD E8. GREENHOUSE GAS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X E8.1. Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, they are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and would continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in Califor nia may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of that role, the BAAQMD has prepared CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects (i.e., 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year), which is also considered the definition of a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG burden and, therefore, of a significant cumulative impact, but has not defined thresholds for project construction GHG emissions. The Guidelines methodology and thresholds of significance have been used in this Initial Study’s analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 77 CCCFCD Would the Program: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.2) model was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with the proposed Program construction activities. The estimated GHG emissions are 16 to 60 metric tons per year. Since the Program would restore portions of the Program Area and create flow conditions closer to their natural state, there would be no net new operational GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Program. Less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The BAAQMD’s Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Plan), focuses on two closely-related goals: protecting public health from air pollutant exposures and protecting global climate from GHG emissions from human activities. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the State of Ca lifornia, the 2017 Plan lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 Plan GHG control strategy is based on the following key priorities: • Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases. • Decrease demand for fossil fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel and natural gas). o Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems. o Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services. • Decarbonize the energy system. o Make the electricity supply carbon-free. o Electrify the transportation and building sectors. Since the proposed Project would have no operational GHG emissions after the creek restoration and flood risk reduction actions (as described in the Project Description) are complete and would have no direct or indirect effects on Bay Area or statewide energy or transportation systems, the proposed Program does not conflict with any plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions nor conflict with any County or State policies to reduce GHG emissions. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 78 CCCFCD E9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. X 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. X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List,” prepared by the California Integrated Waste Manage ment Board) and, as a result, would it create a signifi cant hazard to the public or the environment. X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. X g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. X Would the Program: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed Program would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No routine transportation or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed. However, during construction, fuel would be used at the project site and re-fueling may occur within the limits of the project staging areas. Implementation of the Program-wide BMPs (Table 4) by the applicant’s contractor would minimize potential impacts from hazardous materials. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 79 CCCFCD 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 ? Construction activities would involve the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels as described above. Fuel would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. In addition, there are six known abandoned well sites within the Program Area on lands that could be restored as part of the Program. Based on the Department of Conser vation’s recommendations, if wells may be encountered during a project, project proponents will both maintain physical access to any abandoned gas well and ensure that the abandonment of gas wells is to current standards. There is also an historic crude oil pipeline that follows the railroad right of way, upstream of Ohara Avenue in Brentwood. It is unclear whether these pipelines were left in-situ or removed following decommissioning. Evacation near this alignment could result in exposure to asbestos related chemicals and/or weathered crude oil from these pipelines. These pipelines are currently considered safe if left in place. Less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Sand Creek within the proposed Program Area is located 200 feet north of William B. Bristol Middle School; however, Program implementation would not result in hazardous emissions or the release of hazardous materials. No impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List,” prepared by the California Integrated Waste Management Board) and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The Program Area does not include any sites that are currently on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which is California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. One site located 0.4-mile west of Marsh Creek in Oakley (Cook Battery Reclamati on Site) is currently on the DTSC’s list. This site was used for a battery reclamation business in the 1950s and 1960s but has since been cleaned and capped and does not currently pose a threat to human health or the environment (DTSC 2016). No impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The proposed Program is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport is Byron Airport, which is located 7.7 miles southwest of the Program Area. No impact. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed Program would not be expected to interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The District would require their construction contractor develop and implement a traffic management plan (detail provided under Transportation and Traffic) that ens ures any temporary street obstruction would be subject to all emergency access standards and requirements. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 80 CCCFCD h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildla nd fires? The Program Area is located in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone area and is designated as a Local Responsibility Area (CalFire 2009). Implementation of the proposed Program would not result in the construction of structures on the project site or increase the site’s overall fire hazard severity. Therefore, the Program is not expected to create hazardous fire conditions and would not increase wildfire potential, nor would it expose people to wildfire risks. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 81 CCCFCD E10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. X b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the altera tion of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. X ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. X iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. X iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. X E10.1. Setting The Marsh Creek watershed drains the east side of Mount Diablo. Marsh Creek collects drainages from other tributaries such as Sand Creek and Deer Creek and continues flowing northerly through the cities of Brentwood and Oakley before discharging into the San Joaquin River. Marsh Creek is a perennial, 4th order stream. The watershed originates in the Morgan Territory on the north side of Mt. Diablo and covers some 332 km2 (128 mi2). Marsh Creek flows for 48 km (30 mi) and empties into the tidally-influenced Dutch Slough, and then Big Break and the low er San Joaquin River. Marsh Creek Dam, located near Briones Valley, was constructed in 1963 and contains runoff from approximately 38 percent of the watershed (PWA 2006). The four major tributaries draining into Marsh Creek are Briones Creek, Dry Creek, Deer Creek and Sand Creek. The confluence of Briones and Marsh Creeks is at the Marsh Creek Reservoir and the confluence with Dry Creek is upstream of Balfour R oa d. Briones and Dry creeks are not within the Program Area. Deer and Sand Creeks flow into Marsh Creek within the Program Area and have their confluences approximately 800 ft apart in the City of Brentwood. Historically, much of the lower reaches of Marsh Creek were dry in the summer. Currently, flowing surface water is present within the Program Area to its mouth; Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 82 CCCFCD these flows are made up primarily of nuisance water resulting from an elevated water table caused by runoff from agricultural and landscape irrigation and urban discharges (NHI & DSC 2007). FEMA online floodmaps reviewed in August of 2018 illustrate that the entire Program Area is within a Regu latory Floodway designated as Zone AE, an area subject to inundation with a 1.0 percent annual-chance of flood (FEMA 2018). These maps have been updated with the results from CCCFCD two hydraulic reports from 2010 that document the status of Marsh Creek and its tributaries in meeting the District and FEMA’s flood control targets of containing the 100-year water surface and the 50-year water surface plus freeboard (Boucher 2010 and Louis 2010). The modeling outputs and recommendations from these reports conclude that multiple locations along the Marsh Creek channel are currently under capacity and that new development along the creek corridor will require CCCFCD to coordinate with both the cities of Brentwood and Oakely to ensure that future development be de signed to address these inadequacies. Moreover, both reports state that in their current condition, these creek channels do not have the capacity to accommodate the co-benefits of flood control, riparian habitat restoration, creation of wildlife corridors and improved recreational opportunities. Would the Program: a) Violate any water-quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Implementation of Progra m-wide BMPs described in Table 4 will minimize potential water quality impacts during construction and will ensure that projects moving forward under the proposed Program do not violate water quality standards. During construction of the projects proposed under the Program, there will be a potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of polluted runoff from the project sites. All projects will be required to obtain Section 401 of the CWA Water Quality Certifications from the Central Valley RWQCB and, depending on project size, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the SWRCB. Development and implementation of a SWPPP will include control measures (BMPs) to control erosion and release of sediment and other pollutants from the site. The 401 certification and SWPPP would ensure that construction activities would not cause an exceedance of the RWQCB water quality standards. Moreover, post-projects under this Program would explicitly be designed to decrease creek flow velocities and erosion potential while improving water quality. The Program would reduce the potential for erosion by lowering the water stage, reducing the velocity by widening the cross -sectional velocity of the channel, and establishing native riparian vegetation where compatible with the flood manage ment objectives. The planting of vegetation such as trees along the widened creek channel would provide shade for surface waters, thereby decreasing water temperatures and increasing dissolved oxygen levels. This vegetation will also stabilize the banks, f urther reducing the potential for chronic bank erosion. Thus, the proposed Program would reduce erosion and improve water quality at project sites covered under this Program as compared to existing conditions. As a result, the Program would not involve any activity that would result in an exceedance of a water quality standard. Less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater ma nagement of the basin? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 83 CCCFCD substantially with groundwater recharge. Projects proposed under this Program would not result in further incision of stream channels and the potential resultant impact of lowered groundwater tables. No impact. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the surrounding area in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation either on the project site or at subsequent off-site locations. In fact, projects developed under this Program will be explicitly designed to improve local and regional hydraulics and will reduce erosion and siltation. However, construction of Program projects may result in erosion or siltation. Implementation of BMPs identified in Table 4 would minimize potential water quality impacts. Less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program w ould not add additional impervious surface to the area and would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns in the vicinity. The Program would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or result in flooding either on or off -site. In fact, the projects under this Program will be designed to reduce on-site and off-site flooding. No impact. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not create or contribute runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. As described in a), implementation of Program-wide BMPs described in Table 4, would minimize potential water quality impacts during construction. Less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not be designed or implemented in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows outside of the active stream channel. Project elements such a s large woody debris installation and/or increase bank roughness resulting from native tree canopy could result in hydraulic changes within the active channel, but will not result in any additional flood risk to adjacent properties outside of the active stream channel as the projects under this Program will be designed to reduce on-site and off-site flooding. Less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Program Area is not subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 84 CCCFCD E11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community. X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. X E11.1. Setting The Contra Costa County General Plan is built around the interrelationship between the established Urban Limit Line (ULL), 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and land use designations identified in this Land Use Element. The ULL, originally established by County voters through their adoption of Measure C-1990 and extended through Measure L-2006, is an integral feature of the Land Use Element. In general, the purpose of the ULL is twofold: (1) to ensure preservation of identified nonurban agricultural, open space, and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of this Ge neral Plan, and (2) to facilitate enforcement of the 65/35 Standard. During the terms of the General Plan and ULL, properties that are located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan Amendments that would re-designate them for an urban land use. In addition, those properties outside the ULL may be subject to various agricultural and open space preservation measures identified in the General Plan. The 65/35 Standard limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and requires at least 65 percent of all land in the county to be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other nonurban uses. The 65/35 Standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and nonurban uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas. The entire Program Area is inside the ULL. All but a small piece of the Program Area (south of Delta Road) is within incorporated portions of Oakley and Brentwood. The areas of Oakley and Brentwood are designated in those respective General Plans for a range of urban land-uses. The piece of the Program Area that is in unincorporated Contra Costa County is designated as Agriculture in the County General Plan. The Program Area is also within the jurisdiction of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). All work proposed under this Program will be conducted within the HCP/NCCP’s established stream setbacks of 75 feet on Marsh Creek and 50 feet on Deer and Sand Creeks (HCP/NCCP Chapter 6, Conservation Measures 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6-2). The setbacks were established for parcels and development projects subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP to protect existing aquatic resources and provide areas to restore and enhance stream, riparian, and floodplain habitat. Ecological restoration within these setbacks is an approved use and is directly compatible with the goals and policies of the HCP/NCCP. Future development in the setback is extremely limited, though on-site flood detention facilities (C3 facilities), future expansion of floo d control channels to accommodate growth within and downstream of the ULL, and activities that enhanced ecosystem processes and recreation are allowed. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 85 CCCFCD Would the Program: a) Physically divide an established community?Residential subdivisions are present in the Program Area; however, creek restoration projects would be situated within the creek and adjacent setbacks outside the subdivisions. Established communities would not be divided as a result of Program implementation. No impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect The entire Program Area is within the ULL and the activities proposed under the Program are compatible and directly support the land-use policies and designations in the County General Plan and both Brentwood and Oakley’s General Plans. In fact, implementation of the Program will directly support policies and actions within th e HCP/NCCP that are developed to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts associated with urban development and infrastructure expansion. No Impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 86 CCCFCD E12. MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. X b) 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. X E12.1. Setting Within the Program Area, mineral resources could include sand, gravel, coal, oil, and gas. Aggregate resource areas within the Program Area are classified as either MRZ-1, MRZ-3 or MRZ-4 in the California Division of Mines and Geology’s 1987 Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in SF-Monterey Bay Area. The Brentwood Quadrangle contains the entire Program Area (Figure 7). Areas classified MRZ-l are "areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged t hat little likelihood exists for their presence". Approximately 85% of the Program Area is classified as MRZ-1. There is a polygon of MRZ-3, to the west of Marsh Creek which appears to overlay areas of Domengine sandstone and Quarternary Dune Sand deposits. Areas classified MRZ-3 contain mineral deposits, but their significance cannot be evaluated from available data. There are 107 of these polygons delineated in the 1987 Report and only one of these is in close proximity to the Program Area. It exists west of Marsh Creek north of Sunset Blvd and extends just north of Delta Road. MRZ-4 indicates areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ category. There is a polygon of MRZ-4 to the south of Sand Creek near Highway 4, a small polygon near the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant and one at the downstream extent of the Program Area near Cypress Road. In general, sand is likely the most significant economic mineral deposit found in the Program Area and likely to exist in large quantities in the MRZ-3 polygon. It is possible that significant deposits of coal and specialty sand remain in the Program Area, within the Domengine sandstone. Oil and gas have been sporadically produced in the region since 1864 and are recovered fr om sands mostly of the Eocene age, at depths of approximately 4,000 feet. The potential for additional oil and gas reserves exists within the Program Area. Dry gas is presently being produced in the northeast portion of Brentwood, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the area (City of Brentwood 2014). While the Brentwood and East Brentwood oil and gas well are in close proximity to the Program Area, both of these facilities are no longer operational. The Brentwood field was operationa l from 1962-2005 and the East Brentwood field was operational from 1972-2016 (Elam and Hector, 2018). According to the Department of Conservation’s data there are 6 abandoned wells within 100ft of creeks in the Program Area. One of these one is in Creekside Park, one in Sungold Park, one in the undeveloped parcles between Lone Oa k Rd and Marsh Creek, and three on Sand Creek upstream of Fairview Avenue. There are no existing active oil or gas wells or mineral extraction on or in the vicinity of the Program Area. Finally, the Old Valley Pipeline and Tidewater Associated Oil Pipeline historically existed within the proposed Program Area . The pipelines were taken out of use in the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively and have been decommissioned. The pipeline alignment follows the current railroad alignment, crossing Marsh Creek upsteam of Ohara Avenue in Brentwood. It is not clear whether the historic pipelines are still in the ground or have been removed and they may be buried as deep as 10ft below the ground surface. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 87 CCCFCD Figure 7. Mineral Land Classification Map Brentwood Marsh Cr. Sand Cr. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 88 CCCFCD Would the Program: 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? According to the California Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classification Map (Brentwood Quadrangle, Plate 2.28) the Program Area is located in an area with potential to contain mineral deposits (i.e. sand, gravel, and crushed stone), but the significance cannot be determined from available data. The proposed Program lies outside of any designated sand and gravel harvesting/mining areas. Furthermore, the proposed Program is located within the County ULL, which is designated for urban uses and limited nonurban uses, of which mining is not included. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact. b) 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? The proposed Program is within an area that is already developed and would not result in the loss of availability of any locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 89 CCCFCD E13. NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. X c) 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. X E13.1. Setting Environmental noise has many documented undesirable effects on human health and welfare, either psychological (e.g., annoyance and speech interference) or physiological (e.g., hearing impairment and sleep disturbance). The severity of such noise impacts ha ve been measured through lab and field studies, and exposure standards have been established to limit their disruptive effects (i.e., Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organization, 1999). The most common contributors to community noise problems are often transportation sources (i.e., highways, railroads, aircraft, etc.). Temporary noise sources (e.g., diesel-powered equipment at a construction site) are also the common and widespread causes of substantial community noise impacts. Sound intensity (loudness) perceived by the human ear is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA) with a range of 0 (threshold of hearing) to 140 (threshold of pain); the higher the decibels, the greater the intensity. Exposure to high noise levels affects the hu man body, with prolonged exposure to 75 decibels (dB) or above increasing tension and thereby affecting blood pressure, heart function, and the nervous system; 85 dB or above resulting in physical damage to hearing; and 90 dB or above resulting in permanent cell damage. Prolonged exposure to 140 dB or above may cause a feeling of pain in the ear, and 190 dB or above would likely rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source. When the noise source is a continuous line, such as vehicle traffic on a highway, sound levels decrease by about 3 dB for every doubling of distance. Sound attenuation can also be affected by topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves, as well as atmospheric conditions (i.e., wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) and the presence of dense vegetation. Sound from multiple sources operating in the same area (i.e., pieces of equipment operating on a construction site) would result in a combined sound level that is greater than that from any individual source. The combined noise level produced by multiple noise sources is calculated using logarithmic summation. For example, if one bulldozer Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 90 CCCFCD produces a noise level of 80 dBA, then two bulldozers operating side by side would generate a combined noise level of 83 dBA. Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires that all city and county general plans include a noise element that identifies and provides mitigation for any existing and perceivable noise problems. The Noise Element of Contra Costa County’s General Plan follows the Califor nia Department of Health Services’ 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. Contra Costa County, however, does not have a noise ordinance and therefore does not specify construction or operational noise level limits. The County General Plan’s standard for daily-average outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 60 dBA. The Noise Element of the County’s General Plan specifies 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. This CEQA analysis will consider the project to have a significant construction noise impact if it would create a temporary noise increase of greater than 10 dB over the existing ambient noise level due to construction - related activities following the implementation of the above noise control and administrative measures. Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (Lmax at 50 feet, dB , Slow*) Backhoea 84 Excavator 84 Dump Trucka 82 Pump – Engine (with noise attenuation)b 71 Grader 85 Loader 80 Sweepera 88 Generator (with noise attenuation)b 60 *This is the maximum instantaneous noise level as measured by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for each equipment ty pe. The average noise level (Leq) experienced at a receptor would vary depending on distance to receptor and the percentage of time during which th e equipment operates. For example, a backhoe operated for a half hour over a one-hour period would produce an hourly Leq 3 dB less than the Lmax a Roadway Construction Noise Model Users Guide, Federal Highway Administration, January 2006. b Manufacturer’s Data: Pump – Generator based on Baker Corp 18 inch pump size, generator based on Multiquip Silent Diesel Generator - 11 kVA, 11 kW, 120/240V, 1-Phase portable generator. Would the Program: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction activities and traffic would cause temporary increases in noise due to site grading, use of construction equipment, and operation of construction vehicles. Table 8 identifies the typical construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 91 CCCFCD equipment that would be operated intermittently over the course of construction at individual project sites and would last approximately 20-45 days during summer/fall work season. Routine noise levels from conventional construction activities (with a typical mix and number of pieces of equipment operating on the site) range from 75 to 86 dB(A) equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) at a distance of 50 feet, from 69 to 80 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 100 feet, from 55 to 66 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 500 feet, and 48 to 60 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 1,000 feet. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors are likely to be lower because the projects would be relatively small in size (less than 6.5 acres) and would require only a few pieces of construction equipment operating for a relatively short time during the construction period (approximately 20-45 wor king days). Impact NOISE-1 – Temporary Noise Disturbance to Sensitive Receptors During Construction Noise from grading activities could impact the surrounding residences and park facilities that are located less than 50 feet from various project areas along the creeks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, which requires the project to comply wit h the City of Brentwood and/or the City of Oakley noise ordinances , would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Hours for Construction Activities in Program Area CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Contra Costa County Ordinances 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969 as follows: If operations under the permit are within five hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations shall be limited to: Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050 as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.2.208d as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Implementation of the proposed Program would not add any permanent new sources of noise to the Program Area. The creeks are currently maintained by the CCCFCD and will continue to be routinely maintained after implementation of individual projects covered under the Program. Monitoring o f project sites would add a small Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 92 CCCFCD number of vehicle trips to individual sites during the first 1-5 years post construction. In addition, trail improvements may increase the number of visitors to Marsh Creek, which may potential increase the number of vehicles accessing parking facilities near Marsh Creek. However, this increase is not expected to be substantial compared to baseline conditions. Implementation of the proposed Program would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels above current conditions. Less than Significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Implementation of the proposed Program would not add any permanent new sources of noise to the Program Area. The most vibration-intensive piece of construction equipment is a pile driver, but no pile driving will be required for Program projects. Other types of construction equipment are far less vibration-intensive. Next in intensity are heavily loaded trucks or large tracked earth-moving equipment, which could pose a damage or annoyance threat if they regularly and often come within 25 feet of a vibration-sensitive receptor during construction. Other equipment to be used commonly for the Project (i.e., excavator, loader, grader, etc.) as identified in Table 8 would have even less potential for impact to local vibration-sensitive receptors. Less than significant. c) 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? The proposed Program is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport nor located within an airport land use plan. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 93 CCCFCD E14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned 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). X c) Displace substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. X E14.1. Setting According to the current Contra Costa County General Plan, “The remainder of East County includes the unincorporated Bethel Island and Discovery Bay communities, as well as the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. In this area, an additional 29,600 homes are projected by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) between 2000 and 2010 which would result in a population of about 97,800 more people by the year 2020.” This development has been addressed through the General Plan, updated General Plans for Brentwood and Oakley, as well as the Urban Limit Line. While the housing crisis and great recession had a signif icant impact on expansion of housing within the Program Area, Brentwood was the 6th fastest growing City in California as of 2016 and Oakely was not far behind. For example, according to the City of Brentwood the population grew over 100% from 2000 to 2010 and then another 18.5% between 2010 to 2016 with an additional estimate of nearly 12% growth between 2016-2020. Would the Program: 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)? The proposed Program would not induce any unplanned population growth in an area because the project implemented under this Program will not propose any physical or regulatory change that would remove a restriction to or encourage population growth in an area. No impact. b) Displace substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed Program would not displace a substantial number of people or housing since the Program’s projects would be located in areas that are already designated for no development (e.g., setbacks). No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 94 CCCFCD E15. PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 following public services: X i) Fire protection. X ii) Police protection. X iii) Schools. X iv) Parks. X v) Other public facilities. X X Would the Program: a) 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 env ironmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) fire protection; ii) police protection; iii) schools; iv) parks; or v) other public facilities? No physical or environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities would result from implementation of the Program. Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District (MVCD) is a government agency responsible for treatment and control of vector-borne diseases. Individual projects implemented under the proposed Program could result in a temporary increase in standing water. Standing water provides mosquito breeding habitat. If standing water is present for more than 72 hours then restored riparian habitat may require treatment for mosqutioes. To avoid creating an additional public service, individual projects will include integrated vector management strategies as outlined by MVCD (https://www.contracostamosquito.com/services). Including ecosystem-based prevention of pests through biological control and/or design strategies would avoid need to for additional public services. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 95 CCCFCD E16. RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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. X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construc- tion or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. X E16.1. Setting The Marsh Creek corridor is an integral part of both local and regional trail systems. The EBRPD owns and maintains the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which follows the mainstem of Marsh Creek approximately 6.5 miles from Big Break in Oakley to Concord Avenue/Creekside Park in Brentwood. EBRPD has proposed an expansion of the trail that would link it to Round Valley Regional Park upstream of the Marsh Creek Reservoir (Figure 3, Program Description). The current Marsh Creek Regional Trail also links to the Big Break Regional Trail along the Delta to the north and the Delta De Anza Regional Trail near Cypress Road in Oakley (Figure 3, Program Description). In addition to these regional trail linkages, the Marsh Creek Regional Trail links a number of small community parks or pocket parks in Brentwood and Oakley. In its current condition, th e trail is heavily used and runs along the creek corridor for much of its length. Unfortunately, the trail lacks shade, greatly impeding its utility and safety for users during the warmer months. Sand Creek currently supports a small recreational trail tha t extends from Fairview Avenue to Minnesota Ave nue Deer Creek has a trail from Fairview Avenue to San Jose Avenue. Neither of these trails currently have a formal connection to the larger Marsh Creek Regional Trail. Would the Program: a) 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? Impact REC-1 – Disturbance to Recreational Facilities Marsh Creek Regional Trail in Brentwood and the un-named trails along Sand Creek and Deer Creek provide recreational facilities to the general public. Trail access and conditions would be improved with implementation of projects under the Program through improved shade, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities. Construction of the proposed Program may temporarily impact users of the trails; however, trail access would be maintained through implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure REC-1: Provide Trail Users with Clear Re-Route / Detour Options During Construction Program project applicants and their contractors will coordinate with local traffic and recreational districts to minimize disturbance to the public trail from creek restoration activities located on or adjacent to, Marsh Creek Trail. Appropriate signage, pedestrian/user management, and detours will be provided by the contractor, and a haul route will be designated and clearly marked. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 96 CCCFCD b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed Program does not propose the expansion or construction of additional recreational facilities. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 97 CCCFCD E17. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. X b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). X c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). X d) Result in inadequate emergency access. X E17.1. Setting The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed to manage the County's transportation sales tax program and 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 2018 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transit Authority 2018). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies regarding Contra Costa County bikeways. Would the Program: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities There would be no permanent increase in traffic as a result of the proposed Program and therefore would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Project construction under the proposed Program would generate off-site construction worker vehicle round trips and trucks hauling equipment and materials to and from the project site which may temporarily impact existing traffic patterns.Mitgation Measure Traffic-1 would minimize impacts. Impact TRAFFIC- 1: Temporary Increase in Construction Traffic Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would ensure potential impacts associated with temporary increases in construction traffic are mitigated to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1: Prepare a Traffic Control Plan Prior to Construction A traffic control plan will be submitted with an encroachment permit application. In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant(s) will require their construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 98 CCCFCD accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Cities of Brentwood and/or Oakley for review and approval prior to construction. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) which pertains to vehicle miles travelled? In July 2020 CEQA Guidelines require project propoents to evaluate impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and § 15064.3 sets for the criteria and methodology for evaluating these impacts. Projects implemented under the proposed Program would generate inherently low vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for potential increase in visitors accessing the improved creek segments post-construction. and short term increases of VMT during construction activities. Impacts associated with construction-related emissions have been evaluated and mitigated in Sections E3 Air Quality and E8 Greenhouse Gas of this document and therefore Program implementation would not require additional transportation evaluation or analyses. The Program is consistent with SB 743. Less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed Program would not change the design or alignment of nearby roadways and would not introduce vehicles that are not already travelling on area roads. No impact. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? The construction contractor would establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimize disruption to emergency vehicle access. Implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-1 would ensure potential impacts associated with temporary impacts on emergency access would be reduced. Less than significant with mitigation. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 99 CCCFCD E18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. X b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? X c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. X d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. X e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. X Would the Program: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed Program would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. It would be the responsibility of the construction contractor to obtain water that would be used for dust control during construction activities. The contractor would obtain water from an off-site source and truck it to the Program’s project sites. Reintroduced drought-tolerant, native vegetation and proposed trees would rely upon precipitation, storm water runoff from the surrounding areas, and creek inundation however supplemental limited watering over the first three years may be required to ensure plant establishment. The limited irrigation would not require the relocation of existing water facilities or construction of new water facilities. No impact. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The proposed Program does not require water entitlements. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 100 CCCFCD c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposed Program would not require wastewater treatment and therefore would have no impact on wastewater demands or providers. No impact. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals . The proposed Program would not generate solid waste. While construction may generate solid waste it would not be in excess or of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Program and individual project applicants would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste generated by construction activities. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 101 CCCFCD E19. WILDFIRE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Le ss Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: X a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? X d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X E19.1. Setting CalFire is the state agency responsible for mapping wildfire hazards and fire severity zones. The 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zones map (Figure 8) shows areas within the State Responsibility in the County and is the most recent map available for these data. The map in Figure 8 shows that the entire Program Area is outside of the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The SRA closest to the Program Area is to the south, in the upper Marsh Creek Watershed, and is categorized as moderate for fire hazard severity. This area is more than 2 miles from the Program Area. Figure 9 was updated in 2009 and shows the areas that are recommended for local responsibility. Similarly to Figure 8, there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in or near the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 102 CCCFCD Figure 8. 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 103 CCCFCD Figure 9. 2009 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map showing Local Responsibily Areas. Would the Program: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pla n? The City of Oakley’s 2015 Facilities Emergency Action and Fire Prevention Plan Oakley (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-EAP-FPP.pdf) and the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services 2011Contra Costa Operational Area: Emergency Operations Plan (http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7352/Emergency-Operations-Plan-2010-11?bidId=), appear to be the only two adopted emergency response/evacuation plans that cover the Program Area. Implementation of the Program is not expected to impair the ability of the City or of the County to respond to an emergency or enable evacuation. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 104 CCCFCD b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Implementation of the Program would likely result in increase tree canopy along the stream corridors, but anticipated vegetation managment for flood channel purposes would not exacerbate wildfire risks. Less than significant. c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Implementation of projects within the Program could result in new infrastructure such as pedestrian bridges and may require existing flood control roads, trails, and possibly utilities moved further away fro m the creek banks. The Program will not result in new roads, trails, or utilities being installed and therefore, will not result in new infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in on-going impacts to the environment. Less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Implementation of the Program is intended to improve ecological conditi ons, increase drainage capacity in local streams, and improve channel stability. Any project implemented under this Program will be required to illustrat e compliance with floodplain management regulations and will not result in increase downstream flooding. The Program will be implemented along reaches of Marsh, Sand and Deer Creek that are historic floodplain terraces, devoid of steep slopes (aside from existing channel banks) or geologic features that could result in landslides. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 105 CCCFCD E20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communit y, 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? X 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.) X c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Would the Program: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communit y, substantially 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? Implementation of the proposed Program would benefit the quality of the environment, improve habitat for fish and wildlife and increase populations of plant and animal communities. The Program would also improve habitat conditions for wildlife movement thereby enhancing the range of species within the watershed. None of the activities covered under the Program would eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Temporary impacts associated with construction during restoration activities would be short term and localized. At no point would all 150 acres of the Program Area be simultaneously under construction. In general, projects within this Program would range from being as small as < 0.5 acre to being as large as 6.5 acres. Temporary disturbance of small project areas would be considered less than significant because the habitat being restored is low quality and unlikely to support special-status plants or animals in their current state. Furthermore, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less -than-significant level with the mitigation measures described in the resource sections of this IS/MND and through implementation of measures required by regulatory agencies during the permitting phase of the project(s). No long-term adverse impacts were identified and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 106 CCCFCD construction and operation of the proposed Program would not permanently degrade the q uality of the environment. Less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355[b]) define cumulative impacts as those resulting from closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125[a]) also define the analytical baseline as the conditions on the ground at the time that the Initial Study is prepared. Impacts of past projects are generally considered as part of these baseline conditions. Restoration activities associated with the proposed Program could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction with other projects in the area. These projects, while in the same region, would be held to the same environmental impact evaluation and compliance regulations as the proposed Program. Temporary (construction- generated) impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, recreational resources and traffic for all projects, would be fully mitigated through measures identified in respective environmental compliance documents. No additional cumulative impacts were identified for the Program. Less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, construction sites present many hazards that have the potential to adversely affect human beings either through impaired air quality, construction noise and vibration or traffic impacts. These hazards are temporary, lasting only for the duration of Program’s project construction activities (approximately 20-45 work days). Restoration of the creeks would result in improved environmental conditions for humans through increased shade and improved water quality. Visually, the Program would also result in improved conditions for humans using the recreational facilities located along the Program Area creek corridors. To mitigate for the potential short-term impacts which may cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, CCCFCD has committed to implementing project-wide BMPs (Table 4) and resource-specific, mitigation measures. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 107 CCCFCD F. REFERENCES American Rivers. 2015. An Update to: Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory, and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood, CA Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Bay Area Map. Accessed on: Aug. 22, 2018. Accessed from: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=cgsLiqZones Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed on August 20, 2018. Accessed from: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa-guidelines_final_may- 2012.pdf?la=en. Boucher. 2010. Marsh Creek Hydrology Report. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. CalFire. 2009. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, Local Responsibility Area. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/contra_costa/fhszl_map.7.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2018. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed at: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-Under-Contract?bidId= California Department of Conservation. 2019. WellFinder DOGGR GIS. Accessed May 12, 2019. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close/-118.94276/37.10257/6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. CDFW. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. Version 3.1.0. Database Query for the Brentwood and surrounding 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. December 1. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List. Website Accessed on November 30, 2016. Accessed from http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website accessed on August 22, 2018. Website accessed at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ California Division of Mines and Geology. State of California Special Studies Zones. Dublin Quadrangle, Revised Official Map Effective January 1, 1982. California Geological Survey. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed from http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v802). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 23 November 2016]. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 108 CCCFCD Christensen, Glenn A.; Waddell, Karen L.; Stanton, Sharon M.; Kuegler, Olaf, tech. eds. 2015. California’s forest resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-913. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. City of Brentwood. 2002. Parks Trails and Recreation Master Plan. June 2002. City of Brentwood. 2019. Updated Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan. February 2019. City of Brentwood. 2014. City of Brentwood General Plan 2020. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed at : http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/30951/Urban-Limit-Line-Map?bidId City of Oakley. 2015. City of Oakley General Plan. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed a t: (http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Oakley_GPLU_Final_8-11-15.pdf ) Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, California. Contra Costa Transit Authority, 2018. Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Prepared for Contra Costa Transit Authority. Prepared by Fehr & Peers and Eisen- Letunic. October 2018. Dibblee, T. and J. Minch. 2006. Geologic Map of the Antioch South and Brentwood quadrangles, Contra Costa County, California. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193. Dibblee Geological Foundation. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Elam, T and S. Hector. 2018. Oil and Gas Fields around Mt Diablo. Adapted from oral presentation given at 2018 Pacific Section AAPG Convention, Bakersfield, California, April 22-25, 2018 ENGEO. 2015. Geotechnical Exploration Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project, Brentwood. May 15. Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson's hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. Rep. Sacramento, CA. Fateman, A. 2016. Personal Communication with Sarah Puckett of American Rivers. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. National Flood Hazard ArcGIS Layer, Accessed August 23, 2018. Accessed at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle. 2002. Historic Spots in California. 5th edition, Stanford University Press. Stanford. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 pp. Jones & Stokes. 2003. Preliminary Impact Analysis for Salmonids in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 109 CCCFCD Jones & Stokes Associates. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Na tural Community Conservation Plan. October. (J&S 01478.01.) http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/. San Jose, California. Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Levy, R. 1978. Bay Miwok. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Louis, M. 2010. Marsh Creek Channel HEC-RAS Modeling Results and Project Options to Provide Flood Protection For the 100-year Water Surface Elevation and 50-year Water Surface Elevation + Freeboard Margesson, B. 2018. Personal Communication with Sarah Puckett of American Rivers. Munz, P. and D. Keck. 1968. A California Floral. University of California Press, Berkeley. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Status of ESA Listings and Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon a nd Steelhead. October. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2018. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed on August 23, 2018. Accessed at: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper Natural Heritage Institute and Delta Science Center . 2007. Past and Present Condition of the Marsh Creek Watershed: 4th Edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Soil Map—Alameda Area, California. Accessed from http://websoisurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Office of Historic Preservation. 2012. Historic Property Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. PWA 2006. Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Plan and Feasibility Study. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy. PWA Report 1714 Sherwin, R., and D. A. Rambaldini. 2005. Antrozous pallidus pallid bat. Species account developed for the Western Bat Working Group 1998 Reno Biennial Meeting; updated for the 2005 Portland Biennial Meeting. The Cadmus Group. 2018. Contra Costa County Renewable Resource Potential Study. Prepared for Contr a Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. December 18, 2018. Walkling, R. 2002. Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood CA Wallace, W. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 462-470. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Welch, L. 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. 2016. Biological Resource Assessment for the Three Creeks Restoration Project at Marsh Creek City of Brentwood Contra Costa County, California. World Health Organization, Occupational and Environmental Health Team. 1999. G uidelines for Community Noise. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 110 CCCFCD Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 111 CCCFCD G. LIST OF PREPARERS Jim Robins, Alnus Ecological Brook Vinnedge, Vinnedge Environmental Consulting John Cain, American Rivers Sarah Puckett, Water Resources Consulting Geoffery Horneck (Air Quality and Noise) Tom Orgier and Company (Cultural Resources) Matt Fremont, Fremont Environmental Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special Status Fish Protective Measures To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October 31. 2. In-Stream Activities. If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. b. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. c. If dewatering is proposed, monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams. d. Native aquatic species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a qualified biologist. Use of electro-fishing should be conducted per NMFS/CDFW guidelines. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with FESA. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and during construction. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Special Status Plant Protective Measures o Project applicant(s) will retain a qualified biologist to determine if there is the potential for special-status plants to occur in the project area. o If there is the potential for their occurrence, the biologist will look for these species during the properly-timed floristic survey. o If present, construction of the project will include a buffer zone of 20 feet around the plants to avoid impacts to the plants, whenever possible. o Removal of invasive, non-native plants by hand (i.e. using hand tools, hand pulling, etc.) within this buffer may occur and is recommended to protect special-status plants. o If impacts to special status plants are unavoidable, the project applicant will coordinate with the appropriate resource agencies and local experts to determine whether transplantation of special-status plant species is feasible. If the agencies concur that transplantation is a feasible mitigation measure, the biologist will develop and implement a transplantation plan in coordination with the appropriate agencies. If the impacted species are annuals, it is expected that the current seed crop from the individuals to be lost would be collected (as well as immediate soils making up the dormant seed bed) and then sown on appropriate habitat located on the project site. If the species is a perennial, it is expected that both the seed and the plants themselves would be salvaged and relocated. Seed from the populations that would be impacted may be collected and propagated at a native plant nursery, prior to planting to increase the potential for establishment and survival. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special Status Bird Protective Measures o To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 31. o If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. o Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31. o If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. The buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California Red-legged Frog Protective Measures o A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify if any potential red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys) exists within the project boundaries. o If the project site contains suitable breeding habitat, then the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy of the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required. o Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Compliance with HCP/NCCP In addition and consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization, the following measure will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to Western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard during construction activities. • The HCP/NCCP requires written notification to the USFWS, CDFW, and the ECCC Habitat Conservancy prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. If necessary, impacts to western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard, and their habitat, would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures The project would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for the Swainson’s hawk, which requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If a nest is determined to be occupied, covered activities within 1,000 feet of the nest would be prohibited during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) to prevent nest abandonment. In addition, Swainson’s hawk nest trees removed from the project site during the non-nesting season would be mitigated as required by the HCP/NCCP. The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. And, either: Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-6 CONTINUED: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: o Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. o Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. o Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. o Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. o Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). o Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. o Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. o Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Western Burrowing Owl Protective Measures o Program projects would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for burrowing owl. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW- approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable habitat for western burrowing owl. Surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. o During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. o If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Pallid bat Protective Measures • Project-related impacts to pallid bat roosting habitat can be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measure: • All potential roost trees within 50-feet of the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. The survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within two weeks following the survey. • If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans. • If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by CDFW. • Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees. • No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site. • All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures BMPs provided in Table 4, in addition to the following general construction requirements, would be implemented: • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non-sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types. • No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Loose soil, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. • All no-take species will be avoided. • Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory nonresident species, including covered species. • Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use clean sand or gravel in bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife. • Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down- gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site. • Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate. • On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, BMPs, and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. • Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted. • Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-9 CONTINUED: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures • Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, noninvasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. • Tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. • Heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline. • Construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees. • If the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Wetland Protective Measures Projects under this Program would result in a net increase in wetland footprint and function; therefore, mitigation for temporary impacts would not require compensatory mitigation. If impacts on wetland resources are deemed greater than the net benefit of the project then USACE and RWCQB may require one of the following standard mitigation measures: • Establishment, reestablishment, enhancement, rehabilitation, or preservation of wetlands either on- or off-site to compensate for the wetland functions lost. USACE shall determine the compensation ratio for this option based on a variety of factors; typically, it is greater than 1:1. USACE will likely also require on-going monitoring and annual reporting for compensatory mitigation; and/or • Payment into a USACE-approved in-lieu fee fund, specifically the National Fish and Wildlife Fund (NFWF) sponsored In Lieu Fee Program (if available); or • Purchase of an appropriate number of credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction E5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Identification Efforts by a Qualified Archaeologist • As projects are designed and proposed, they should be reviewed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards to evaluate their potential to impact existing or unknown historical resources. If it appears that a project could impact existing or unknown historical resources, then the project area should be subjected to an historical resources study that complies with Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to identify resources (including buried archaeological resources). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure CR-2: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Archaeological Resources are Encountered During Construction • The construction contractor shall participate in a historical resource identification training session by a qualified archaeologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction contractor shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified archaeologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, archaeological test excavation and/or archaeological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure CR-3: Discovery of Human Remains • If at any time during site preparation, excavation, or other ground disturbance associated with the proposed project, human remains are discovered, the construction contractor shall immediately cease and desist from all further site excavation and notify the District and the District shall notify the sheriff-coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and recognizes the remains are of a Native American, the sheriff-coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall notify those persons it believesto be the most likely descendants of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall be provided the opportunity to advise the land owner regarding treatment or disposition of the remains with appropriate dignity pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Disturbance shall not resume until appropriate mitigations to treat the remains on the site are established. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Encountered During Construction. • The construction contractor shall participate in a paleontological resource identification training session by a qualified paleontologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction personnel shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified paleontologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, test excavation and/or paleontological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Paleontologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E13. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Hours for Construction Activities in Program Area CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Contra Costa County Ordinances 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969 as follows: If operations under the permit are within five hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations shall be limited to: Ø Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050 as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Ø Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.2.208d as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Ø Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor During Construction E16. RECREATION Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Final Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure REC-1: Provide Trail Users with Clear Re-Route / Detour Options During Construction. Program project applicants and their contractors will coordinate with local traffic and recreational districts to minimize disturbance to the public trail from creek restoration activities located on or adjacent to, Marsh Creek Trail. Appropriate signage, pedestrian/user management, and detours will be provided by the contractor, and a haul route will be designated and clearly marked. CCCFCD, Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor Before and During Construction E17. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1: Prepare a Traffic Control Plan Prior to Construction. A traffic control plan will be submitted with an encroachment permit application. In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant(s) will require their construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Cities of Brentwood and/or Oakley for review and approval prior to construction. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor Before and During Construction Comment Letter Provider Contact Name and Number Date General Comment Description General Response Contra Costa Health Services Eric Fung, 925-692- 2538 4/9/19 comment letter provides measures related to protected public sewer and public water systems. The IS/MND has been updated to clarify that permits would be needed from CCEH for any boring or well drilling activities and desstruction of abandoned wells/septic. This update can be found on pg 29 os the IS/MND. The proposed program will not require new wells of any kind, but are likely to use existing public water systems for irrigation of plants during the first 1-3 years following project completion. THe proposed project would not impact or rely on any public sewer systems and will be designed to avoid impacts to existing sewer lines. NAHC Gayle Totton, 916- 373-3714 4/11/19 Request revision to Tribal Cultural Resource mitigation and revision to human remains mitigation measure The IS/MND has been updated to provide additional language on Page 69 to Cul-3 discovery of human remains. There are no mitigation measures proposed for TCRs because Contra Costa County has not been contacted by tribes and we do not know what, if any, TCRs are present in the Program Area. Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control Jeremy Shannon, 925- 771-6119 4/22/19 would the project increase potential exposure to the public of disease vectors (ie mosquitoes, ticks, rats); and would the project increase mosquito breeding habitat? The IS/MND has been updated to include CCMVCD recommendations for moquito abatement. Page 93 in Section E15 Public Services Contra Costa County Claudia Gemberling, 925-313-2192 4/25/19 Request to add County code language to Noise section The final IS/MND has been updated to reflect the County Code restrictions on construction noise. See Page 90. Chevron Environmental Management Company Tan Hoang, 916-979- 3742 4/30/19 Comment letter describes the background of inactive, historic crude-oil pipelines in Contra Costa County, including one map showing the approximate location of the former Old Valley Pipeline (OVP) and Tidewater Associated Oil Company (TAOC) alignments with respect to the proposed project area This new information is appreciated and has been incorporated via text and inclusion of the map in the adminstrative record. Modifications to text can be found in the Mineral Resources and Hazardouse Materials sections of the IS/MND on pg 77 and pg 84 City of Brentwood Joe Odrzywolski, 925- 516-5125 5/1/19 Provided updated Trail map. Comment relates to Section A1.7.4 of the IS- MND. In February of 2019 the City of Brentwood adopted an Updated Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan that includes a detailed and updated Trail Map. This map specifically identifies existing and future planned segments of the Sand Creek and Deer Creek Trails within the City Limits. We believe that the City’s intent to complete these trail segments in the future to connect to the Marsh Creek Trail warrants mention in this section of the IS-MND. The final IS/MND has been updated to reflect the City of Brentwoods Updated Parks, Trails, and Recreational Master Plan. Modifications can be found on pg 12 of the Program Description. . Department of Conservation Shiela Hatfield, 916- 322-1110, signed by Charlene L Wardlow 4/25/19 Provided a map showing locations of twenty-four (24) known abandoned wells adjacent to the project channels. Based on the Program map submitted by DWR, only six of these wells are within 100 feet of the stream channels. The other are greater distance away. DOC provides a number of recommendations for avoiding impacts to abandoned wells and providing permanent access in case of leakage. The final IS/MND has been updated and all recommendations have been incorporated into the Hazardous Materials Section of the IS/MND (pg 77). The information is articulated in the Mineral Resouces section of the IS/MND on pg 84. Note: of the 6 wells in close proximity to the Program Area, 3 are in Oakley's Creekside Park. While this area is technically within the Program Area, restoration work has already been completed at that site, the remaining 3 abandoned wells are highlighted in the text. The DSC comment letter provides specific details and recommendations for ensuring the Program is consistent with the Delta Plan. Specifics include:General Policy 1 (G P1): Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan 1. General Policy 1 (G P1): Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan 1a. Mitigation Measures - Council staff recommends that the County review the Delta Plan MMRP and, when applicable and feasible, document how the Final IS/MND mitigation measures align with and are equally or more effective than all applicable Delta Plan measures. The Program MMRP and the Delta Plan MMRP have been cross-referenced for consistency. Due to the uniqueness of the Program (e.g. many of the mitigation measures are less stringentthan the Delta Plan's MMRP because implementation of projects within the Program will explicitly result in improved habitat conditions for an array of ecological assets). The approach to focusing restoration work on minimization and avoidance with less emphasis on mitigation is an accepted approach that was proof of concept in two decades ofrestoration work statewide and is supported by the creation of Cat Ex 15333, the Corps NWP 27, CDFW's HREA, the RWQCB's Small Habitat Restoration Permit, and the NOAA RC's Programmatic BO for Salmonid Restoration - none of which mandate mitigation for temporary construction related impacts from restoration projects. That said, language has been added in the Program Description (Page 29 & 30) to articulate the specific requirements necessary to obtain a consistency determination with the Delta Plan. Delta Stewardship Council Christie Thomason, 916-445-4560, signed by Jeff Henderson 5/2/19 1b. Best Available Science- Council staff recommends that the Final IS/MND document the use of best available science, including peer-reviewed publications and planning documents used to develop the proposed program, and how subsequent projects under the program would be designed based on best available science. Projects designed under the Program will each be permitted and approved by an array of regulatory agencies. Use of the best available science is simply a Best Practice in Restoration Engineering and, as such, does not seem necessary to include as a condition in this IS/MND. We hope that the DSC will be directly engaged in design of future projects under this program and will provide expertise in ensuring that lessons-learned from recent experience is incorporated into each future project. That said, language has been added in the Program Description (Page 29 & 30) to articulate the specific requirements necessary to obtain a consistency determination with the Delta Plan. 1c. Adaptive Management - Council staff recommends that the Final IS/MND include a discussion of how subsequent projects under this program would address adaptive management. The Three Creeks project, which is in the process of a consistency detrmination with the Delta Plan, is developing a template for Adaptive Management that will be followed by future projects under this program. Until this template is complete, we believe adding specifics to the IS/MND is premature. That said, language has been added in the Program Description (Page 22) to articulate the specific requirements necessary to obtain a consistency determination with the Delta Plan. The Program cannot provide assurances or demonstrate funding for implementing adapative management. In fact, while the issue of monitoing and adaptively managing ecosystem restoration has been part of the community's dialogue since the 1990's, grant funded for restoration projects does not provide additional funds for future adaptive management, let alone the essential monitoring and analysis necessary to create meaningful adaptive management. This issue is substantially larger than this Program. At this time, the Program CEQA document cannot demonstrate financial committments to adaptive management. 2. Ecosystem Restoration Policy 2 (ER P2): Restore Habitats at Appropriate Elevations The Policy is at the heart of the Program as the Program proposes to implement process domain restoration. Lower Marsh Creek was historically a floodplain with a braided meandering channel - basically creating a large sediment deposition zone in the alluval valley. Flood control actions and channel hardening have modified these sections into transport and erosion (bank and bed) zones - a major change to process domain. The Program, if implemented, will restore a small bit of this historic function by creating inset floodplain as the proper elevations and creating low sloping banks to allow for stage resilient restoration - again this is all about recreating proper elevations for habitats to form and be sustained. 3. Ecosystem Restoration Policy 3 (ER P3): Protect Opportunities to Restore Habitat The Program does not drive zoning or development decisions in the County or in the cities. The Program does, however, focus on ensuring that any areas that are ripe for restoration will have an advocate to help incentivize restoraiton occuring. 4 .Ecosystem Restoration Policy 5 (ER P5): Avoid Introductions of and Habitat Improvements for Invasive Nonnative Species This is also considered a Best Practice for any restoration planning. 5. Delta as Place Policy 2 (DP P2): Respect Local Land Use when Siting Water or Flood Facilities or Restoring Habitats The Program and the previous reports upon which it is founded have been developed explicity in collaboration with the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, and the East County HCP/NCCP. The entities drive land-use decision making and the Program does not supercede any local agencies land-use discretion and decision- making. 6. Risk Reduction Policy 1 (RR P1): Prioritization of State Investments in Delta Levees and Risk Reduction Nothing in this Program will negatively effect State investments in Delta Levees and Delta Risk Reduction. The Program, if implemented, should reduce risk reduction from flooding in areas of Brentwood and Oakley. 7. Risk Reduction Policy 3: Protect Floodways Nothing in this Program will negatively effect floodways. The Program, if implemented, should reduce risk from flooding in areas of Brentwood and Oakle y and increase cross sectional area of existing floodways. Comment 1: Steelhead habitat work window of June 15 through October 15.This comment is noted. We are not aware of any biological rationale for a 10/15 vs 10/31 end date. 10/15 is the average first rains in California and, to our knowledge, that is the driving force for the date, not steelhead migration or smoltification. As such, we have been working throughout the State to extend the traditional work window to the end of October and include specific measures for addressing early rains. We intend to continue working with DFW, NMFS, and others on this issue. Delta Stewardship Council Christie Thomason, 916-445-4560, signed by Jeff Henderson 5/2/19 Ca Department of Fish and Wildlife Jeanette Griffin, 209- 234-3447, signed by Gregg Erickson 5/8/19 (agreed to the requested extension by CDFW) Comment 2: Relocated trails should be moved away from stream corridors.We understand the concern related to trails adjacent to creeks, but this requirement is outside of the scope of the Program. Trails, both future and existing, are under the direct purview of both EBRPD and the local cities. Projects that are covered under this program are likely to result in expansion of the creek and riparian corridor and, as a result, will require existing trails to be moved further from the creek than they are today. Comment 3 & 4: Correct language within paragraph (on Section 1602)Thank you and this language has been updated as per the Department's request. Comment 4 (sic): Update section to include discussion of impacts from habitat conversion. The final IS/MND has been updated and this comment was addressed in Impact BIO-7 on Page 60. Construction impacts on this species are mitigated in compliance with HCP/NCCP requirements. Conversion of ruderal habitat to riparian with in the Program Area is considered LTS because of the abundance of these habitat types within the region. In addition, because the burrowing owl is a HCP/NCCP covered species, invididual projects may be subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats. Comment 5: Update to include CDFW's Plant Survey Protocols. The final IS/MND has been updated and this comment has been addressed and language has been included in the final IS/MND on Page 18. Comment 6: Update work window to June 15 through October 15.See comment 1 above. Comment 7: Include fish screen criteria. The final IS/MND has been updated and this comment has been addressed and language has been included in the final IS/MND on Page 18. Comment 8: BIO-1 does not mitigate to less-than-significant.This comment is specifically focused on mitigation for impacts to steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon. The CEQA document will not be including this recommendation for a number of reasons. First, all of the projects under this program are being explicitly developed as restoration work to improve conditions for steelhead and other aquatic and riparian species. There is absolutely no precedent for mitigation of temporary impacts to these species during construction of projects that are explicitly designed for recovery of said habitats and species. The projects will result in significant improvements in habitat (quality and acreage) and therefore do not and should not be required to mitigate for potential take. Second, there are no records of spring-run chinook use in Marsh Creek and currently no records of steelhead use in the Program Area. The only salmonids that have been observed/recorded in this sytem are fall run chinook and their presence is dictated by their unique life history - which is very different than either steelhead or spring-run, both of which require over-summering in natal stream. Marsh Creek'scurrent temperature, water quality, and lack of rearing habitat make this creek inhospitable to either of these species. The authors of this IS/MND have consulted with CDFW and NMFS biologists regarding these issues for nearly two decades and we involved in the first documentation of fall- run chinook in the system back in the early 2000s. Comment 9: Include CDFW's Plant Survey Protocols.The lanaguage on protocols has been included on Page 52. Environmental Data (CNDDB reporting)Additional language was added to Pre-Con 2 in Table 3 on Page 22 to require that any sensitive species observations that occur during planning surveys be reported to the CNDDB. Ca Department of Fish and Wildlife Jeanette Griffin, 209-234-3447, signed by Gregg Erickson 5/8/19 (agreed to the requested extension by CDFW) STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Cultural and Environmental Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373-3710 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.gov Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov April 11, 2019 Claudia Gemberling Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Also sent via e-mail: Claudia.gemberling@pw.cccouty.us RE: SCH# 2019049002, Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Project, near the Communities of Brentwood and Oakley; Contra Costa County, California Dear Ms. Gemberling: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the above referenced project. The review included the Project Description; and the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, section E5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, prepared by American Rivers/ Alnus Ecological/ Vinnedge Environmental Consulting for the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. We have the following concern(s): 1. There are no mitigation measures specifically addressing Tribal Cultural Resources separately and distinctly from other Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures must take Tribal Cultural Resources into consideration as required under AB- 52, with or without consultation occurring. Mitigation language for archaeological resources is not always appropriate for measures specifically for handling Tribal Cultural Resources. Sample mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources can be found in the CEQA guidelines at http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_AB_52_Technical_Advisory_March_2017.pdf 2. Mitigation for inadvertent finds of human remains is incomplete or inaccurate. Please refer to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.98 for the process of designating a MLD for human remains determined to be Native American. Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude them from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf, entitled “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices”. The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Gayle Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph. D Associate Governmental Program Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse Gayle Totton 2 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1, specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared.3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52).4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for “tribal cultural resources”5, that now includes “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.6 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.7 Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code §65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 8 may also apply. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. Pertinent Statutory Information: Under AB 52: AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18).10 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects.11 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. 12 With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.13 If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. 1 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) 3 Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064 (a)(1) 4 Government Code 65352.3 5 Pub. Resources Code § 21074 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2 7 Pub. Resources Code § 21084.3 (a) 8 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. § 800 et seq. 9 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e) 10 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b) 11 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) 12 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a) 13 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c)(1) 3 b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.14 Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.15 Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable.16 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b).17 An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.18 This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code §65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of “preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described §5097.9 and §5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Government Code §65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993. • SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.19 • There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,20 the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22 NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments: • Contact the NAHC for: 14 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b) 15 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b) 16 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a) 17 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (e) 18 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d) 19 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)). 20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, 21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). 22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 4 o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.  The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. • If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:  Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.  Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:  Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.  Protecting the traditional use of the resource.  Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed.23 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated.24 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources.25 In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 23 (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)). 24 (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). 25 per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f)). 716-8.1004 - Work hours. If operations under the permit are within five hundred feet (152.4 meters) of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations shall be limited to weekdays and to the hours, between seven-thirty a.m. and five-thirty p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at any time. (Ords. 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969). XXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DATE: 4/16/2019 FILE: Q:\HPPBTR\MANAGEMENTSTRATEGY\POTENTIAL PROJECTS\CONTRA COSTA\LOWERMARSHCREEK\PROJECTS\FIGURE 1\PSEP_FIG1_LOWERMARSH_2019-04.MXDHISTORICAL PIPELINE RIGHTS OF WAY Contra Costa County, California LOWER MARSH CREEK RESTORATION PROGRAM AREA ANALYST: HOANGTA FIGURE: 1 CALIFORNIA LOCATION MAP Map is compiled from data sources that vary in accuracy; features may not be displayed in exact relationship to one another. I 0 770 1,540 Feet XXXHistorical Old Valley Pipeline (OVP) ! ! Historical Tidewater Associated Oil Company (TAOC) Pipeline Gavin Newsom, Governor David Bunn, Director State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation Northern District, 801 K Street, MS 18-05, Sacramento, CA 95814 conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 322-1110 | F: (916) 323-0424 April 25, 2019 State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells. Our regulatory program emphasizes the wise development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in the state through sound engineering practices that protect the environment, prevent pollution, and ensure public safety. Northern California is known for its rich gas fields. Division staff have reviewed the documents depicting the proposed project. The Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program (Program) is a creek restoration and flood risk reduction program proposed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("District") and others. The program involves work within the area along Marsh Creek from Balfour Road in Brentwood to the Contra Costa Canal in Oakley just north of Cypress Road, Sand Creek from Highway 4 in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek in Brentwood, and Deer Creek from the Deer Creek Detention Basin in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek in Brentwood. The goal of the Program is to incentivize willing landowners and developers to work with the District and other local partners to improve Marsh, Deer, and Sand Creeks to provide: 1) Improved habitat conditions for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians by providing a mosaic of riparian, floodplain, wetland, and aquatic habitat types, 2) Expanded channel capacity to meet or exceed flood channel conveyance capacity, 3) Improved local water quality by shading the creek and reducing mobilization of fine sediments, and 4) I mproved public recreational opportunities. All work will be conducted within stream setbacks of 75 feet on Marsh Creek and 50 feet on Deer and Sand Creeks. These setbacks are calculated from the CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Page 2 of 6 existing top of bank for each watercourse. Thus, it is our understanding that most, if not all, excavation would take place within the exiting stream channels. The attached map shows locations of twenty-four (24) known abandoned wells adjacent to the project channels. Based on the Program map submitted by DWR, only six of these wells are within 100 feet of the stream channels. The other are greater distances and unlikely to be impacts by the proposed work. Note that the Division has not verified the actual location of the wells nor does it make specific statements regarding the adequacy of abandonment procedures with respect to current standards. Most wells were cut off five (5) or more feet below grade at the time of abandonment. For future reference, you can review wells located on private and public land at the Division's website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close . The local permitting agencies and property owner should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil and gas wells. These issues are non-exhaustively identified in the following comments and are provided by the Division for consideration by the local permitting agency, in conjunction with the property owner and/or developer, on a parcel-by-parcel or well-by-well basis. As stated above, the Division provides the above well review information solely to facilitate decisions made by the local permitting agency regarding potential development near a gas well. 1. It is recommended that access to a well located on the property be maintained in the event re-abandonment of the well becomes necessary in the future. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access. This includes, but is not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, and decking. 2. Nothing guarantees that a well abandoned to current standards will not start leaking oil, gas, and/or water in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. The Division acknowledges that wells abandoned to current standards have a lower probability of leaking oil, gas, and/or water in the future, but makes no guarantees as to the adequacy of this well’s abandonment or the potential need for future re-abandonment. CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Page 3 of 6 3. Based on comments 1 and 2 above, the Division makes the following general recommendations: a. Maintain physical access to any gas well encountered. b. Ensure that the abandonment of gas wells is to current standards. If the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer chooses not to follow recommendation “b” for a well located on the development site property, the Division believes that the importance of following recommendation “a” for the well located on the subject property increases. If recommendation “a” cannot be followed for the well located on the subject property, then the Division advises the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer to consider any and all alternatives to proposed construction or development on the site (see comment 4 below). 4. Sections 3208 and 3255(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code give the Division the authority to order the re-abandonment of any well that is hazardous, or that poses a danger to life, health, or natural resources. Responsibility for re- abandonment costs for any well may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general recommendations set forth in this letter. (Cal. Public Res. Code, § 3208.1.) 5. Maintaining sufficient access to a gas well may be generally described as maintaining “rig access” to the well. Rig access allows a well servicing rig and associated necessary equipment to reach the well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing rig, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure. 6. If, during the course of development of this proposed project, any unknown well(s) is/are discovered, the Division should be notified immediately so that the newly-discovered well(s) can be incorporated into the records and investigated. The Division recommends that any wells found in the course of this project, and any pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property. This is to ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (1) the wells located on the property, and (2) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells. No well work may be performed on any oil or gas well without written approval from the Division in the form of an appropriate permit. This includes, but is not limited to, CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Page 4 of 6 mitigating leaking fluids or gas from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work. (NOTE: The Division regulates the depth of any well below final grade (depth below the surface of the ground). Title 14, Section 1723.5 of the California Code of Regulations states that all well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this grade regulation, a permit from the Division is required before work can start.) Sincerely, Charlene L Wardlow Northern District Deputy Attachments: Map Well List cc: Claudia Gemberling claudia.gemberling@pw.cccounty.us CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Page 5 of 6 CEQA Project: SCH # 2019049002 Lead Agency: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Project Title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Page 6 of 6 HIGHLIGHTED WELLS ARE THOSE WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 100 FT OF CHANNELS 980 NINTH STREET, SUITE 1500 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 HTTP://DELTACOUNCIL.CA.GOV (916) 445-5511 A California State Agency "Coequal goals" means the two goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place.” – CA Water Code §85054 Chair Susan Tatayon Members Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Randy Fiorini Michael Gatto Maria Mehranian Skip Thomson Oscar Villegas Ken Weinberg Executive Officer Jessica R. Pearson May 2, 2019 Ms. Claudia Gemberling Environmental Services Division Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Sent via email: Claudia.gemberling@pw.cccounty.us. RE: Comments on Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH# 2019049002 Dear Ms. Gemberling: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The Delta Stewardship Council (Council) recognizes Contra Costa County’s (County) goal(s) of the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program, including floodplain restoration to benefit fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, and improvements in flood risk reduction, water quality, and public recreation opportunities. The Council understands that these goals would be achieved, in part, through use of this IS/MND to provide future project applicants with: (a) clear design guidelines; (b) accepted avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; and (c) a simplified and transparent compliance process for implementing the types of projects envisioned under the program. The Council is an independent state agency established by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, codified in Division 35 of the California Water Code, sections 85000- 85350 (Delta Reform Act). The Delta Reform Act charges the Council with furthering California’s coequal goals of achieving a more reliable water supply and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) ecosystem, while protecting and enhancing the Delta’s cultural, recreational, and agricultural values (Cal. Water Code section 85054). These goals are to be achieved through implementation of the Delta Plan, regulatory portions of which became effective on September 1, 2013, and are set forth in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. Claudia Gemberling Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program May 2, 2019 Page 2 Covered Action Determination and Certification of Consistency with the Delta Plan Pursuant to the Delta Reform Act, the Council has adopted the Delta Plan, a legally enforceable management framework for the Delta and Suisun Marsh for achieving the coequal goals. The Delta Reform Act grants the Council specific regulatory and appellate authority over certain actions that take place in whole or in part in the Delta and Suisun Marsh, referred to as “covered actions.” (Cal. Water Code section 85022(a) and 85057.5.) The Council exercises that authority through its regulatory policies (set forth in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 5001 through 5016) and recommendations incorporated into the Delta Plan. State and local agencies are required to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan when carrying out, approving, or funding a covered action. (Cal. Water Code t for meeting the definition of a covered action. Based on the description provided in the Draft IS/MND, the proposed program and future projects implemented to achieve the program’s goals appear to meet the definition of a covered action set forth in Water Code section 85057.5(a) because it/they: 1. Would occur in whole or in part within the boundaries of the Legal Delta (Water Code section12220) or Suisun Marsh (Public Resources Code section 29101). This program and subsequent projects under the program would occur within the Secondary Zone of the Legal Delta within the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. 2. Would be carried out, approved, or funded by the State or a local public agency. Projects under this program would be approved or carried out by Contra Costa County. 3. Would have a significant impact on the achievement of one or both of the coequal goals or the implementation of a government-sponsored flood control program to reduce risks to people, property, and State interests in the Delta. It appears that this program and subsequent projects under the program would have an impact on the coequal goal of ecosystem restoration, as well as flood control and risk to people, property, and State interests. 4. Would be covered by one or more of the regulatory policies contained in the Delta Plan (23 CCR sections 5003-5015). Delta Plan regulatory policies that may apply to the proposed program and subsequent projects under the program are discussed below. The Delta Reform Act requires a State or local agency that proposes to undertake a covered action to file a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan prior to initiation of implementation of the project. (Cal. Water Code section 85225.) Comments Regarding Delta Plan Policies and Potential Consistency Certification The following section describes regulatory Delta Plan policies that may apply to the proposed project based on the available information in the Draft IS/MND. This information is offered to assist Contra Costa County to prepare certified environmental documents that can be used to support the project’s eventual certification of consistency. This information may also assist Claudia Gemberling Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program May 2, 2019 Page 3 Contra Costa County to better describe the relationship between the proposed project and the Delta Plan in the MND. General Policy 1 (G P1): Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan Delta Plan Policy G P1 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5002) specifies what must be addressed in a certification of consistency by a project proponent for a covered action. The following is a subset of G P1 requirements that a project must fulfill to be demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan: Mitigation Measures Delta Plan Policy G P1, subsection (b)(2), (23 CCR section 5002(b)(2)) requires that covered actions not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and subject to Delta Plan regulations must include applicable feasible mitigation measures consistent with those identified in the Delta Plan Program EIR or substitute mitigation measures that are equally or more effective. Mitigation measures in the Delta Plan's Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (Delta Plan MMRP) are available at: http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Agenda%20Item%206a_atta ch%202.pdf The Draft IS/MND for the proposed project identifies significant impacts for the topics of biological resources, cultural/tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, recreation, and traffic resource impacts that would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The Draft IS/MND proposes mitigation measures that projects under this program would be required to include to address these impacts. Council staff recommends that the County review the Delta Plan MMRP and, when applicable and feasible, document how the Final IS/MND mitigation measures align with and are equally or more effective than all applicable Delta Plan measures. Best Available Science Delta Plan Policy G P1, subsection (b)(3), (23 CCR section 5002(b)(3)) requires covered actions to document use of best available science as relevant to the purpose and nature of the project. Best available science is defined in the Delta Plan as the best scientific information and data for informing management and policy decisions, which must be consistent with the guidelines and criteria found in Appendix 1A of the Delta Plan, available at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015/09/Appendix%201A.pdf. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 23, section 5001, subd. (f).). Six criteria are used to define best available science: relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency and openness, timeliness, and peer review. This policy generally requires that the lead agency clearly document and communicate the process for analyzing project alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures of proposed projects, in order to foster improved understanding and decision making. Council staff recommends that the Final IS/MND document the use of best available science, including peer-reviewed publications and planning documents used to develop the proposed program, and how subsequent projects under the program Claudia Gemberling Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program May 2, 2019 Page 4 would be designed based on best available science. Further, the County should consider including a description of any technical review forums that occurred and informed development of the proposed program. Adaptive Management Delta Plan Policy G P1, subsection (b)(4), (23 CCR Regs. section 5002(b)(4)) requires that ecosystem restoration and water management covered actions include adequate provisions for continued implementation of adaptive management, appropriate to the scope of the action. This requirement is satisfied through: a) the development of an adaptive management plan that is consistent with the framework described in Appendix 1B of the Delta Plan (available at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015/09/Appendix%201B.pdf; and b) documentation of adequate resources to implement the proposed adaptive management plan. Council staff recommends that the Final IS/MND include a discussion of how subsequent projects under this program would address adaptive management. Ecosystem Restoration Policy 2 (ER P2): Restore Habitats at Appropriate Elevations Delta Plan Policy ER P2 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5006) requires habitat restoration to be consistent with Delta Plan Appendix 3 (http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/docs/appendix-3), which describes the many ecosystem benefits related to restoring floodplains and provides guidance on the types of appropriate habitats given a restoration project site’s location and elevation. The elevation map included in the Delta Plan as Figure 4-6 and Appendix 4 (available at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Fig4- 6_DP_205_Elevation_Habitat%5B1%5D.pdf) should be used as a guide for determining appropriate habitat restoration actions based on an area’s elevation. The Biological Resources section of the Final IS/MND should provide support for this objective by analyzing the elevation of the program area in detail in relation to current water levels and best available science for projected sea level rise. This analysis should then document how future projects under the program should demonstrate that they are planned at an appropriate elevation. Ecosystem Restoration Policy 3 (ER P3): Protect Opportunities to Restore Habitat Delta Plan Policy ER P3 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5007) states that within priority habitat restoration areas (PHRAs) depicted in Appendix 5 (available at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015/09/Appendix%205.pdf), significant adverse impacts to the opportunity to restore habitat at appropriate locations must be avoided or mitigated. The program area is located within the Western Delta Priority Habitat Restoration Area. Based on the listed objectives and description of how infrastructure would be modified to reduce flood risk and enable habitat restoration in the Draft IS/MND, ER P3 applies to this program. The Biological Resources section of the Final IS/MND should describe in detail how subsequent Claudia Gemberling Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program May 2, 2019 Page 5 projects under the program would avoid or mitigate impacts to this priority habitat restoration area. Ecosystem Restoration Policy 5 (ER P5): Avoid Introductions of and Habitat Improvements for Invasive Nonnative Species Delta Plan Policy ER P5 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5009) calls for avoiding introduction of and habitat improvements for invasive, nonnative species or for mitigating these potential impacts in a manner that appropriately protects the ecosystem. The Final IS/MND should describe specifically how subsequent projects under this program would avoid or mitigate conditions that would lead to establishment or expansion of habitat for nonnative invasive species. For example, given the program objectives to set back levees and re-establish native vegetation within the creek corridor, careful consideration of how to prevent colonization of invasive nonnative species on project sites is warranted. In the event that mitigation is warranted, mitigation measures should be consistent with Delta Plan Mitigation Measure 4-1 available at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Agenda%20Item%206a_attach%20 2.pdf. Delta as Place Policy 2 (DP P2): Respect Local Land Use when Siting Water or Flood Facilities or Restoring Habitats Delta Plan Policy DP P2 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5011) reflects one of the Delta Plan’s charges to protect the Delta as an evolving place by siting project improvements/facilities to avoid or reduce conflicts with existing uses or planned future uses identified in the applicable city or county general plan when feasible. Policy DP P2 may also apply if mitigation habitat is required within the Delta. The Final IS/MND should describe how subsequent projects under the program would be sited to avoid or reduce conflicts with existing or planned future land uses. This should include a description of how project features or measures that would mitigate conflicts with adjacent uses would be employed by subsequent projects under the program. Risk Reduction Policy 1 (RR P1): Prioritization of State Investments in Delta Levees and Risk Reduction Delta Plan Policy RR P1 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5012) sets key priorities to guide discretionary State investments in Delta flood risk management, which include emergency preparedness, response, and recovery as described in paragraph as well as Delta levees funding. The proposed program objectives include stream setback levees related to RR P1. As described in the Draft IS/MND, it appears that the program would help avoid adverse flood- related impacts, and would contribute to reduced risk by decreasing potential flood impacts to the communities of Brentwood and Oakley. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Final IS/MND should describe how these objectives would be achieved by subsequent projects Claudia Gemberling Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program May 2, 2019 Page 6 under the program. The Final IS/MND should also describe how the priorities for State investment in Delta integrated flood management have been applied to the program. Risk Reduction Policy 3: Protect Floodways Delta Plan Policy RR P3 (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5014) restricts encroachment in floodways that are not either a designated floodway or a regulated stream. Policy RR P3 states that "no encroachment shall be allowed or constructed in a floodway unless it can be demonstrated by appropriate analysis that the encroachment will not unduly impede the free flow of water in the floodway or jeopardize public safety.” Encroachments include removal, or planting of vegetation. (23 Cal. Code Regs. section 5001(n)). Council staff understands that the program purposes include expanding channel capacity to increase flood conveyance capacity and improving habitat conditions. The Final IS/MND should analyze and document how the subsequent projects under the program would not impede the free flow of water in the floodway or jeopardize public safety. CEQA Regulatory Setting The Council appreciates that the Draft IS/MND identifies the Delta Stewardship Council and the Delta Plan certification of consistency process among the potential permits and approvals required from public agencies on page 29. In addition to the specific comments above, this reference in the Final IS/MND should also include a discussion of the specific applicable regulatory policies described in this letter. Closing Comments The Council invites the County to engage Council staff in early consultation (prior to submittal of a certification of consistency) to discuss program features and mitigation measures that would promote consistency with the Delta Plan. As part of the Council, Delta Science Program staff are available to provide further consultation and guidance regarding appropriate application of best available science and adaptive management. More information on covered actions, early consultation, and the certification process can be found on the Council website, http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/covered-actions. Council staff is available to discuss issues outlined in this letter as the County proceeds in the next stages of the program. Please contact Daniel Constable at (916) 332-9338 or Daniel.Constable@deltacouncil.ca.gov with any questions. Sincerely, Jeff Henderson, AICP Deputy Executive Officer Delta Stewardship Council State of California - Natural Resources DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Bay Delta Region 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100 Fairfield, CA 94534 (707) 428-2002 www.wildlife.ca.qov Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director May 8, 2019 Ms. Claudia Gemberling Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Gemberling: Subject: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2019049002, Contra Costa County The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program (Project). CDFW is submitting comments on the IS/MND to inform Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (County), as the Lead Agency, of our concerns regarding potentially significant impacts to sensitive resources associated with the proposed Project. CDFW ROLE CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental take Permit (ITP), a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement, or other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state's fish and wildlife trust resources. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS California Endangered Species Act Please be advised that a CESA ITP must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in "take" of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project (Fish and Game Code, § 2080 et seq.). Issuance of a CESA ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; therefore, the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as potential significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA ITP. CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if the Project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c), 21 083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, and 15065). Impacts Conserv%) California's Wi[:d[ifeSince 1870 Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 2 of 7 must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency's FOC does not e0iminate the Project proponent's obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code section 2080. Lake and Streambed Alteration CDFW requires an LSA Notification (Notification), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et. seq., for Project activities affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat. Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourse vyith a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to notification requirements. CDFW will consider the CEQA document of the Project and may issue an LSA Agreement. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement (or ITP) until it has complied with CEQA as a Responsible Agency. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Objective: Provide a programmatic approach to creek restoration and flood risk reduction of the Lower Marsh Creek stream system corridors. Location: Multiple project sites on Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Deer Creek located within the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and in unincorporated Contra Costa County, California. Timeframe: As funding becomes available and projects are proposed. The goal of the Project is to incentivize willing landowners and developers to work with the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCD) and other local partners to transition the existing 75-foot stream setbacks on Marsh Creek and 50-foot stream setbacks on Deer and Sand creeks, as required by the Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, into ecologically functioning riparian habitat corridors. The IS/MND has been developed to put in place the environmental compliance mechanism necessary to alleviate uncertainty and complexity associated with implementing creek restoration projects, which would further incentivize landowners and developers to participate. Primary program objectives include: enable restoration of riparian vegetation, both woody and herbaceous, within the expanded stream corridors; improve aquatic and wetland habitats within the stream corridors; improve water quality and lower water temperatures within the stream corridors; provide enhanced flow capacity within the stream reaches that are either meeting or exceeding critical flood conveyance targets; reduce the need for and impact of routine channel maintenance by reducing local stream velocities/sheer stress and resulting bank erosion, and allowing riparian trees to grow and shade out nuisance nonnative plants in restoration areas; Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 3 of 7 and enhance local recreational experiences along existing and future creek trails by creating shaded woodland areas throughout the trail system. While the 2015 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan identified a number of discrete parcels that would be appropriate for implementing multi-benefit restoration projects, the IS/MND expands the limits of the Master Plan to include all streamside parcels in the program area. Implementation of the program will result in: 1 ) improved habitat conditions for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians by providing a mosaic of riparian, floodplain, wetland, and aquatic habitat types for these species to utilize, 2) expanded channel capacity to meet or exceed flood channel conveyance capacity, 3) improved local water quality by shading the creek and reducing mobilization of fine sediments, and 4) improved public recreational opportunities. Projects developed and implemented within this Program could include any or all of the following elements: channel widening; riparian and wetland revegetation; installation of instream habitat features; vegetation maintenance; temporary channel crossing; channel dewatering; removal of existing structures or debris; utility line protection and relocation; recreational improvements; and purchase or donation of land in fee-title or easement. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the County in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Table 1: Installation of Instream Habitat Features - Technical Requirements, page 16 Comment 1: Steelhead habitat work window of June 15 through October 15. The IS/MND recognizes the potential of impacts to the federally threatened distinct population segment of California Central Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) within the scope of the Project. To reduce impacts to steelhead, CDFW recommends updating the Technical Requirements to include a restricted work window of June 15 to October 15in steelhead-bearing stream corridors. Table 1: Recreational Improvements - Technical Requirements, paqe 20 Comment 2: Relocated trails should be moved away from stream corridors. The IS/MND includes trail relocation as a possible Project element but beyond adherence to the defined HCP/NCCP stream setbacks, it does not require replaced and relocated trails to undergo an evaluation to determine if relocating it farther from the stream than currently positioned would result in less impacts. CDFW recommends including language requiring an analysis for trail replacement and relocation projects to evaluate the continued or increased impacts from a trail's current position compared to relocation of a trail farther away from the stream corridor. CDFW also recommends this evaluation consider the net increase in habitat creation and trail restoration in terms of recreation-sourced impacts to fish and wildlife. Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Potential Permits and Approvals from Public Agencies - CDFW, paqe 29 Comment 3: Correct language within paragraph. The IS/MND outlines when the Project would require Section 1602 Notification. CDFW recommends the IS/MND update the language in the paragraph to the following: "California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, would be required for work within the bed, channel or bank of the stream corridors. The project would also be required to comply with Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code (protection of State-listed special status species), as applicable for non-HCP/NCCP covered species. In addition, all native bird species that occur in the project site are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "take" by CDFW." E4.1.2 Regulations - California Fish and Game Code, paqe 51 Comment 4: Correct language within paragraph. The IS/MND summarizes the sections of California Fish and Game Code applicable to the Project activities; however, the section mis-states the referenced LSAA code. To correct this, CDFW recommends the IS/MND update the language in the paragraph to the following: "Migratory birds are protected by California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) §3503, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Specifically, CFGC §3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys and falcons, among others) or Strigiformes (owls); CFGC §351 I prohibits the take or possession of fully protected birds; and CFGC §3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof as designated in the MBTA. Construction disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "take" by CDFW. Project activities associated with vegetation removal that could disturb active nests (including nestlings or eggs) would trigger the need for GHMWC to comply with the CFGC (§§3503, 3511, and 3513). CFGC §§1600-1607 require project proponents to notify CDFWif a project will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any rfver, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or Lake. Project proponents shall prepare and submit an LSAA notification and obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) authorization from CDFW if a project vveM will divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of thc sfrcambcd, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lakc, or impact riparian resources within the project area. /\n LS/\/\ must also be issued if the project would use material from strcambcd, designated by CDFW in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlifc resource or from which tht,sc rcaourcca dcrivc benefit." Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 5 of 7 E4.1.3 Special-Status Species - page 52 Comment 4: Update section to include discussion of impacts from habitat conversion. The IS/MND acknowledges the Project area serves as marginal for some special-status species but does not include a discussion of the impacts from habitat conversion. For example, western burrowing owl (BUOW) has the potential to be impacted by proposed activities. BUOW utilizes three of the five defined habitat types described and has occurrences throughout the Project area, but the IS/MND does not require an analysis or impacts to BUOW habitat conversion or provide compensatory mitigation for habitat conversion from BUOW habitat to other restored habitat types that may not support BUOW use. CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised to provide an evaluation of the Project's potential impacts from habitat conversions from grassland-type habitats to riparian and wetland habitats. This evaluation should also demonstrate how such impacts will be mitigated for through the HCP/NCCP. E4.1.3 Special-Status Species - Special-Status Plants, paqe 52 Comment 5: Update to include CDFW's Plant Survey Protocols. The IS/MND states that plant surveys will be required on a project-by-project basis; however, it does not include defined plant survey protocols in the event plant surveys are required. To correct this, CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised to include adherence to CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2009), including the reporting requirements contained in those protocols. Impact BIO-I - Disturbance to Special-Status Fish, paqe 56 Comment 6: Update work window to June 15 through October 15. The IS/MND does not currently require a work window that reduces potential impacts to CCC steelhead. To reduce impacts to steelhead, CDFW recommends updating BIO-1 to include a restricted work window of June 15 to October 15 in steelhead-bearing coastal streams. Comment 7: Include fish screen criteria. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 states dewatering pumps will be fitted with intake screens of mesh no greater than 5mm but does not include the potential for updated methods or technology, which could potentially lead to avoidable impacts. To reduce impacts to native aquatic species, CDFW recommends revising Mitigation Measure BIO-'I to require adherence to CDFW's fish screen criteria outlined in the California Salmonid Stream Restoration Manuars Appendix S, found at https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/Grants/FRGP/Guidance. Comment 8: BIO-1 does not mitigate to less-than-significant. The IS/MND does not reduce impacts to special-status fish to a level of less-than-significant as it does not identify compensatory mitigation to offset impacts from potential projects or take coverage due to the HCP/NCCP not offering take coverage for special-status fish. The IS/MND concludes the Project area is considered potential habitat for federally threatened CCC steelhead and State and federally threatened Central Valley spring-run evolutionarily significant unit Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Project activities such as habitat restoration and channel armoring have the potential for significant impact to the species through direct mortality and loss of habitat. To offset impacts to a level of less-than-significant, the IS/MND Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 6 of 7 should revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to include a requirement for compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation should be required at a minimum oT a 2:1 mitigation ratio (conserved habitat to restored habitat) for permanent impacts, and a 1 :1 ratio for temporary impacts (i.e. less than one year from impact to recovery to baseline) to special-status fish habitats. If take of CESA-listed fish cannot be fully avoided, then CDFW recommends the IS/MND include language defining a project's obligation to obtain take coverage through an ITP issued by CDFW. Impact BIO-2 - Disturbance to Special-Status Plant, page 56 Comment 9: Include CDFW's Plant Survey Protocols. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 does not include defined survey protocols for floristic surveys or require compensatory mitigation in the event impacts to special-status plant species cannot be fully avoided. The HCP/NCCP offers mitigation and take coverage for most of the special-status plants that occur in the habitats described, but there is potential for species not covered by the HCP/NCCP to occur. Significant impacts to those species need to be included in the IS/MND and offset in the event the species are discovered in the Project area. To correct this, CDFW recommends the IS/MND be revised to include adherence to CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2009). In the event special-status plants not covered by the HCP/NCCP are discovered and will be impacted by Project activities, CDFW also recommends revising the IS/MND to require compensatory mitigation for non-HCP/NCCP-covered special-status plant species at a minimum of a 2:1 mitigation ratio (conserved habitat to restored habitat) for permanent impacts and a 1 :1 ratio For temporary impacts. CDFW also recommends inclusion or language defining a project's obligation to obtain non-HCP/NCCP CESA-listed plant take coverage through an ITP issued by CDFW when take cannot be fully avoided. ENVIRONMENT AL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey Form can be Found at the Following link: https://www.wildliTe.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Submittinq- Data#44524420-pdf-field-survey-form. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: cnddb@wildlife.ca.qov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.qov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals. CONCLUSION To ensure significant impacts are adequately mitigated to a level less-than-significant, CDFW recommends the revisions to mitigation measures, described above, be incorporated as enforceable conditions into the revised IS/MND. CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MDN to assist the County in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Ms. Claudia Gemberling May 8, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Ms. Jeanette Griffin, Environmental Scientist, at (209) 234-3447 or jeanette.qriffin(Qwildlife.ca.qov; or Ms. Melissa Farinha, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 944-5579 or melissa.farinha@wildlife.ca.qov. Sincerely, Gregg Erickson Regional Manager Bay Delta Region cc: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LOWER MARSH CREEK STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION PROGRAM Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Claudia Gemberling (925) 313-2192 Prepared by American Rivers Contact: John Cain (510) 809-8010 Alnus Ecological Contact: Jim Robins (510) 332-9895 Vinnedge Environmental Consulting Contact: Brook Vinnedge (510) 541-5663 March 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Program Information .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A1. Program Description ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................................................................................... 31 C. Lead Agency Determination .................................................................................................................................................... 32 D. Evaluation of Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................................... 33 E. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 35 E1. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 E2. Agriculture and ForestRY Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 E3. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 E4. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 E5. Cultural Resources / Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 65 E6. Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 E7. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 E8. Greenhouse Gas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 E9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................................................ 76 E10. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 78 E11. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................................................. 81 E12. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 E13. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 E14. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 90 E15. Public Services .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 91 E16. Recreation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 92 E17. Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 94 E18. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................................................... 96 E19. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 E20. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................................................................... 102 F. References .................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 G. List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................................................... 107 Draft Initial Study Checklist (Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act) FIGURES Figure 1. Marsh Creek Watershed ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Area ...................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Typical Creek Cross–Sections Showing 50’ and 75’ HCP/NCCP Stream Setbacks from Top of Bank, Existing Conditions (Top) and Example of Widened Channel with Riparian Vegetation (Bottom) ............... 6 Figure 4. Photos of Downgraded, Homogenous Creek Channels and Beds ..................................................................... 10 Figure 5. EBRPD Marsh Creek Regional Trail ............................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Important Farmland Map Categories ......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 7. Mineral Land Classification Map .................................................................................................................................. 84 Figure 8. 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map ................................................................................ 99 Figure 9. 2009 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map showing Local Responsibily Areas. ........ 100 TABLES Table 1: Program Implementation Elements ............................................................................................................................ 14 Table 2: General Individual Project Dimensions ...................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3: Preconstruction Related Measures .............................................................................................................................. 22 Table 4: Construction-Related Best Management Practices ................................................................................................. 24 Table 6. Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Work Day) ................................ 45 Table 7. Special Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Program Area ............................................................... 53 Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................................................................... 87 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 1 CCCFCD INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended A. PROGRAM INFORMATION 1. Project title: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program 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: Claudia Gemberling, Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District; 925-313-2192 4. Program location: Multiple project sites on Marsh Creek, Sand Creek and Deer Creek located in eastern Contra Costa County within the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and in unincorporated Contra Costa County. 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 6. Applicable Land Use plan designation: Zoning designations along Marsh Creek, Deer Creek, and Sand Creek corridors within the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and in unincorporated Contra Costa County, include low, medium and high density residential as well as commercial, agricultural and open space. A1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION A1.1. Program Goals and Objectives The Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program (Program) is a creek restoration and flood risk reduction Program proposed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“CCCFCD” or “District”) and American Rivers, a national nonprofit organization that protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature. Implementation of the proposed Program will result in: 1) improved habitat conditions for fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians by providing a mosaic of riparian, floodplain, wetland, and aquatic habitat types for these species to utilize, 2) expanded channel capacity to meet or exceed flood channel conveyance capacity, 3) improved local water quality by shading the creek and reducing mobilization of fine sediments, and 4) improved public recreational opportunities. This Program will also complement three existing conservation planning efforts: the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006) (HCP/NCCP), the CCCFCD’s 50 Year Plan: Channel to Creeks (2009), and American Rivers’ Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Master Plan (2015) (Master Plan). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 2 CCCFCD The goal of the Program is to incentivize willing landowners and developers to work with the CCCFCD and other local partners to transition the existing 75-foot stream setbacks on Marsh Creek and 50-foot stream setbacks on Deer and Sand creeks (referred to collectively hereafter as stream corridors), as required by the HCP/NCCP for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP, into ecologically functioning riparian habitat corridors. As such, this CEQA document has been developed to put in place the environmental compliance mechanism necessary to alleviate uncertainty and complexity associated with implementing creek restoration projects, which would further incentivize landowners and developers to participate. Primary Program objectives include: • Enable restoration of riparian vegetation, both woody and herbaceous, within the expanded stream corridors; • Improve aquatic and wetland habitats within the stream corridors; • Improve water quality and lower water temperatures within the stream corridors; • Provide enhanced flow capacity within the stream reaches that are either meeting or exceeding critical flood conveyance targets; • Reduce the need for and impact of routine channel maintenance by reducing local stream velocities/sheer stress and resulting bank erosion, and allowing riparian trees to grow and shade out nuisance nonnative plants in restoration areas; and • Enhance local recreational experiences along existing and future creek trails by creating shaded woodland areas throughout the trail system. While the 2015 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan identified a number of discrete parcels that would be appropriate for implementing multi-benefit restoration projects, this Program expands the limits of the Master Plan to include all streamside parcels in the Program area. A1.2. Purpose of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq), an Initial Study (IS) is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the Lead Agency as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration is required for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines require that the Initial Study contain a project description; a location map; a description of environmental setting; an identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form; an explanation of environmental effects; and a discussion of mitigation for potentially significant environmental effects. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070 provides that if all the impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the Lead Agency may instead prepare a MND whereby mitigations measures will be implemented. As such, the purpose of this IS is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Program. The Program goals and objectives would be achieved, in part, through use of this CEQA document to provide future project applicants with: (a) clear design guidelines; (b) accepted avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; and (c) a simplified and transparent compliance process for implementing the types of projects envisioned under the Program. The CEQA document analyzes a range of construction and operational activities associated with increasing the width and configuration of the stream corridors to allow for inset floodplain benches and development of mature riparian vegetation while meeting or exceeding CCCFCD’s Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 3 CCCFCD flood control targets. This IS has been prepared in compliance with the 1970 CEQA (as amended), codified in California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. As such, the CCCFCD has opted to prepare a Program IS/MND to achieve these goals and objectives. A1.3. Regional and Program Setting The proposed Program is located within the Marsh Creek Watershed in eastern Contra Costa County approximately 40 miles northest of San Francisco, and includes the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated areas (Figure 1). It is the second largest watershed in the County. The watershed drains 128 square miles of the eastern side of Mt. Diablo from Marsh Creek at its headwaters in Morgan Territory for approximately 30 miles through rangeland, farmland, and urban lands to its mouth at Big Break in the Delta just north of Oakley. Marsh Creek Watershed is an important link between the Delta and the Diablo Range. Figure 1. Marsh Creek Watershed Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 4 CCCFCD Marsh Creek’s major tributaries – Briones, Dry, Deer, and Sand creeks – all flow southeasterly draining the eastern highlands of Mount Diablo State Park and/or Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. Briones Creek, which drains the undeveloped Briones Valley, flows into Marsh Creek at the Marsh Creek Reservoir within Cowell Ranch south of the city of Brentwood, while Dry, Deer, and Sand creeks all flow into Marsh Creek within the city limits of Brentwood. Much of the land in the northern lowland section of the watershed is privately owned and lies within the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley as well as unincorporated County land. All of the privately-owned land in the watershed’s southern uplands is unincorporated and falls within the planning jurisdiction of the County. Although most of the land within the watershed is under private ownership, the watershed is bounded by large areas of publicly owned open space including Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, Los Vaqueros watershed lands, Round Valley Regional Preserve, Mount Diablo State Park, Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, Contra Loma Regional Park, and the Big Break Regional Shoreline. The Program Area is focused on Lower Marsh Creek watershed as it flows through the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and a small portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County, upstream of Marsh Creek’s confluence with the western Delta at Big Break. While Marsh Creek has 4 tributaries, due to the heavily degraded ecological conditions and the flood risk concerns, the Program is focused on potential future actions in the urbanized reaches of Deer and Sand Creek as well as the lower mainstem of Marsh Creek (below the Marsh Creek Reservoir). In this area, Marsh Creek flows due north at a relatively gentle slope of approximately 0.3% or 15 vertical feet per mile of stream. The sub-watersheds of Deer Creek and Sand Creek function as important conduits of surface flow, sediment, agricultural return flow, and urban runoff into lower Marsh Creek. CCCFCD has constructed large detention basins on each of these three creeks, which are designed to attenuate peak flows and capture sediment. Deer Creek is a seasonal creek that drains 6.6 square miles of foothill and flows for approximately one stream mile through flat floodplain lands into a large detention basin ¾ of a mile upstream of its confluence with Marsh Creek. Between the detention basin and Marsh Creek is a constructed, trapezoidal channel. Sand Creek, the largest of the lower zone tributaries, drains 14.4 square miles from its headwaters in Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve to its confluence with Marsh Creek approximately 700 feet downstream of the Deer Creek confluence. Sand Creek appears to have seasonal flow in its more natural upland reaches, and perennial flow supported by agricultural return flows and urban runoff in the lowland reaches. The reaches of Sand Creek upstream of the Program Area, between its urban boundaries with Antioch and Brentwood and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, still contains reaches of intact aquatic and riparian habitat. CCCFCD completed the final phase of construction on the Upper Sand Creek Basin in 2014, which now has the capacity to store 900 acre- feet of water and provide 100-year storm protection to the downstream community. A1.4. Program Area Location and Ownership Individual projects that would be covered under this Program are anticipated to occur primarily on undeveloped lands adjacent to Marsh, Deer, and Sand creek corridors. The Program Area in its entirety includes the Marsh Creek corridor from Balfour Road in Brentwood in the south, to the Contra Costa Canal in Oakley in the north. It also includes Sand Creek from Highway 4 in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek, and Deer Creek from the Deer Creek Detention Basin to its confluence with Marsh Creek. See Figure 2 for a map of the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 5 CCCFCD Figure 2. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Area Oakley Brentwood Antioch Marsh CreekSand C r e e k Deer Creek ST4 Sellers Ave Balfour Rd Empire Ave Delta Rd Sunset Rd Lone Tree Way Fairview Ave Ne r o l y Rd Oak St Ohara Ave 1St St E Cypress Rd Dainty Ave Walnut Blvd Chestnut St Central Blvd Ohara Ave Neroly Rd Ohara Ave Ohara Ave Sand Creek Rd Main St Shady Willow Ln Empire Ave Central Blv d Brentwood Blvd Country Hills Dr Oakley Rd Country Glen Ln Heidorn Ranch Rd Me d a l l i o n D r Laurel Rd Dynasty Dr Somersby Way Cortona Way Main St Laurel Rd Br e n tw o o d B l v d Brentwood Blvd Sand Creek Rd Main St Ohara Ave Sand Creek Rd Main S t Main S t Marsh CreekContra C o staCan a l Deer Creek S a n d C r e e k D r y C r e ek FIGURE 2 - LOWER MARSH CREEK STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION PROJECT F:\Projects\Vinnedge\Lower_Marsh_Creek\MXD\lower_marsh_creek_restoration_program_area_figure_2.mxdContra Costa County, CA Lower Marsh Creek Restoration Program Area²0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: December 2018 Aerial Source: DigitalGlobe (2017) 50-foot Stream Setback 75-foot Stream Setback Creek Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 6 CCCFCD The Program will focus on working with willing partners to facilitate creek corridor restoration actions along Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Deer Creek. All work will be conducted within stream setbacks of 75 feet on Marsh Creek and 50 feet on Deer and Sand Creeks, as required by the HCP/NCCP for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 6, Conservation Measures 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6-2). These setbacks are calculated from the existing top of bank for each watercourse (Figure 3). The HCP/NCCP encourages trails to be sited outside stream setbacks and constructed with permeable or semi- permeable surfaces. When trails cannot be sited outside the required setback, they should be sited as far from the stream channel as possible and should adhere to limitations on exceptions to stream setback requirements (HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.7 and Table 6-2). While the CCCFCD owns between 50-100 feet from the centerline of the three creeks within the Program Area (except for a small stretch on Sand Creek between Highway 4 and the Lower Sand Creek Basin, just downstream of Shady Willow Lane, which is owned by the City of Brentwood), ownership of the additional area within the setback will vary across a range of public and private landowners. Right-of-way acquisition or offers of dedication to public agencies such as the CCCFCD or East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) may be necessary to implement projects proposed under this Program. Figure 3. Typical Creek Cross–Sections Showing 50’ and 75’ HCP/NCCP Stream Setbacks from Top of Bank, Existing Conditions (Top) and Example of Widened Channel with Riparian Vegetation (Bottom) A1.5. Planning Context There are a number of pertinent planning documents that collectively form the technical foundation for the Lower Marsh Creek Corridor Restoration Program. Based on Marsh Creek’s unique location, providing a natural link between the ecologically rich Diablo Range and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, planning efforts such as the Delta Plan, the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, and various planning documents related to the park units in the upper watershed (Mount Diablo State Park and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve) all point to the value of this natural asset. Each of these plans, which focus on the larger region, discuss the importance of maintaining and improving connectivity in this corridor for both terrestrial and aquatic species as well as the need to improve the quality of water flowing through these creeks and into the Delta. At a more granular level, the following planning documents that span the past 15 years, provide finer detail on the vision for realizing ecological uplift of the critical creek and riparian resources that link the Diablo Range to the Delta. In 2007, the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) and the Delta Science Center (DSC) published the 4th edition of The Past and Present Condition of the Marsh Creek Watershed (Marsh Creek Watershed Report). This Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 7 CCCFCD document provided the first detailed analysis of land-use change and the resulting impacts to the watershed’s ecological resources. The document was specifically focused on the wholesale manipulation of Marsh Creek and its tributaries throughout the previous 100 years and the massive impact agricultural production, suburbanization, and flood control activities had on these resources. NHI followed up on earlier editions of this report with the first edition of the Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood CA (Walking et al. 2002). This report provided a parcel by parcel analysis of opportunities to develop multiple benefit creek restoration projects that would also provide the community with additional benefits such as increased flood conveyance, improved water quality, and enhanced recreational experiences. This report was adopted as Appendix IX of the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan (City of Brentwood 2002). In 2006, the HCP/NCCP was finalized and in 2007 ordinances were adopted by the participating cities and the County to establish procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP highlighted some opportunities along Marsh Creek as a “key restoration priority” and parcels within the Program Area are considered potential preserve sites for the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 5, page 5-42). In 2015, American Rivers developed the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan (Master Plan), which updated NHI’s 2002 report to include the entire lower Marsh Creek Watershed. In the intervening years between publication of the original Corridor Width Report in 2002 and the updated Master Plan, the CCCFCD was working a number of parallel efforts. In 2009, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted CCCFCD visionary document, The 50 Year Plan: from Channels to Creeks. This new approach was born out of a decade of collaboration between the CCCFCD, NHI, the Delta Science Center, and a number of community watershed groups, dating back to Contra Costa County’s first Watershed Symposium in 1999. An excerpt from the document summarizes the sea change: “As with most Flood Control Districts, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed to provide flood protection infrastructure and improvements for a rapidly developing County. Our mandate at that time was defined as simply providing flood protection in the most economical manner... Today, however, communities desire a broader range of services. The citizens of our county still want flood protection, but they also want a healthy and natural looking eco-system in their drainage channels and creeks (while minimizing the amount on their tax bill for maintenance and new infrastructure costs). They want good water quality and a sustainable and rich plant and animal habitat in their creeks and watersheds.” This Program is in direct response to needs and direction outlined in the regional and local planning documents described above. This vision, coupled with a growing population and the continued shifting of land-use from agriculture to suburban development posed serious challenges for the CCCFCD and its partners to develop forward-looking flood control plans that improved the quality and quantity of creek habitat. The Program is also situated within the general plan areas and planning documents of both Brentwood and Oakley and both municipalities have moved forward partnership projects as pilots for this Program. The first is the City of Oakley’s Creekside Park. In 2008, Oakley received a grant from the California Natural Resources Agency’s California River Parkways Program to widen the floodplain, restore habitat along Marsh Creek, and improve trails and public access. The project was completed in 2012 and resulted in restoration of approximately 3 acres of riparian habitat and conversion of approximately 850 linear feet of trapezoidal flood control channel to a diverse floodplain habitat. The project also included an 8-foot wide pedestrian trail and a pedestrian bridge across Marsh Creek that connects Creekside Park with East Bay Regional Park District’s (EBRPD) Marsh Creek Regional Trail. The City of Brentwood, in partnership with the CCCFCD and American Rivers will be completing the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (estimated completetion date is fall 2020). Like the Oakley Creekside Park project, the Three Creeks Project includes widening of Marsh Creek to accommodate a floodplain bench, riparian planting, improved flood conveyance capacity, and enhanced recreational opportunities. These two Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 8 CCCFCD projects demonstrate that the CCCFCD, working in partnership with Brentwood and Oakley, as well as an array of nongovernmental partners, can effectively design and implement projects like those proposed in this Program. A1.6. Purpose and Need The overarching purpose of the Program is to help implement a 21st century vision of flood management that focuses on working collaboratively with landowners on creekside parcels to widen the existing corridors to provide the community with both high levels of flood protection, restored aquatic and riparian habitats, and improved recreational experiences. A few key studies have documented the historical ecology of Marsh Creek (Marsh Creek Watershed Report; Standord et al. 2012) and provide historical context that informs present day management challenges. The following excerpts from the Marsh Creek Watershed Report provide a compelling narrative that clarifies the purpose and need for this Program: “The tendency of Marsh Creek to meander across the gently sloping topography of the lower watershed and regularly inundate its broad floodplain was not compatible with agricultural and urban development. Beginning at the turn of the century, humans began to confine the channel to its present location and build levees to protect the rich farmland on the eastern side of the channel…By the late 1930s, expansion of agriculture had reduced the riparian corridor along Marsh Creek to a fringe of trees no more than 50 feet wide on either side….As Brentwood grew and more floodplain lands were converted to both agriculture and suburban/commercial use, the effects of frequent flood events began to have significant financial impacts in the lower zone of the Marsh Creek watershed. Contra Costa County’s 1959 Watershed Work Plan cites flooding as the major problem facing the watershed. ‘Damaging floods have occurred, on the average, once in three years, with three of the worst since January 1952. It is not uncommon to have several floods in the same year, as happened in the winter of 1955–1956 and again in 1958. When such events occur, some damage is suffered to roads, bridges and stream banks in the middle reaches of the creek. The great bulk of the damage however, takes place on the flood plains of Marsh and Kellogg creeks. In the case of Marsh Creek, floodwater leaves the inadequate channel at various points but is prevented by topographic conditions from returning... Such flows have inundated as much as 4,900 acres to depths of four feet.” (Eastern Contra Costa Soil Conservation Service et al. 1959)’ This series of flood events in the 1950s compelled the County flood control district and the Soil Conservation Service to implement a major flood control program that channelized lower Marsh Creek and constructed two flood control dams on Marsh Creek and Dry Creek. These flood control improvements straightened and confined the existing channel, removed all of the existing near channel riparian vegetation, and increased the channel cross section to efficiently convey floodwaters through the lower zone into the Delta…Channel excavation, clearing, and straightening over the past century has resulted in the loss of more than 50% of the total stream channel length in the lower zone. Similarly, these flood control improvements have eliminated nearly all the riparian and floodplain habitat that once flourished along the margins of Marsh Creek. Habitat in the stream channel itself has been further impacted by the loss of natural complexity associated with a meandering stream channel. Prior to the flood control improvements, the channel form was highly variable with pools, gravel riffles, gentle bars, and steep cut-banks...” The report then summarizes the current condition of Marsh Creek in these stark terms, “Today, flood protection activities such as levee maintenance, channel dredging, and vegetation removal have transformed the creeks of the lower Marsh Creek watershed from dynamic living systems to static, confined, and ecologically impoverished Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 9 CCCFCD water conveyance structures.” Over the last 20 years, the pace and scale of development in the watershed has seen an ebb and flow, but overall development has increased substantially, to a point where the flood control channels designed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are significantly under capacity in many locations along lower Marsh Creek. This dynamic of increased flood management needs, combined with the community’s desire for these channels to provide habitat for a wealth of fish and wildlife species and recreational opportunities is the backdrop to the Program. A1.7. Baseline Conditions Determining whether a project or Program may have a significant effect on the environment plays a critical role in the CEQA process. In order to evaluate effects of project or Program implementation, it is critical to understand baseline conditions. This section briefly summarizes the current, baseline conditions in terms of ecological resources, hydraulic conditions, routine maintenance, and recreation. A1.7.1. Ecological Conditions There is almost no woody riparian vegetation along the creek corridor and wetland vegetation is very limited to a narrow 1–3-foot wide string along the low flow channel. While these systems are degraded, they continue to provide habitat for a surprising diversity of native fish and wildlife include western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), occasional adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), warm water fish such as hitch (Lavinia exilicauda) and roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus) and periodic foraging for California river otters (Lontra canadensis). Another example of the wildlife still thriving along the degraded creek corridor is the snowy egret (Egretta thula) and night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) rookeries established in neighborhood street trees close to Marsh Creek (B. Margesson, 2018). That said, the current conditions from an ecological perspective are in a severely degraded condition. The areas 75 feet from the top of bank are generally covered by ruderal, nonnative vegetation and provide significantly limited ecological services (e.g providing habitat, filtering out pollutants, providing shade, enabling carbon sequestration, etc.), which could be restored through a suite of well- designed restoration projects. Moreover, the HCP/NCCP has required 50-foot and 75-foot setbacks from these creeks for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with HCP/NCCP to allow for future riparian and creek restoration actions. In accordance with the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 6, Section 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6-2), the stream setback measure is intended to achieve the following purposes: • Maintain or improve water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants from urban runoff before they reach the stream. • Allow for protection of preserved and restored riparian woodland and scrub within and adjacent to the stream channel. • Maintain a buffer zone between urban development and existing and restored nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and other bird species. • Maintain and enhance the water quality of the stream to protect native fish populations, including populations of special-status species that occur in downstream reaches (e.g., fall-run Chinook salmon in Marsh Creek). • Maintain a more viable wildlife corridor for some species (e.g., California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], foothill yellow-legged frog [Rana boylii]) than would be present with a narrower buffer zone. • Maximize the natural flood protection value of the floodplain. • Provide for recreational trails along the corridor that are compatible with wildlife use. In order to achieve these purposes, the setback could be more than just an area that is outside of development, but rather an area that is actively enhanced for multiple benefits. This Program focuses explicitly on developing multiple-benefit projects within the setbacks that will transition these ruderal undeveloped areas to effective natural resource areas that can provide the services articulated in the HCP/NCCP and other plans. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 10 CCCFCD For summary purposes, the six photos below (taken in August 2017) demonstrate the degraded and homogeneous nature of the creek channel and its banks. Photo 1. Marsh Creek in Brentwood between the Union Pacific Railroad and O’Hara Ave. Taken 08/07/17. Photo 2. Marsh Creek in Oakley downstream of Barnard Road. Taken 8/07/17. Photo 3. Marsh Creek at the Oakley Creekside Park restoration site. Taken 08/07/17. Photo 4. Sand Creek near Old Sand Creek Road, upstream of Shady Willow Ln. Taken 08/07/17 Photo 5. Deer Cr looking West from San Jose Avenue (date unknown). Photo 6. Deer Cr looking toward confluence with Marsh Creek (date unknown). Figure 4. Photos of Downgraded, Homogenous Creek Channels and Beds Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 11 CCCFCD A1.7.2. Hydraulic Conditions CCCFCD prepared two reports in 2010 that document the status of Marsh Creek and its tributaries in meeting the District’s flood control targets of containing the 100-year water surface and the 50-year water surface plus freeboard (Boucher 2010 and Louis 2010). The modeling outputs and recommendations from these reports conclude that multiple locations along the Marsh Creek channel are currently under capacity and that new development along the creek corridor will require CCCFCD to coordinate with both the cities of Brentwood and Oakley to ensure that future development be designed to address these inadequacies. Moreover, both reports state that in their current condition, these creek channels do not have the capacity to accommodate the co-benefits of flood control, riparian habitat restoration, creation of wildlife corridors and improved recreational opportunities. The CCCFCD recently completed one of the major flood risk reduction projects that came out of these studies, the Upper Sand Creek Basin. This project is a multi-benefit flood protection project that significantly reduces peak flow contribution from the upper Sand Creek watershed into Marsh Creek from 2,870 to 134 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 100-year storm event. Moreover, the design of this basin incorporates the Sand Creek channel, creating an “in-line” basin behind the dam. Approximately 3,612 feet was reconstructed with a fluvial geomorphic design to restore and enhance Sand Creek within the basin. An additional 264 feet was constructed as wetland acreage. In the project work plan, the CCCFCD explicitly notes in the purpose and need section that, “…If the Project is not implemented, the ecosystem along Sand Creek will continue to be unsupportive of native species and lack critical habitats.” This project is emblematic of the 21st century approach to flood control being practiced by the CCCFCD and creates a context for developing and implementing multiple benefit projects that reduce flood risk, improve ecological conditions, and enhance recreational opportunities. Because the Marsh Creek channel, within the Program Area, is currently under capacity in multiple locations this Program represents a unique opportunity for the CCCFCD to partner with developers, the cities and nongovernmental organizations to design and implement multi-benefit projects like the Upper Sand Creek Basin project and those envisioned under this Program. A1.7.3. Routine Maintenance Nearly all of Marsh, Sand and Deer creeks within the Program Area, with the exception of a small reach between on Sand Creek between Highway 4 and the Lower Sand Creek Detention Basin, are either owned in fee-title or easement by CCCFCD. Routine maintenance in the areas owned by CCCFCD is governed by the terms and conditions of Streambed Alteration Agreement for Routine Maintenance Activities (Agreement) 1600-2010-0367- R3 (April 18, 2011) between California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and CCCFCD. The Agreement identifies routine maintenance activities for all flood control facilities in Contra Costa County, including Marsh Creek. For the purposes of the Agreement, routine maintenance activities are generally defined as periodic activities necessary to maintain the water transport capacity of streams and channels and the structural and functioning integrity of existing flood control and sediment detention structures on or affecting streams. Routine maintenance activities authorized under the Agreement include both seasonal activities and year-round activities. Seasonal maintenance takes place between April 15 and October 31 and includes: • Sediment removal • Vegetation management (via mechanical and/or chemical treatment) • Maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing structures • Bank stabilization activities • Temporary water diversions • Temporary access roads or structures Annual maintenance activities can take place either within the seasonal window or outside of that window. Annual activities are limited to debris removal from creeks, channels and/or basins and a subset of vegetation Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 12 CCCFCD management activities including: removal of cattails, beginning in September and continued through the end of November and chemical mowing (application of herbicide to retard growth), from December through February. A1.7.4. Recreational Conditions The Marsh Creek corridor is an integral part of both local and regional trail systems. The EBRPD owns and maintains the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which follows the mainstem of Marsh Creek approximately 6.5 miles from Big Break in Oakley to Concord Avenue in Brentwood (Figure 5). EBRPD has proposed an expansion of the trail that would link it to the future Marsh Creek State Park, providing a link by Briones Creek to the proposed Deer Creek State Park, and to Round Valley Regional Preserve upstream of the Marsh Creek Reservoir. Connecting the Marsh Creek Regional Trail to Round Valley provides further connections to Los Vaqueros Watershed, Morgan Territory, and Mount Diablo State Park. The current Marsh Creek Trail also links to the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail at Sunset Road in Brentwood, the Big Break Regional Trail along the Delta to the north, and the Delta De Anza Regional Trail near Cypress Road in Oakley. In addition to these regional trail linkages, the Marsh Creek Regional Trail links a number of small community parks or pocket parks in Brentwood and Oakley. In its current condition, the trail is heavily used and runs along the creek segment for much of its length. Unfortunately, the trail lacks shade, greatly impeding its utility and safety for users during the warmer months. The existing recreational experience could be greatly improved with riparian woodlands providing both shade for recreational users and habitat for a wealth of bird species. Sand Creek currently supports a small recreational trail that extends from Fairview Avenue to Minnesota Avenue and Deer Creek has a trail from Fairview Avenue to San Jose Avenue. Neither of these trails currently have a formal connection to the larger Marsh Creek Trail. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 13 CCCFCD Figure 5. EBRPD Marsh Creek Regional Trail The figure shows the northern reach from Big Break to Central Boulevard (left) and southern reach from Central Boulevard to Concord Avenue, and proposed trail from Concord Avenue to Round Valley Regional Preserve (right). A1.8. Program Implementation Elements The Program will focus on working with willing partners to facilitate multi-benefit, creek corridor restoration actions in the Program Area. Except in rare circumstances, all work will be conducted within the existing HCP/NCCP established stream setbacks of 75 feet from Marsh Creek and 50 feet from Deer and Sand Creeks required for parcels and development activities subject to compliance with HCP/NCCP. While the Program is anticipated to occur primarily on undeveloped lands with willing landowners, it is possible that certain existing structures or infrastructure may need to be removed or relocated to accomplish the goals of the Program. Removal or modification of any existing infrastructure will be carried out in accordance with local land-use ordinances. Projects developed and implemented within this Program could include any or all of the following elements: ! Channel Widening ! Riparian and Wetland Revegetation Round Valley Regional Preserve Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 14 CCCFCD ! Installation of Instream Habitat Features ! Vegetation Maintenance ! Temporary Channel Crossing ! Channel Dewatering ! Removal of Existing Structures or Debris ! Utility Line Protection and Relocation ! Recreational Improvements ! Purchase or Donation of Land in Fee-title or Easement Table 1 provides a brief description of each element or activity that once implemented would result in creek restoration and highlights key technical analyses that will be mandatory during planning and articulates some impacts and specific mitigation measures that will be required during implementation. Additional planning measures and construction-related mitigation measures are described later in this section. Table 1: Program Implementation Elements Program Element Description Channel Widening (see Figure 3 for typical cross-section) The main goal of expanding the channel cross-section is to create enough conveyance capacity to allow for the planting of woody riparian vegetation (shrubs and trees), while also safely conveying large flood flows (100 year storm and 50 year storm plus freeboard) to protect adjacent infrastructure and neighborhoods. Floodplain benches would be constructed within the widened channel on one or both sides of the creek. Benches would be constructed at an elevation that would get inundated by annual high flow events. Bench width would range from approximately 10’ to 40’ and slopes from the benches to the top of bank set at between 2:1 to 4:1, depending on the local conditions. Current estimates suggest approximately 6cy/linear ft. of channel widened. Potential Impacts: The main environmental impacts associated with channel widening will be clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation prior to excavation and both excavation and off-haul of existing soil, rock, and debris required to widen the channel. If not mitigated, these activities could result in temporary impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, recreation, traffic and noise. Design details will be developed for each site, once the site is identified and technical analyses such as hydraulics, geology, etc. will be completed as per the measures identified in the Initial Study. Technical Requirements • Engineering designs and erosion control plan stamped by a registered civil engineer. • Hydraulic analysis by registered professional demonstrating neutral or positive effect on local flood conveyance and no net increase in water surface elevations directly upstream or downstream. • Approval by CCCFCD engineering. • Site-specific biological and cultural resource studies will be conducted prior to any earth moving which may require monitoring. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 15 CCCFCD Program Element Description • Any soils excavated as part of the channel widening will be removed from the site and placed at an approved location outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain and any jurisdictional (state or federal) wetlands or waters. Riparian and Wetland Revegetation and Short-term Vegetation Maintenance (approximately 5 yr. minimum establishment period) The goals of this activity are to (a) restore native riparian and wetland communities to the stream corridors, (b) create a shaded woodland to enhance the existing recreational opportunities along the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, and (c), provide shade to the stream corridor that will encourage aquatic wildlife and discourage growth of nonnative weedy species that require routine maintenance to maintain channel capacity. Seed and live plant material used in this activity will be sourced from local sources. This activity not only includes planting of native vegetation, but also includes monitoring and maintenance for at least 5 years after installation. Specific maintenance activities will be governed by a maintenance and monitoring plan (see Table 3 below) that will be developed by the project partners for each project under this Program. Operations and maintenance activities can include mechanical or herbicide use to control nonnative invasive plants as well as pruning, limbing, otherwise maintaining and potentially replanting the vegetation to meet the project goals. Potential Impacts: Vegetation management during the initial establishment period could result in impacts to biological resources and hydrologic resources. While maintenance during the establishment period is expected to be minimal, conditions related to this activity will be consistent with the measures articulated under Vegetation Maintenance, below. Technical Requirements • Project plans will include a detailed revegetation/restoration plan as well as a 5-year maintenance and monitoring plan. Plans will include species lists, planting or seed densities, success criteria, triggers for remedial/follow-up actions and roles and responsibilities for implementing the plan. • Plant pallets for restoration sites could include the following: The upper banks and floodplain could be planted with native riparian trees such as valley oak, sycamore, live oak, blue oak, box elder, buckeye, cottonwood, and willow. Slopes and banks could also be planted with native grassland and scrub species, which would include creeping wild rye, California brome, purple needlegrass, dense-flowered lupine, mugwort, common fiddleneck, elegant clarkia, and California poppy. Areas of the floodplain and banks below the new benches could be planted with native seasonal wetland species that will include, but not be limited to, creek clover, Baltic rush, and deer sedge. Installation of Instream Habitat Features The goal of this activity is to improve instream habitat for a range of aquatic species including, but not limited to, rearing Chinook salmon, rearing and spawning for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), basking and foraging for western pond turtles and foraging and refugia for California red-legged frogs and other riparian wildlife species. This activity could include installation of either large woody debris (LWD) and/or rock features (e.g., Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 16 CCCFCD Program Element Description rock barbs) below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to improve degraded aquatic conditions by providing high flow and predation refugia, sorting sediment, and restoring pool and riffle characteristics. Augmentation of gravel could occur concurrently or in isolation and would enhance spawning opportunities for Chinook salmon and steelhead. Limited grading below the OHWM may be required to properly install and anchor instream features. Installation of these features will occur during the summer or early fall months when streams are either dry or experiencing low flows. It is possible that dewatering may be required for certain actions that require construction equipment to enter the channel or work in an area that would be wetted. If working in a wetted channel, where the live channel cannot be isolated from the work area via localized cofferdams, piles, etc., dewatering will be necessary. If so, see dewatering section below for details. Potential Impacts: Installation of instream habitat features may result in temporary construction related impacts to biological resources, hydrological resources, and cultural resources during dewatering and excavation, if necessary. Technical Requirements • Structures will be designed to withstand a 100-year (Q100) storm event. • Features should be designed and implemented in accordance with the CDFW’s California Salmonid Stream Habitat and Restoration Manual (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/HabitatManual.asp) or in coordination with staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or CDFW. Some examples of the features that could be utilized in Marsh Creek include Digger Logs (p. VII-26 of the manual), Spider Logs (p. VII-27), and Log, Root Wad, and Boulder Combinations (p. VII-28). • Structures designs will be stamped by a registered civil engineer or licensed landscape architect. • Hydraulic analysis will need to demonstrate that structures result in either a neutral or beneficial effect on local channel capacity and do not result in elevated water surface elevations during a Q50 or above recurrence interval storm directly upstream or downstream from the project site. • Site specific biological and cultural resource surveys and monitoring may need to be conducted if installation requires dewatering, isolation of wetted areas, and/or excavation. Vegetation Maintenance (after 5-year establishment period) Vegetation within the new widened channel may require limited maintenance in order to (a) remove nonnative invasive species, (b) maintain as-designed roughness standards to ensure post-project channel capacity, and (c) enable the maintenance of public safety via visual access through the restored sites. Vegetation maintenance will be implemented on an as-needed basis and will be conducted in accordance with the conditions of the CCCFCD’s existing (or renewed) Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW and in any maintenance plan developed in association with a restoration project. The current CCCFCD Routine Maintenance Agreement only applies to maintenance of facilities on CCCFCD fee title properties and within Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 17 CCCFCD Program Element Description CCCFCD easements. As such, any activities that occur outside of CCCFCD ownership will be required to obtain an individual agreement with CDFW. We expect the terms and conditions of any individual maintenance agreement to be similar to the existing CCCFCD agreement. Routine maintenance activities currently authorized under the Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW include clearing of debris from existing culverts, minor vegetation removal, debris removal in streams sufficient to restore water flow, bank stabilization and erosion control using bio- engineered techniques, and removal of hazardous man-made structures from water bodies for public safety and habitat improvement. Potential Impacts: Vegetation management could result in impacts to biological resources and hydrologic resources. Technical Requirements • Develop a long-term maintenance plan for any revegetation site implemented under the Program. The Plan should articulate goals and triggers for vegetation management, methods for vegetation management, responsibilities for vegetation management, and clear avoidance and minimization measures. • Follow specific terms and conditions for avoidance and minization as articulated in the CCCFCD Routine Maintenance Agreement and/or individual agreements developed for vegetation management at the project site(s). Temporary Channel Crossing During project implementation, it may be necessary for heavy equipment to cross the wetted channel. If this is the case and dewatering will not be necessary to install instream structures, a temporary instream crossing may be necessary. Temporary channel crossings could consist of either (a) 1-3 temporary culverts placed in the stream with clean sand or gravel bags used to keep them in place, or (b) a series of industrial “super-sacks” filled with clean sand or gravel. Other options may be appropriate given the site conditions. In addition, temporary channel crossing structures would include some type of stable material for equipment to drive on top of the instream materials. Appropriate materials include, but are not limited to, crane mats, plywood, or compacted gravel. All of this material would be removed, after the temporary crossing is no longer in use or if a storm is expected that would result in flows beyond the capacity of the crossing. If the contractor uses clean river-run gravel as part of the temporary crossing, this material may be approved by resources agencies to be left in the stream to help improve instream conditions. Potential Impacts: Construction and removal of temporary channel crossing could result in impacts to biological or hydrologic resources in the form of sediment release or fluids from construction equipment, flow obstruction, and impacts to aquatic species. Technical Requirements • If the crossing requires pipes or culverts, project engineer or hydrologist would provide discharge requirements for temporary crossings. • Any sand or gravel bags will need to be filled with washed materials, so Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 18 CCCFCD Program Element Description as to not result in water quality impacts. Channel Dewatering Dewatering a portion of a stream during construction is completed to allow equipment access to the active channel while protecting water quality and aquatic species. Dewatering involves isolating the work area using temporary structures such as cofferdams and the pumping of water around the worksite in order to maintain flows downstream. Cofferdams are generally installed at the top and bottom of the dewatered site and are constructed of clean sand or gravel bags wrapped in visqueen or plastic with pipes for gravity feeding water past the work area. Prior to installing the cofferdam, approved/qualified biologists should clear the site of aquatic species and install block nets above and below where the cofferdams are to be located. If salmonids or other fish are expected to be in the dewatered area, fish biologists will capture and relocate all native aquatic species the area prior to dewatering. In addition to gravity feed, subsurface pumps may be necessary to collect groundwater and allow for excavation. Clean stream water that is flowing through a gravity feed system would be discharged downstream of the bottom cofferdam. Groundwater or excess water removed from the site via pumps or sumps may require treating before it is returned to the creek (depending of turbidity levels). Baker boxes, temporary stilling basins or discharge into uplands is acceptable for turbid water. It should be noted that dewatering is implemented to protect resources such as aquatic biota and water quality. If localized isolation of a small (25ʹx 25ʹ) area or a portion of the channel is possible to accomplish the construction tasks, it is ideal to avoid dewatering and focus on local isolation techniques. Local isolation has a smaller impact footprint and generally can be installed rapidly, removed immediately after construction is complete, and provide an appropriate level of resource protection. These techniques might include silt fences, clean sand or gravel bags and small 1-2ʺ “trash” pumps to enable a limited earth moving or structure installation within the active channel. Potential Impacts: To be effective, cofferdams need to be trenched into the channel bottom and this work occurs prior to dewatering and can result in localized, temporary sediment mobilization and impact to hydrologic, biological, and cultural resources. Groundwater pumping to reduce flow can also result in turbid water on-site and downstream. Aquatic species need to be removed and relocated prior to dewatering, which can result in impacts to these species related to handling. Technical Requirements • Dewatering system should be designed by a registered engineer and be included as part of the stamped project plans. Plan should include pipe sizing, approximate locations of cofferdams, cofferdam design concepts, and specifications on addressing potential turbidity of removing groundwater or shallow seepage. • CDFW, RWQCB, and/or other agencies may require approval of dewatering plans prior to onset of construction. • Capture and relocation of aquatic species would be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols from NMFS and CDFW. The Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 19 CCCFCD Program Element Description HCP/NCCP does not provide coverage for listed fish. Removal of Existing Structures or Debris Removal and disposal of unwanted structures and debris from waterways and/or areas to be restored, will occur as-needed. Unwanted structures could include old out-buildings, barns, or other structures within the footprint of the specific project to be implemented. Debris could include large appliances, concrete, car parts, and garbage found during grubbing or excavation (items that are anthropogenic and not natural to the system). Anthropogenic material will be removed, hauled away and disposed of at approved recycling facilities or landfills. Potential Impacts: Removal of debris could result in impacts to historic structures, biological resources, or impact to water quality through disturbance of associated soils and materials that are part of the debris. Technical Requirements • Any structures to be relocated or demolished should be clearly shown on the project design plans. Removal of any structures must comply with the applicable local Building Ordinances and cultural resource regulations. • If debris could contain hazardous materials (e.g., coolant in a refrigerator or oil in a motor), removal will be completed in a way that avoids any further release of hazardous materials. Utility Line Protection and Relocation Utility lines such as sewer lines, drainage outfalls, power lines, and/or other utilities will need to be protected and/or be relocated/modified in order to accommodate grading and excavation work associated with implementing projects within this Program. Protection of utility lines is preferred over relocation and modification. For example, a 33” municipal sewer line runs 15 feet under either the east or west bank of Marsh Creek in the City of Brentwood and this line needs to be avoided. If a line cannot be avoided and requires either relocation or modification, engineering will be designed and implemented in coordination with the utility company, the applicable City, and the CCCFCD. Potential Impacts: Impacts to utility lines could affect ability of utilities to deliver essential services to the communities that rely on them. Moreover, inadvertent impacts to sewerlines could result in water quality impacts. Depending on location, removal and relocation could result in removal of vegetation and ground-distrubance, which could result in impacts to biological and/or cultural resources. Technical Requirements • Project design team must coordinate and work with the owner of the utility to ensure that appropriate protections are in place to avoid impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided and lines must be relocated or modified, plans are to be approved by the owner of the utility and all necessary authorizations are to be obtained before work begins, operations are not to be disrupted to the greatest extent practicable during construction, and relocated utility lines are constructed as-designed and operate as-designed. • For the sewer line running along Marsh Creek through Brentwood, the City has stated 1) no trees should be planted within a buffer of 6 feet on either side of the sewer line as measured from the point above ground Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 20 CCCFCD Program Element Description directly above the sewer line, 2) all existing manholes have to remain at or above the 100-year water surface elevation, and 3) the channel cannot be widened above the sewer line. Recreational Improvements Projects implemented under this Program could enhance opportunities for walking, hiking, and biking in the Program Area. In certain cases, the existing Marsh Creek Regional Trail or other local trail routes may need to be relocated to accommodate the widened channel and the newly created top of the bank. Any relocated trail sections would be designed in collaboration with EBRPD, City of Brentwood and/or City of Oakley Parks and Recreation Department to ensure that the materials, specifications, and practices meet or exceed existing parameters and are consistent with long-term trail planning. Recreational improvements consistent with local trail plans, EBRPD plans, and/or the HCP/NCCP may include trail realignments, new trail connections, free-span pedestrian bridges, benches, interpretive signs, and educational features. Potential Impacts: Construction related to recreational improvements could impact biological, cultural and water quality resources. Hardened infrastructure developed in areas that are currently undeveloped could result in a small but permanent loss of habitat. Technical Requirements • Project design team must coordinate and work with the owner of all trails and recreational facilities to ensure that: (a) relocation or modification plans are approved by the owner and meet the operating agencies design standards, (b) all necessary authorizations are obtained before work begins, (c) trails and recreational facilities are not disrupted, to the greatest extent practicable during construction, and (d) relocated trails and recreational facilities are constructed as-designed and operate as- designed. • Trails are subject to the limitations on exceptions to HCP/NCCP stream setback requirements. Project proponents are encouraged to site trails and access roads outside the required setback to reduce disturbance to wildlife that use adjacent streams and riparian habitats. When roads and trails cannot be sited outside the required setback, they must be sited as far from the stream channel as practicable, must adhere to limitations on exceptions to stream setback requirements described in HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.7 and Table 6-2. • Project proponents are encouraged to use permeable or semi-permeable surfaces on roads and trails within stream setbacks. • Any trails or recreational facilities to be added, improved or relocated should be clearly shown on the project design plans. Acquisition of Property in Fee-title or Easement In order to implement the Program, public and private lands within the Program Area may need to be sold, donated or deed restricted. Land sales or transfers in fee-title or easement to public agencies such as CCCFCD, EBRPD, or others is considered a key component of this program. While the sale or donation of a right-of-way will not, in and of itself, result in changes to the environment, it is assumed that land transactions that are a part of this Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 21 CCCFCD Program Element Description program will be completed in order to enable ecological restoration activities to occur. Potential Impacts: There are no direct impacts from the transfer, donations or sale of land and all indirect impacts are described in the Program elements above. Technical Requirements • Indirect impacts from sale, transfer or donation of real property, right-of- way, or deed restrictions that are completed as part of implementing the Program are considered in the Initial Study for the Program. In general, projects within this Program would range from being as small as < 0.5 acre to being as large as 6.5 acres. Table 2 provides average dimensions and maximums for potential individual projects. These numbers were developed using data from the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project as well as opportunities identified in the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Master Plan (American Rivers 2015). Table 2: General Individual Project Dimensions Length of Channel Improved Average: 750’; Max: 5,000’ Width of Cross-section Improved* Average: 30’; Max: 90’ Area Improved** Average: 0.75 acre; Max: 6.5 acres. Volume of Soil Removed Average: 5000 cu. yards; Max: 45,000 cu. yards. *max of 90ft includes 75ft from top of bank and 15ft below top of bank on either side of the stream. ** max area of improvement limited to 6 acres to allow for 0.5 acres of staging and accessories impacts. A1.9. Planning/Preconstruction Measures Projects implemented under this Program will be required to develop stamped engineering plans and specifications from the Project Applicant as well as appropriate technical analyses that will enable meaningful review of the project by the CCCFCD and other responsible agencies. Table 3 is a summary of the key site/project-specific analyses that will be required for each project to ensure impacts are mitigated to a less-than- significant level and benefits to flood conveyance, habitat restoration, and recreation are maximized to the greatest extent practicable. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 22 CCCFCD Table 3: Preconstruction Related Measures Measure ID Name Measure Pre-Con 1 Hydraulic Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND are required to provide a hydraulic analysis that demonstrates the project, as-designed and expected to evolve over the initial 5-year period, has either a neutral or positive benefit for local flood conveyance capacity as well as water surface elevations upstream and downstream of the site. Pre-Con 2 Biological Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to follow the HCP/NCCP biological survey protocols to document site- specific existing biological conditions and any known or potential habitat for special-status species. Additional studies may be required to address non-HCP-covered species and for Section 7 Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address any potential impacts to listed fishes or critical habitat. Pre-Con 3 Cultural Resource Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to conduct a record search of the database at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University (NWIC) to determine if known archaeological or historic resources would be impacted by the site-specific project. If the project could result in impacts to know cultural resources, additional field surveys may be required. Project specific cultural resource analyses should be developed to meet CEQA requirements, AB 52 requirements, as well as the Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Pre-Con 4 Geotechnical Analysis All projects covered under this Programmatic IS/MND will be required to submit a project-specific geotechnical analysis to ensure that slopes, soils, and design elements meet current geotechnical standards for slope stability and earth movement. Pre-Con 5 Maintenance Plan All projects covered under this Programmatic Programmatic IS/MND will be required to develop a maintenance plan to (a) provide for specific goals and triggers for maintenance in the first 5 years after implementation, (b) articulate roles and responsibilities for short-term and long-term maintenance of the site, and (c) be in accordance with resource agency permits. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 23 CCCFCD A1.10. General Construction Sequencing and Work Window The following provides a sequential list of the general steps that would occur during construction: ! Preconstruction surveys completed and submitted to resource agencies, sensitive areas are flagged. ! Project area is staked by engineer or survey firm for rough grading. ! Material and equipment mobilized to the staging area. ! Erosion and sediment control practices installed (see Table 4). ! Material and equipment mobilized to project site. ! Fish relocation, dewatering, etc., if applicable. ! Rough grading completed and then final grading, after approval. ! Areas temporarily disturbed during construction restored to pre-construction conditions. ! Material and equipment removed from the project site. ! Final erosion control measures installed, including seeding of native plant species. ! Planting of live plants in riparian and wetland areas, plants fenced or protected. All grading, earthwork outside of the active channel and channel banks will be conducted between April 15th and October 31st. Grading and earthwork in and adjacent to the active channel and erosion control work will take place between July 1st and October 31st. Restoration planting will occur between October and February after structural erosion control practices and seeding has been implemented. A1.11. Construction Equipment Typical heavy equipment including scrapers, excavator, backhoes, and tracked trucks would be used. Low ground pressure (LGP) equipment would be used to transport exported material between cut and fill areas. Equipment and vehicles would be staged along existing access roads or dedicated staging areas. Access would be limited to pre- established access routes/roads. All equipment would be steam-cleaned prior to arrival on-site to reduce the chances of non-native seeds or species being introduced by construction equipment. A1.12. Construction-Related Best-Management Practices Table 4 provides a list of general construction-related measures that will be applied to all projects that are implemented under this Program. This list is not exhaustive but BMPs are consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 (pages 6-33). Key preconstruction planning measures are listed in Table 3 and measures specific to each resource area are listed in the appropriate Initial Study sections. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be prepared for this IS/MND will provide an accounting of all measures required for projects being implemented under this Program. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 24 CCCFCD Table 4: Construction-Related Best Management Practices Measure ID Name Measure C1 Erosion Control and Construction- Related Turbidity 1 Gravel/sand bags or other erosion control measures will be employed to prevent runoff and construction-related turbidity. 2 Upland soils exposed due to construction activities will be stabilized using native or noninvasive seed and, if necessary to control erosion, straw mulch. 3 Any erosion control fabric will consist of natural fibers that will biodegrade over time. No plastic or other nonporous material will be used as part of a permanent erosion control approach. 4 Other erosion control measures shall be implemented as necessary to ensure that sediment or other contaminants do not reach surface water bodies for stockpiled or reused/disposed sediments. 5 Any fertilizer required for erosion control will be low nitrogen to avoid favoring invasive species. C2 Staging and Stockpiling of Materials 1 All construction equipment will be staged in upland areas, away from sensitive natural communities or habitats. 2 All construction-related items, including equipment, stockpiled material, temporary erosion control treatments, and trash will be removed within 72 hours of project completion. All residual soils and/or materials will be cleared from the project site. 3 Building materials and other construction-related materials, including chemicals, will not be stockpiled or stored where they could spill into water bodies or storm drains, or where they could cover aquatic or riparian vegetation. C3 Spill Prevention and Response Plan A Spill Prevention and Response Plan will be developed prior to commencement of construction activities and will summarize the measures described below. The work site will be routinely inspected to verify that the Spill Prevention and Response Plan is properly implemented and maintained. Contractors will be notified immediately if there is a noncompliance issue. 1 Equipment and materials for cleanup of spills will be available on-site. 2 All spills and leaks will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. 3 Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material control, and cleanup of accidental spills. 4 Field personnel shall implement measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means. 5 Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations). All field personnel shall be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate use. 6 Absorbent materials will be used on small spills located on impervious surfaces rather than hosing down the spill; wash waters shall not discharge to surface waters. For small spills on pervious surfaces such as soils, wet materials will be excavated and properly disposed of rather than buried. The Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 25 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure absorbent materials will be collected and disposed of properly and promptly. 7 As defined in 40 CFR 110, a federal reportable spill of petroleum products is the spilled quantity that: ! Violates applicable water quality standards; ! Causes a film or sheen on, or discoloration of, the water surface or adjoining shoreline; or ! Causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent will notify the Project applicant and the Project applicant will take action to contact the appropriate safety and cleanup crews to ensure that the Spill Prevention and Response Plan is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the appropriate RWQCB and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). This submittal must contain a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases will be documented on a spill report form. If an appreciable spill has occurred, and results determine that project activities have adversely affected surface water or groundwater quality, a detailed analysis will be performed to the specifications of DTSC to identify the likely cause of contamination. This analysis will include recommendations for reducing or eliminating the source or mechanisms of contamination. Based on this analysis, the Land Trust or contractors will select and implement measures to control contamination, with a performance standard that surface and groundwater quality must be returned to baseline conditions. These measures will be subject to approval by the Project applicant, DTSC, and the RWQCB. C4 Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance and Cleaning 1 All vehicles and equipment will be kept clean. Excessive build-up of oil or grease will be prevented. 2 Vehicle and equipment maintenance activities will be conducted in a designated area to prevent inadvertent fluid spills from adversely impacting water quality. This area will be clearly designated with berms, sandbags, or other barriers. 3 Secondary containment, such as a drain pan or drop cloth, to catch spills or leaks will be used when removing or changing fluids. Fluids will be stored in appropriate containers with covers, and properly recycled or disposed of off- site. 4 Cracked batteries will be stored in a nonleaking secondary container and removed from the site. 5 Spill cleanup materials will be stockpiled where they are readily accessible. 6 Incoming vehicles and equipment will be checked for leaking oil and fluids (including delivery trucks and employee and subcontractor vehicles). Leaking vehicles or equipment will not be allowed on-site. 7 Vehicles and equipment will not be washed on-site. Vehicle and equipment Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 26 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure washing will occur at an appropriate wash station. C5 Refueling 1 All fueling sites shall be equipped with secondary containment and avoid a direct connection to underlying soil, surface water, or the storm drainage system. 2 For stationary equipment that must be fueled on-site, secondary containment such as a drain pan or drop cloth shall be provided in such a manner to prevent accidental spill of fuels to underlying soil, surface water, or the storm drainage system. C6 On-Site Hazardous Materials Management 1 The products used and/or expected to be used and the end products that are produced and/or expected to be produced after their use will be inventoried. 2 As appropriate, containers will be properly labeled with a “Hazardous Waste” label and hazardous waste will be properly recycled or disposed of off site. 3 Contact of chemicals with precipitation will be minimized by storing chemicals in watertight containers or in a storage shed (completely enclosed), with appropriate secondary containment to prevent any spillage or leakage. 4 Quantities of equipment fuels and lubricants greater than 55 gallons shall be provided with secondary containment that is capable of containing 110 percent of the volume of primary container(s). 5 Petroleum products, chemicals, cement, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water or water contaminated with the aforementioned materials shall not be allowed to enter receiving waters or the storm drainage system. 6 Sanitation facilities (e.g., portable toilets) will be surrounded by a berm, and a direct connection to the storm drainage system or receiving water will be avoided. 7 Sanitation facilities will be regularly cleaned and/or replaced, and inspected regularly for leaks and spills. 8 Waste disposal containers will be covered when they are not in use, and a direct connection to the storm drainage system or receiving water will be avoided. 9 All trash that is brought to a project site during construction activities (e.g., plastic water bottles, plastic lunch bags) will be removed from the site daily. C7 Fire Prevention 1 All earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines will be equipped with spark arrestors. 2 During the high fire danger period (April 1–December 1), work crews will have appropriate fire suppression equipment available at the work site. 3 On days when the fire danger is high, flammable materials will be kept at least 10 feet away from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame. 4 On days when the fire danger is high, portable tools powered by gasoline- fueled internal combustion engines will not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials unless at least one round-point shovel or fire extinguisher is within immediate reach of the work crew (no more 25 feet away from the work area). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 27 CCCFCD Measure ID Name Measure C8 Work Site Housekeeping 1 The work site will be maintained in a neat and orderly condition, and left in a neat, clean, and orderly condition when work is complete. 2 Materials or equipment left on the site overnight will be stored as inconspicuously as possible and will be neatly arranged. C9 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Required Dust Control Measures 1 The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD basic fugitive dust control measures, including: ! All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ! All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. ! All visible mud or dirt track-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. ! All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ! Paving shall be restored as soon as possible after construction/repair is complete. ! A publicly visible sign shall be posted at each active worksite with the telephone number and person to contact at the CCCFCD regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A1.13. Potential Permits and Approvals from Public Agencies A critical component of planning projects is understanding the jurisdiction of multiple regulatory agencies and the types of approvals or permits that might be necessary to implement a project. The following is a list of potentially affected agencies and the corresponding type of approval that may be required. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): A Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) permit would be required for placement of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States and work within navigable waters respectively. Individual projects under the Program would be designed to meet the conditions described in the Sacramento USACE Regional General Permit #1 (SPK-2001-00147), which covers discharge of dredge material or fill into Waters of the US under Section 404 of the CWA within the HCP/NCCP Program Area. • California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) implementing regulations, as set forth in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 800 et. seq., require federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with stakeholders, including SHPO, on potential effects to resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For projects covered under this Program, the most likely Federal agency to consult with SHPO will be the USACE through the 404 process. • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and Magnuson- Stevens compliance would be required for potential effects on anadromous fish species federally-listed as Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 28 CCCFCD threatened or endangered and effects on Essential Fish Habitat. Fall-run Chinook salmon are the salmonids known to currently use Marsh Creek at this point in time. This run is not listed under the FESA and neither juveniles nor adults would likely be in Marsh Creek during the late summer or early fall due to their life history. Marsh Creek is not considered Essential Fish Habitat by NMFS. For projects in Marsh Creek that are being conducted during the summer and early fall, consultation with NMFS may not be necessary, but changed circumstances such as observations of listed steelhead could result in the need for Section 7 consultations with NMFS. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): FESA compliance would be required for potential effects on federally listed wildlife and resident aquatic species as threatened or endangered. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would be necessary to protect active nests of native birds. For projects under this Program, with the exception of any listed or special-status fishes, this compliance should mainly be accessed through the HCP/NCCP process (see below). • East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP): The Program is located within HCP/NCCP inventory area and projects will be required to submit a Planning Survey Report (PSR). Projects within the Program would be consistent with Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 and all applicable conditions articulated in Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources and special-status species recovery in eastern Contra Costa County while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on these species and associated habitats. The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of Federal Endangered Species Act and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are authorized for incidental take of HCP/NCCP covered species. Projects completed under HCP/NCCP coverage may be subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Project implemented under this Program may be required to pay HCP/NCCP fees. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Section 401 of the CWA requires that any person applying for a federal CWA (Section 404) authorization, which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, must obtain a state water quality certification that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. No authorization may be issued by a federal agency until 401certification has been granted. • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Construction General Permit (CGP: Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land, and construction on smaller sites that are part of a larger project, must comply with a Construction General Permit that regulates stormwater leaving construction sites (Section 402 of the CWA). Site owners must notify the state, prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and monitor the effectiveness of the plan. The contractor will need this permit right before construction as part of the Notice of Intent. • San Francisco Bay RWQCB, Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Any creek restoration done in conjunction with a project (i.e. subdivision development, or parking lot construction) to discharge stormwater to Marsh, Sand or Deer creeks would require compliance with the NPDES permit. Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) section 402(p), storm water permits are required for discharges from a municipal separate Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 29 CCCFCD storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 or more. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have adopted NPDES permits to regulate storm water for municipalities. The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049) is the governing stormwater permit for all of Contra Costa County.)1 • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, would be required for work within the bed, channel or bank of the marsh. The project would also be required to comply with Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code (protection of State-listed special status species), as applicable for non- HCP/NCCP covered species. In addition, all native bird species that occur in the project site are protected by the California Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW. • Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCD): Any proposed work, activity, or encroachment in/on CCCFCD property or right of way requires that a CCCFCD Permit be obtain from the CCCFCD. The CCCFCD also requires an environmental document be adopted for most Flood Control Permit applications. In addition, work on private and public watercourses and drainage facilities in the unincorporated County areas is regulated by the Contra Costa County 1010 Drainage Ordinance. The 1010 Drainage Ordinance may require a drainage permit from the County for any work that involves man-made drainage facilities or natural watercourses. Some of the activities covered by this permit requirement include: Construction of creek improvements or bank stabilization, creek cleanup, removal/alteration of creek bank-stabilizing vegetation, construction of improvements within drainage easements or within natural watercourses, and construction or modification of drainage facilities. • Delta Stewardship Council (Council): The Council may require a project to complete a Certification of Consistency. Created by the legislature in 2009, the Council is composed of members who represent different parts of the state and offer diverse expertise in fields such as agriculture, science, the environment, and public service. Of the seven, four are appointed by the Governor, one each by the Senate and Assembly, and the seventh is the Chair of the Delta Protection Commission. The Council is charged with implementing the Delta Plan. Projects implemented under this CEQA document will be consistent with the Delta Plan as they are all multi-benefit projects that will reduce flood risk associated with a changing climate, improve Delta water quality, restore denuded stream-side habitat, and enhance the Delta as a place. 1 The eastern portion of the County, which drains to the Delta and includes portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County, Flood Control District jurisdiction, and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, is located within the geographic jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Board. The other County municipalities, including portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County and remaining Flood Control District jurisdiction, drain to the San Francisco Bay and are regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board, and are Permittees subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049). This stormwater permit is commonly known as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP. Permittees located within the Central Valley Region were previously regulated under the East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Board (Order No. R5-2010-0102). In a designation letter issued pursuant to Water Code 13228(b), dated January 6, 2017, an agreement was reached between the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Boards to transfer regulatory authority of the communities in the eastern portion of the County from the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. Therefore, the MRP is the governing NPDES permit for the entire County. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 30 CCCFCD • East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Encroachment Permit: Any restoration work on the east bank of Marsh Creek will most likely impact the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, operated by the EBRPD. The EBRPD has an easement to maintain and operate the trail on CCCFCD property. The EBRPD also maintains and manages parks, staging areas and other facilities along the creeks. The EBRPD requires an encroachment permit for any project that impacts their trails or facilities. The encroachment permit requires a brief narrative description of the project and the exact location of the project. Larger projects require construction drawings and a trail re-routing plan if the Marsh Creek Trail will need to be closed or re-routed during construction. If a project will require a realignment of an existing trail, a new trail connection, or new trail infrastructure, this should be done in consultation with EBRPD. • Cities of Brentwood or Oakley: The cities will likely require encroachment permits, grading permits, and possibly building or planning permits, depending on the scope and scale of the project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 31 CCCFCD B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED All of the following potential environmental impacts are evaluated in this Initial Study. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed program. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources / Tribal Cultural Resources Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions Geology / Soils Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance None with Mitigation Incorporated For the environmental issue areas where there is no potential for significant environmental impact, there is no potential for significant environmental impact to occur from construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project. This finding can be made using the project description, environmental setting, or other information as supporting evidence, which is provided in the Environmental Checklist below. For those environmental issue areas where there is potential for significant environmental impact, mitigation measures have been identified in this document that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 33 CCCFCD D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS2 The Environmental Checklist and discussion that follows is based on sample questions provided in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), which focus on various individual concerns within 17 different broad environmental categories, such as air quality, cultural resources, land use and traffic (and generally arranged in alphabetical order). The Guidelines also provide specific direction and guidance for preparing responses to the Environmental Checklist. Each question in the Checklist essentially requires a “yes” or “no” reply as to whether or not the project will have a potentially significant environmental impact of a certain type, and, following a Checklist table with all of the questions in each major environmental heading, citations, information and/or discussion that supports that determination. The Checklist table provides, in addition to a clear “yes” reply and a clear “no” reply, two possible “in-between” replies, including one that is equivalent to “yes, but with changes to the project that the proponent and the Lead Agency have agreed to, “no”, and another “no” reply that requires a greater degree of discussion, supported by citations and analysis of existing conditions, threshold(s) of significance used and project effects than required for a simple “no” reply. Each possible answer to the questions in the Checklist, and the different type of discussion required, are discussed below: ! Potentially Significant Impact. Checked if a discussion of the existing setting (including relevant regulations or policies pertaining to the subject) and project characteristics with regard to the environmental topic demonstrates, based on substantial evidence, supporting information, previously prepared and adopted environmental documents, and specific criteria or thresholds used to assess significance, that the project will have a potentially significant impact of the type described in the question. ! Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Checked if the discussion of existing conditions and specific project characteristics, also adequately supported with citations of relevant research or documents, determine that the project clearly will or is likely to have particular physical impacts that will exceed the given threshold or criteria by which significance is determined, but that with the incorporation of clearly defined mitigation measures into the project, that the project applicant or proponent has agreed to, such impacts will be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels. 2 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence leading to a fair argument that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made without the possibility of mitigation, then an EIR is required. "Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact.” Mitigation measures and a brief explanation of how or whether they reduce the effect to a less than significant level is provided in the text of this report. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, Program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. This checklist incorporates references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document includes, where appropriate, a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list is attached and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 34 CCCFCD ! Less Than Significant Impact. Checked if a more detailed discussion of existing conditions and specific project features, also citing relevant information, reports or studies, demonstrates that, while some effects may be discernible with regard to the individual environmental topic of the question, the effect would not exceed a threshold of significance which has been established by the Lead or a Responsible Agency. The discussion may note that due to the evidence that a given impact would not occur or would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required. ! No Impact. Checked if brief statements (one or two sentences) or cited reference materials (maps, reports or studies) clearly show that the type of impact could not be reasonably expected to occur due to the specific characteristics of the project or its location (e.g., the project falls outside the nearest fault rupture zone, or is several hundred feet from a 100-year flood zone, and relevant citations are provided). The referenced sources or information may also show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A response to the question may also be "No Impact" with a brief explanation that the basis of adequately supported project-specific factors or general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a basic screening of the specific project). The discussions of the replies to the Checklist questions must take account of the whole project involved in the project, including off-site as well as on-site effects, both cumulative and project-level impacts, indirect and direct effects, and construction as well as operational impacts. Except when a “No Impact” reply is indicated, the discussion of each issue must identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance, with sufficient description to briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the Guidelines). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis” c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 35 CCCFCD E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS E1. AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. X c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. X E1.1. Setting Within its boundaries, Contra Costa County (the County) identifies scenic ridges and waterways as the two main scenic resources, in addition to many localized scenic features. Scenic ridges include hillsides and rock outcroppings and scenic waterways include the San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays. 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 Program Area. Views of Mount Diablo and the foothills are scenic resources within the Program Area. These scenic views provide an important balance to current and planned development (Contra Costa County 2005). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State Scenic Highway Program, provides guidance, and assists local government agencies, community organizations, and citizens with the process to officially designate scenic highways. There are no officially designated scenic highways in the proposed Program Area; however State Route 160 near Antioch and Highway 4 in Brentwood are currently categorized as Eligible State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2018). Would the Program: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape. Public views of the Program Area in some locations could be considered expansive and a scenic vista. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 36 CCCFCD Implementation of the projects moving forward under the proposed Program would change these views by widening the floodplain and planting riparian vegetation along the creek(s). The views may be temporarily impacted during construction of individual projects. Some views may be permanently impacted as a result of riparian vegetation growth. These impacts would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista because after project implementation the views of restored parcels would consist of riparian vegetation – an improvement over the current condition of undeveloped (ruderal) parcels. Views of distant foothills and Mt. Diablo may be obscured by the growing vegetation; however, users of the open space would have access to alternative views of the scenic resources from within the Program Area. Less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Projects within the Program Area would not result in any damage to scenic resources. Existing, non-native trees may be removed to accommodate the restoration project but the transition from ruderal habitat to riparian habitat would result in improved views from and within the Program Area. Less than significant. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The Program Area primarily consists of open water, trapezoidal channels with little to no riparian vegetation surrounded by ruderal habitat. The proposed Program would improve the visual character of the individual project sites and their surroundings through riparian planting. Implementation of the Program would not result in degradation to the visual character of the area not conflict with any regulations governing scenic quality. No impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Construction of projects under the proposed Program would not result in a new source of nighttime lighting as no night work is permitted. No permanent lighting would be installed or allowed under the proposed Program. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 37 CCCFCD E2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 nonagricultural use. X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. X 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 Public Resources Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X 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. X E2.1. Setting This section describes the environmental setting, regulatory setting and any potential impacts on agricultural and forestry resources that would result from the implementation of the proposed Program. Because the Program covers multiple Creekside parcels within the Program Area, the following discussion and impact evaluation applies generally to the region, but focuses specifically on parcels designated as prime, unique or of statewide importance that are within the Program Area. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Contra Costa County currently has 26,484 acres of Prime Farmland, 3,205 acres of Unique Farmland and 7,420 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2010a). These figures include unincorporated portions of the County and those lands designated by the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005) as Important Agricultural Areas. The County has identified agricultural resources as very valuable and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 38 CCCFCD important. The County has established goals and policies in their General Plan (2005) to enhance and protect farmlands and minimize conflicts with other land uses. Moreover, the voters approved an Urban Limit Line (ULL) for Contra Costa County with Measure C in 1990 and extended it to 2026 in 2006 with Measure L. The ULL was developed to guide future development, while protecting Open Space land use designation - including agriculture - both in unincorporated and incorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The entire Program Area is within the ULL, which allows for development and is also outside of the defined Agricultural Core to the east of Brentwood (City of Brentwood 2014). The 2014 Brentwood General Plan Land Use Map and the 2015 Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map for the City of Oakley reflect the updated land use and zoning designations, consistent with the County General Plan in regards to current and future agricultural land use designations and zoning (City of Oakley 2015). Additional information about the Program Area and vicinity was obtained from review of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). FMMP is a nonregulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Creation of the FMMP was supported by the Legislature and a broad coalition of building, business, government, and conservation interests (California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2016). Data from the FMMP is presented in Figure 6, below. The 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map for Contra Costa County was used to analyze potential impacts from implementation of the Program on properties under the Williamson Act protection. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 39 CCCFCD Figure 6. Important Farmland Map Categories Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 40 CCCFCD Would the Program: 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 nonagricultural use? The entire Program Area is within Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) which allows for development and is also outside of the defined Agricultural Core to the east of Brentwood (City of Brentwood 2014). The FMMP shows Farmland of Local Importance in Oakley, north of Delta Road and west of Sellers Avenue. These parcels are slated for residential development with approved development maps and therefore, implementation of this Program would not result in any additional impact to these FMMP farmlands. There is an additional 1,000 linear ft of Marsh Creek, in Brentwood, that is adjacent to Farmland of Local Importance (upstream of O’Hara Avenue). If fully implemented, the Program could result in impacts of up to 1.8 acres of farmland of this designation. This area is designated by the City of Brentwood as Regional Commercial and Business Park and within the County’s ULL. There is Farmland of Local Importance that is mapped along Sand Creek, upstream of Fairview Avenue. This area is designated by the City of Brentwood in their General Plan as Residential Low Density and Public Facility. If fully implemented, the Program would impact up to 3.7 acres of farmland. There is an additional 1,000 linear ft of stream within the Program Area on Sand Creek, just downstream of Highway 4, which is designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland. This is the only Prime Farmland within the Program Area and, if fully implemented, the Program could impact 0.9 acres of this land. These lands are currently designated by the City of Brentwood as Mixed-Use Transportation and Regional Commercial and they are within the ULL. There is an approximately 3,500 linear ft reach of the Program Area along Marsh Creek, south of Delta Road, in unincorporated Contra Costa County that is designated Agricultural Land, and contains Farmland of Statewide and Farmland of Local Importance. Only 250 linear ft of stream is adjacent to Farmland of Statewide Importance. If the Program were fully implemented along this 250-ft reach of Marsh Creek, a maximum of 0.25 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance would be impacted. An additional 6.75 acres of Farmland of Local Importance could be converted to open space in the form of riparian, wetland or stream habitat, if the Program were fully implemented in this area. However, the conversion or loss of agricultural habitat within the County’s ULL program is considered less than significant because these lands are no longer designated as agriculture. Agricultural loss or conversion that lies within the ULL is not subject to additional mitigation beyond what has already been implemented through permanent protection of farmland in the Agricultural Core and outside the ULL. Implementation of the Program would have a less than significant impact on Farmland of Statewide Importance, Prime Farmland and/or Unique Farmland within the Program Area. Less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The Program Area contains 2 small parcels (both less than 2 acres) in Oakley, north of Delta Road that are currently zoned Limited Agriculture and a couple of parcels adjacent to approximately 3,500 linear feet of Marsh Creek in unincorporated Contra Costa County that are currently zoned as Agriculture. There are no parcels within the Program Area protected under the Williamson Act. Restoring a streamside habitat corridor on zoned farmland does not conflict with existing farmland zoning in Oakley or the County. Therefore, the project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. Less than significant. 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), Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 41 CCCFCD or timberland zoned Timberland Production or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §51104)? The Program Area is not located near land designated as Timber Resource (Christensen, et al 2015). No impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No forest land occurs in or immediately adjacent to the proposed Program Area; therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. No impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? The Program is narrowly focused on work within existing 75-ft and 50-ft stream setbacks directly adjacent to the top of bank of Marsh Creek and Sand Creek and Deer Creek, respectively. These changes in the environment, if the Program was implemented along the one reach of unincorporated Contra Costa County, would result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses. This impact is a tiny fraction of the existing farmland in Contra Costa County and is entirely within the ULL. Moreover, in nearly all cases, the existing stream setback area has already been converted from agricultural uses to either recreational trails or flood control maintenance roads. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 42 CCCFCD E3. AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. X b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. X d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. X E3.1. Setting The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) currently focus much of their air pollutant control efforts on five major air pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 micron diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 micron diameter (PM2.5). These are the most prevalent air pollutants emitted nationwide and statewide, and they are known to be harmful to human health when their ambient levels exceed certain concentrations. Consequently, federal and state ambient air quality standards have been set for each of these pollutants (known as “criteria” air pollutants”) at levels protective of human health, with an added margin of safety to afford additional protection to the young, the old and the infirm (i.e., sensitive receptors), who are more susceptible to their adverse health effects. Many other chemical compounds, termed toxic air contaminants (TACs), emitted into the air are also regulated to limit their adverse impacts to human health and welfare. In California and in the Bay Area, the majority of the estimated carcinogenic/chronic health risks from TAC exposures have been attributed to relatively few TACs, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM), which is responsible for about 80% of the cumulative cancer risk from all airborne TAC exposures. E3.1.1. Methodology This air quality analysis was performed using the methodologies recommended in CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017). According to the Guidelines, any project would have a significant potential for causing/contributing to a local air quality standard violation or making a cumulatively considerable contribution to a regional air quality problem if its criteria pollutant emissions would exceed any of the thresholds during construction or operation as presented in Table 5. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 43 CCCFCD Table 5. CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Construction Average Daily (lbs./day) Operational Average Daily (lbs./day) Maximum Annual (tons/year) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 54 10 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 54 54 10 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 (exhaust) 82 15 Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (Fugitive Dust) BMPsa N/A N/A Notes: BMPs = Best Management Practices for Fugitive Dust (Table 4, Item C9) N/A = Not Applicable a If BAAQMD BMPs for fugitive dust control are implemented during construction, the impacts of such residual emissions are considered to be less than significant. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. The Guidelines also establish a relevant zone of influence for an assessment of project-level and cumulative health risk from TAC exposure to an area within 1,000 feet of a project site (termed the “zone of influence”). Project construction-related or project operational TAC impacts on sensitive receptors within the zone are considered significant if they exceed any of the following thresholds: • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million • A non-cancer hazard index greater than 1.0 • An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for annual average PM2.5 concentrations Cumulative impacts from TACs emitted from various sources3 within the zone of influence on sensitive receptors would be considered cumulatively signficant if they exceed the following thresholds: • A combined excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million • A combined non-cancer hazard index greater than 10.0 • A combined incremental increase in annual average PM2.5 concentrations greater than 0.8 µg/m3 Would the Program: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Plan), focuses on two closely- related goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate (the latter addressed in Section E8 Greenhouse 3 freeways, state highways or high volume roadways (i.e., the latter defined as having traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and from all BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 44 CCCFCD Gas). The 2017 Plan defines an integrated, multipollutant control strategy to reduce emissions of particulate matter, TACs, ozone precursors and greenhouse gases (GHG). The 2017 Plan’s proposed control strategies are based on four key priorities: • Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and TACs from all key sources • Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases • Decrease demand for fossil fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel and natural gas) • Decarbonize the energy system Compliance with approved CEQA emission thresholds are necessary conditions for determining whether a project would be consistent with all adopted 2017 Plan control measures and would not interfere with the attainment of 2017 Plan goals. As the analysis below demonstrates, implementation of projects under the Program would not have any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts because these projects would meet all CEQA limits on air pollutant emissions and their consequent health risks to the local population. Less than significant. Program restoration activities would occur at select locations within the Program Area. Restoration activities would take place spring to fall pending permit conditions. Individual projects would typically be approximately 20-45 working days of active construction and are expected to range from 6.5 acres/4,000 linear feet to about 1.5 acres/675 linear feet. In some years there could be work on more than one section of the Program Area with each restoration section having a disturbance area/length in the ranges given above. But the number of sections or projects worked on per season would be limited to two or three at most. Work on two or three projects could occur simultaneously without impacting the various thresholds for air quality and therefore no additional analysis would be needed. The Project would generate temporary emissions of criteria pollutants in construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from equipment and material movement. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to the CEQA significance thresholds. Thus, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2) was used for this purpose. Table 6 provides the estimated pollutant emissions from construction equipment, excavation material haul trucks and worker commute vehicles associated with work on each section for three work scenarios that extend over the disturbance area/length ranges given above. The average daily construction period emissions for each scenario were compared to the CEQA significance thresholds, as shown. Daily emissions of each regulated air pollutant from each scenario’s construction activities would be below the CEQA significance thresholds. This would also be the case for work activities occurring at multiple sites along the within the Program Area during the same season, provided the total number of projects in a given season be limited to three sites at most. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 45 CCCFCD Table 6. Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Work Day) Project Seasonal Restoration Effort ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) “Large” (6.5 acres worked, extending 4,000 linear feet along creek, with 24,000 cu. yd. excavated) 1.04 14.5 0.5 0.4 “Medium” (4.5 acres worked, extending 2300 linear feet along creek, with 14,000 cu. yd. excavated) 1.05 14.2 0.5 0.4 “Small” (1.5 acres worked, extending 675 linear feet along creek, with 4,800 cu. yd. excavated) 0.93 11.3 0.4 0.4 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No Fugitive dust resulting from earth movement and travel over unpaved ground could lead to local violations of ambient particulate standards unless adequate dust suppression measures are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require a number of construction BMPs to control fugitive dust. Implementation of the Program-wide BMPs (Table 4) by the applicant’s contractor would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national ozone ambient air quality standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national PM2.5 standards; it is “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to standards for all the other major air pollutants. As discussed in subsection a) above, Program-related criteria pollutant emissions would be below the BAAQMD CEQA emission significance thresholds. And as discussed below in subsection c) below, Program-related TAC impacts would also be below the BAAQMD CEQA project-level and cumulative health risk significance thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the Program would not have considerable contributions to the Bay Area’s regional problems with ozone and particulate matter, or to local TAC exposures. Less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Cancer risk is the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Following health risk assessment (HRA) guidelines established by the BAAQMD in Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, incremental cancer risks are estimated by applying established toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations. Adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured using a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of a project’s incremental TAC exposure concentration to a published reference exposure level (REL) as determined by OEHHA. If the HI is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 46 CCCFCD Ambient diesel particulate matter (DPM) produced by construction equipment could substantially affect sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the locus of construction activity if such emissions were strong enough and lasted long enough. However, the CEQA significance thresholds for TACs are based on assumptions of exposure duration of a year or longer (i.e., a year for chronic non-cancer health impacts and PM2.5 concentrations; 70 years for cancer risk). Given that only three pieces of equipment (i.e., an excavator, a grader, and a dozer) would be used within each summer-season restoration area over an active period of 20 to 45 working days, the DPM emissions would be relatively minimal and the exposure period for any nearby residential receptors would be short in comparison to the exposure times needed to threaten adverse health impacts. Estimates of DPM emissions from a “large” restoration project (see PM2.5 emissions in Table 6) when used in the SCREEN3 dispersion model (Lakes Environmental, SCREEN View Screening Air Dispersion Model [SCREEN3] User’s Guide) indicate that maximum cancer risk, non-cancer hazard, and annual PM2.5 concentration to nearby residential receptors would be 1.2 per million, 0.03, and 0.16 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM2.5, all substantially below the BAAQMD project-level thresholds. Less than significant. The Program Area includes land uses that are predominantly agricultural or low-density suburban residential. There are a number of BAAQMD-permitted stationary TAC sources in this part of the County, mostly gas stations (sources of benzene emissions, which are carcinogenic) or emergency diesel-powered generators (which emit DPM during periodic, short-duration test operations). Most cluster along the major roadways or in its population/commercial centers and not along the Program Area corridors. The TACs emitted by these stationary sources contribute to local cancer risks and ambient PM2.5 concentrations that are low in comparison to the BAAQMD cumulative CEQA significance thresholds. In the few instances where stationary TAC sources are close to Marsh Creek, their local TAC impacts, in combination with the low cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration added during short periods (i.e., 20-45 days) of future restoration work, would also be low in comparison to the BAAQMD cumulative thresholds. Less than significant. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?BAAQMD CEQA odor criteria considers any project with the potential to frequently expose substantial populations to objectionable odors as causing a significant odor impact. Program activities include odors from equipment exhaust from construction sites, which would be small in scale and short in duration. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 47 CCCFCD E4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. X 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. X 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. X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. X E4.1. Setting The Program Area considered in this evaluation covers a maximum of 150 acres in eastern Contra Costa County. Individual projects moving forward under the proposed Program would be situated within predetermined stream setback areas located 75 feet from top of bank of Marsh Creek (with a maximum of 32,870 linear feet) and/or within a stream setback area located 50 feet from the top of bank along 11,445 linear feet of Sand Creek and along 4,185 linear feet of Deer Creek (Figure 2). At this point in Program development, the exact location of project sites is not available; therefore, this impact evaluation considers all biological resources located within the larger 150-acre Program Area. Full build-out of the Program Area would not occur; however, for the purpose of this evaluation a full build-out scenario would represent the “worst case” scenario with regard to temporary, construction-related impacts. From a biological Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 48 CCCFCD perspective, full build-out would represent a best-case scenario for the benefit of the ecological systems and biological resources within the Program Area. Existing conditions within the Program Area primarily consist of anthropomorphic habitats, ruderal, nonnative annual grassland and freshwater marsh habitats. There is little to no woody riparian vegetation along the stream corridors and wetland vegetation in some areas is limited to a narrow 1–3-foot wide fringe along the low flow channel. Though the Program Area is generally degraded it does provide habitat for several common and special- status species including, but not limited to, western pond turtle, occasional adult Chinook salmon, western burrowing owl and periodic foraging California river otters. A brief description of habitat types within the Program Area is provided below. E4.1.1. Habitat Descriptions Anthropogenic Habitat Anthropogenic habitat is dominated by plant species introduced by humans and established or maintained by human disturbances or activities (Holland and Keil 1990). Some are entirely artificial such as areas under active cultivation (e.g., rowcrops, orchards, vineyards). Others include areas used as rangeland or pasture, and areas influenced by urban or suburban landscaping or plantings. Cleared areas that are planted with or colonized by non-indigenous plant species can create distinct communities dominated by annual grasses and forbs, shrubs, or trees. Some of these communities are only perpetuated with direct human intervention such as irrigation or grazing, while some have naturalized and are able to persist without artificial means. In some situations, introduced non-indigenous species invade native habitats, altering the composition of the native understory or canopy, or both (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). Ruderal Habitat Ruderal habitat is that from which the native vegetation has been completely removed by grading, cultivation, or other historic surface disturbances. Left undeveloped, such areas typically become recolonized by invasive exotic species. Scattered native species might recolonize the site after disturbance has ceased. Ruderal sites are typically dominated by herbaceous species, although scattered woody shrubs and trees may also begin to appear if left undisturbed long enough. Typical vegetation within the Program Area’s ruderal habitat consists of ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Ruderal sites are scattered throughout the Program area and are characteristic of road sides, fallow agricultural fields, vacant lots, and large landslides. Nonnative Annual Grassland Habitat Non-native annual grassland habitat within the Program Area is present in disjunct locations throughout the Program Area, but primarily within two relatively undisturbed areas just upstream of Fairview Avenue (approximately 60 acres) and upstream of Shady Willow Lane (approximately 45 acres) on Sand Creek. Unlike most of the Program Area, these areas are not in close proximity to human disturbance (e.g., residential developments). This vegetation community is dominated by a sparse to dense cover of non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands as a result of human disturbance. However, where not completely out-competed by weedy non-native plant species, scattered native wildflower species and native perennial grass species considered remnants of the original vegetation, may also be common. Non-native grassland intergrades with other vegetation communities on site, in particular ruderal areas and ornamental vegetation. Open Freshwater Habitat Open freshwater habitat may consist of lakes and impoundments (i.e., lacustrine) and rivers and streams (i.e., riverine). These systems generally lack persistent emergent vegetation and flowing or surface water is usually present, at least seasonally. Within the Program Area, open freshwater habitat is confined between the banks of Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 49 CCCFCD the creeks. The longitudinal profile of each of the stream corridors are primarily straightened, trapezoidal, unlined channels that are relatively gentle, resulting in a low flow velocity. The channel bottom consists of silty sediment and deposited rock and debris; some sections are hardened with mortared riprap. Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh typically occurs in low-lying sites that are permanently flooded with fresh water and lacking significant current. This plant community is found on nutrient-rich mineral soils that are saturated for all or most of the year. Freshwater marsh is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. Freshwater marsh is distributed along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around the margins of lakes, springs, and streams (Holland 1986). There are numerous phases of freshwater marsh. Emergent freshwater marsh, for example, characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent monocots 0.3–4.6 m (1–15 ft) high that reproduce by underground rhizomes. Vernal or seasonal freshwater marsh occurs on sites that are wet following winter rains but may be completely dry by summer; such sites support mostly low-growing annual herbs (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). There is a limited amount of freshwater marsh habitat within the Program Area situated where a narrow band of standing water persists along creek shorelines. Creeping Wildrye Creeping Wildrye (Elymus triticoides) occurs on heavy clay to clay loam soils. Stands are generally on poorly drained floodplains, drainage and valley bottoms, mesic flats and slopes, and marshes. Creeping wildrye is adapted to a wide range soil types and is tolerant of alkaline and saline conditions. Found along coastal northern, central and southern California, Creeping wildrye extend into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the Central Valley, and the Mono Basin, occurring at elevations from 0 to 2,300 m (0–544 ft). One stand of creeping rye grass, which was likely planted as part of a restoration effort, is located on the west bank of Marsh Creek just north of the Dainty Avenue Bridge (Wood Biological Consulting 2016). E4.1.2. Regulations The following section lists the various federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations that apply to this Program. Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States (comprising wetlands and other waters of the United States). CWA Section 401 requires that applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States obtain certification from the RWQCB that the proposed discharge will comply with state water quality standards. The authority to issue water quality certifications in the project area is vested with the Central Valley RWQCB and the State Water Board. Project applicants may need to obtain a permit from USACE and RWQCB for restoration activities that may impact wetland fringe habitat. Endangered Species Act FESA was enacted in 1973 for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife species (and their habitats) that have been identified by the USFWS or NMFS as threatened or endangered. USFWS and NMFS administer FESA; in general, NMFS is responsible for protection of FESA-listed marine and anadromous fish species, while FESA- listed terrestrial species and freshwater aquatic species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Specific areas within the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 50 CCCFCD geographic range of a federally listed species may be designated as “Critical Habitat” and receive protection as well. Projects moving forward under the proposed Program may impact species protected under FESA. These projects could qualify for ESA coverage through an existing permit between USFWS and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy through the HCP/NCCP (Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003). The existing permit provides FESA coverage for 28 special-status species (Jones & Stokes 2006). For those species that are covered under the HCP/NCCP and that occur within the future project area(s) the applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the HCP/NCCP through preparation of an Application and Planning Survey Report (PSR). The PSR would be completed by CDFWS and USFWS approved biologists to identify potentially present special-status species, potential project impacts on those species, and appropriate mitigation measures as included in the HCP/NCCP. For those listed species not covered under the HCP/NCCP and within the Program Area (e.g., special-status fish) the project applicant would be required to evaluate potential impacts through preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA). The BA would be provided to the appropriate agency (either NMFS and/or USFWS) which would determine the process for compliance with FESA. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA makes it unlawful, unless expressly authorized by permit pursuant to federal regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.” Projects moving forward under the proposed Program may disturb active nests (including nestlings or eggs) which would trigger the need for compliance with the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Permits are not issued under the MBTA, but the law requires project proponents to evaluate potential impacts on active nests and nesting birds. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires all federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The proposed Program Area does not contain EFH pursuant to the MSA (NMFS 2018). State Regulations California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ensures that “all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved.” Under CESA, it is unlawful to “take” a State-listed endangered or threatened species. Fish and Game Code section 86 defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Compliance with CESA would be required if the construction or operation of the project would cause the incidental “take” of any State-listed plant or wildlife species known to occur within the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 51 CCCFCD California Fish and Game Code Migratory birds are protected by California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) §3503, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Specifically, CFGC §3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys and falcons, among others) or Strigiformes (owls); CFGC §3511 prohibits the take or possession of fully protected birds; and CFGC §3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof as designated in the MBTA. Construction disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW. Project activities associated with vegetation removal that could disturb active nests (including nestlings or eggs) would trigger the need for GHMWC to comply with the CFGC (§§3503, 3511, and 3513). CFGC §§1600-1607 require project proponents to obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) authorization from CDFW if a project would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. An LSAA must also be issued if the project would use material from streambeds designated by CDFW in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit. County Regulations Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2007 – 53 describes implementation procedures for conserving habitat and covered species under the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County. Rather than individually surveying, negotiating, and securing mitigation, project proponents receive regulatory permits by completing a PSR, paying a fee (and/or dedicating land) and adhering to limited protocols to avoid and minimize impacts. Fees are paid into two separate reserves, a Development Fee and a Wetland Fee. The Development Fee requires payment based on a cost per acre for all acres converted to nonhabitat with the cost per acre based on the HCP fee zone. The Wetland Fee mitigates for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, riparian woodland/scrub or stream buffers. Therefore, the Program’s participation in the HCP/NCCP could provide a mechanism to adequately mitigate impacts to potentially occurring covered sensitive species and habitats on future project sites. However, the HCP/NCCP is not purely a mitigation program. Though Habitat Conservation Plans are generally exclusively mitigation, Natural Community Conservation Plans have a higher level of conservation and require a contribution to the recovery of species (above and beyond any mitigation obligations). The HCP/NCCP has an adopted conservation strategy that involves land acquisition, habitat restoration, monitoring and adaptive management, and management in perpetuity. Regionally, some of these conservation actions are funded with developer fees (mitigation) and some with grant funding. The East Contra Contra County HCP/NCCP has an approved funding strategy of drawing from developer fees for mitigation and public funds for contribution to recovery of species. The overall funding is approximately 48%/52% funding (or mitigation vs nonmitigation conservation). The grant funding and public funds do not off-set mitigation obligations. Rather these public funds fund conservation actions that are above and beyond mitigation requirements. The strategy is to augment the large amounts of conservation that happen as mitigation (because of mitigation though the HCP/NCCP) to achieve even greater benefits to species. The Conservancy has applied for and received both acquisition and restoration funds for this purpose (IRWMP Prop 84 & 50, USBR, CDFW- Prop 1 and Local Assistance Grants, USFWS and others). None of these funds offset mitigation obligations of developers. When a grant proposal states it is “consistent with the HCP”, it means that it is consistent with the conservation strategy of the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP highlights restoration opportunities along Marsh Creek as they are Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 52 CCCFCD important for creek/streamside habitat and riparian corridor restoration and protection. For example, when constructed, the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project in the City of Brentwood will not be counted toward mitigation goals. It will be counted to restoration of habitat above and beyond the mitigation requirement (A. Fatement 2016). E4.1.3. Special-Status Species A list of regionally occurring special-status species was compiled into a table based on CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and review of Special-Status Species Proposed for Coverage in the ECCC HCP/NCCP, Vol. 1/Table 3-8 and Vol. 2/Appendix D (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Biologists also reviewed the USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report for Contra Costa County (USFWS 2018), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2018), and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Special-Status Plants For the purposes of this evaluation, special-status plant species are defined as plant species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under FESA as amended (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 50, Section 17); plant species covered under the HCP/NCCP; 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 watch lists; plant species assigned California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013); and/or Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. Due to the large and widespread area covered under this Program a focused survey for special-status plants was not conducted in support of this evaluation. Based on the site reconnaissance, a review of available databases and literature and familiarity with the regional flora, a total of 53 special-status plant species were identified as having some potential to occur in the region (table available upon request). Of these, most were ruled out based on the lack of suitable habitat, range restrictions, habitat disturbance or the fact that they have not previously been recorded from the Program Area. Rare plant surveys for species covered by the HCP/NCCP will be required on a project-by-project basis. Special-Status Wildlife For the purpose of this evaluation, special-status wildlife are defined as follows: • Species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under FESA as amended (CFR, Title 50, Section 17); • Species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code [USC] 703-712); • Species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; June 8, 1940) as amended; • Species protected under California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5); • Species protected under California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1901, 2062, 2067, 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515); • Species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW; and • Species covered under the HCP/NCCP; and • 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 watch lists. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 53 CCCFCD Table 7. Special-status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Program Area Common Name Species Name Listing Status* Federal/State Listed, Proposed, Candidate and/or Fully Protected Fish and Wildlife Species Steelhead Central Valley DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FT, CH, California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, CSC, HCP/NCCP Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni ST, HCP/NCCP White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus FP Sensitive and Locally Rare Species Chinook salmon Central Valley fall/ late fall-run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha CSC Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata CSC, HCP/NCCP Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra CSC, HCP/NCCP Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea CSC, HCP/NCCP Northern harrier Circus hudsonius CSC Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC *EXPLANATION OF LISTING CODES FEDERAL FE = Federally listed as Endagered FT = Federally listed as Threatened CH = Critical Habitat (Proposed or Final) is designated STATE FP = Fully Protected SE = State listed as Endangered ST = State listed as Threatened CSC = California Species of Special Concern COUNTY HCP/NCCP = Covered species Steelhead - Central Valley DPS. Steelhead is a federally threatened species with designated Critical Habitat. This species spawns in freshwater in areas with suitable spawning gravels; juveniles require cool, clean water, cover, and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Steelhead spawn in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and tributaries before migrating to the Delta and Pacific Ocean. There is marginally suitable habitat present within the Program Area, although the Program Area is not within critical habitat for this species. The movement of fish is currently restricted to the lower 16 km (10 mi) of Marsh Creek downstream of the dam at Marsh Creek Reservoir. Chinook Salmon - Central Valley fall/ late fall-run ESU. Chinook salmon is a California Species of Special Concern. Chinook spawns in freshwater in areas with suitable spawning gravels; juveniles require cool, clean water, cover, and sufficient dissolved oxygen. The Central Valley fall/late fall-run ESU is currently the most abundant of the Central Valley races. The lower reaches of Marsh Creek are considered to provide habitat for Central Valley fall-run chinook, possibly supporting adult migration, spawning, incubation, and rearing (Jones & Stokes 2003). This species has been documented from Oakley (CDFW 2018) and Brentwood (Robins, personal observation 2001). The movement of fish is currently restricted to the lower 16 km (10 mi) of Marsh Creek downstream of the dam at Marsh Creek Reservoir. Fall/late fall run Chinook have a truncated natal stream life history and commonly young of the year leave their natal stream and begin to smolt during the late spring. As such, this species is unlikely to be in the Program Area during the summer in-stream construction season. California red-legged frog. California red-legged frog is a HCP/NCCP-covered species that is listed as federally threatened and is also a California Species of Special Concern. California red-legged frog is known only from one CNDDB occurrence within the Brentwood USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (CDFW 2018). Small portions of Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 54 CCCFCD the Program Area are within the area of modeled migration and aestivation habitat for California red-legged frog under the HCP/NCCP (HCP/NCCP Chapter 4: Figure 4-3). The Program Area may provide low quality breeding habitat for this species. Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Western pond turtle habitat includes ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation canals. Nests are typically constructed in upland habitat within 0.25 mile of aquatic habitat. Although there are no CNDDB occurrence records within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018), several turtles were observed in Marsh Creek during reconnaissance surveys. Silvery legless lizard. Silvery legless lizard is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Legless lizards occur in areas with sandy or loose soils. These soils allow them to construct subsurface burrows where they spend the majority of their lives. Stabilized sand dunes seem especially preferable (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The Program area contains limited suitable habitat for this species in undisturbed sandy areas along Sand Creek. There are two CNDDB occurrences for this species within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Western burrowing owl. Western burrowing owl is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls require habitat with three basic attributes: open, well drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and underground burrows or burrow facsimiles. Burrowing owls occupy grasslands, deserts, sagebrush scrub, agricultural areas (including pastures and untilled margins of cropland), earthen levees and berms, coastal uplands, urban vacant lots, and the margins of airports, golf courses, and roads. There are several CNDDB occurrences for this species throughout the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Swainson’s hawk. Swainson’s hawk is a HCP/NCCP-covered species that is listed as State threatened. The natural foraging habitat of Swainson’s hawks throughout the majority of their North American range is relatively open stands of grass-dominated vegetation and relatively sparse shrublands. The species is more abundant in areas of moderate cultivation than in either grassland or areas of extensive cultivation. In a study of movements and habitat use, it was found that single trees or riparian areas were used most often for nesting (Estep 1989). Foraging habitat is present along lower Marsh Creek downstream of the City of Brentwood’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and upstream of Delta Road, where there is a relatively large area of agriculture (approximately 2,000 linear feet) that provides a large area of open space suitable for foraging. There have been recent observations of this species perched in trees adjacent to Marsh Creek within the Program Area and two CNDDB occurrences for this species within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Northern harrier. Northern harrier is a California Species of Special Concern. The northern harrier is a ground- nesting species, building its nests in large expanses of undisturbed grassland or marsh habitat where tall, dense vegetation offers concealment. Northern harriers forage for a wide variety of species in a range of open habitats, flying low over the ground as they search for prey. It is because of their hunting methods that northern harriers require largely uninterrupted expanses of open habitat. There are no CNDDB records of northern harriers within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). The agricultural fields and non-native annual grassland habitat in the Program Area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. White-tailed kite. White tailed kite is a fully-protected species under CFGC. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research. This species breeds in a variety of habitats including grasslands, cultivated fields, oak woodlands, and suburban areas where prey is abundant. Trees and orchards within the Program Area provide marginal nesting habitat for this species. The grassland land cover near Marsh Creek and Sand Creek provides suitable foraging habitat for this species. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 55 CCCFCD Loggerhead shrike. Loggerhead shrike is a California Species of Special Concern. Loggerhead shrikes occur through most of the low elevation areas of California and occupy a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, riparian areas, open woodlands, ruderal and developed areas, and agricultural lands. They nest in shrubs or low trees, which are present within the Program Area. There is one CNDDB occurrence of this species from within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present in the agricultural areas adjacent to Marsh Creek and in open grassland habitat adjacent to Sand and Deer Creeks. Pallid bat. Pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern. Pallid bats occur in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests and are most commonly found in dry habitats. Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees, and various human structures such as bridges (especially wooden and concrete girder designs), barns, porches, bat boxes, and both human-occupied and vacant buildings. Tree roosts occur in basal hollows of coast redwoods and giant sequoias, bole cavities of oaks, exfoliating ponderosa pine and valley oak bark, deciduous trees in riparian areas, and fruit trees in orchards (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). Maternity roosts generally occur in structures, caves, or mines that provide enough space for at least small groups of bats. There are no CNDDB records of pallid bat within 1 mile of the Program Area (CDFW 2018). The Program Area contains marginal roosting and foraging habitat for pallid bat. The Program Area does not contain suitable habitat for maternal roosting. Would the Program: 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 CDFW and USFWS? Post-Program activities would result in habitat modifications that would benefit special-status plants and wildlife through improved ecological conditions. However, construction of Program activities may adversely affect special-status species if present. Because projects moving forward under the proposed Program would be consistent with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, most of the construction-related impacts on special-status species would be covered. As described earlier, the HCP/NCCP includes measures to avoid and minimize take of covered species, which would be included as conditions on development for applicable projects as well as possible mitigation fees. It would the responsibility of future project proponents to design and implement their projects in compliance with listed measures in the HCP/NCCP. Because compliance with the HCP/NCCP requires project proponents implement specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or their habitats, it is unlikely any project moving forward under the Program would result in a significant impact on any special-status species. For those special-status species that are not covered under the HCP/NCCP, and with potential to occur in the Program Area, the project applicant(s) would be required to implement minimization and avoidance measures as outlined below. Special-Status Fish Although there are no records for steelhead or Chinook salmon occurring in Marsh Creek in the CNDDB, though fall-run Chinook have been observed in the system. Due to habitat factors, steelhead are considered unlikely to be present in the system and historical analysis by Leidy et al. (2005) did suggests that no steelhead have been observed in Marsh Creek since at least 1942. Marsh Creek is not considered Critical Habitat for Central Valley steelhead. While fall-run Chinook salmon are not listed under either FESA or CESA, they are a state species of concern. Fall run Chinook are known to use Marsh Creek and have been observed on multiple occasions since 2001. Fall run Chinook have the greatest potential to occur within the Program Area between November and June Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 56 CCCFCD based on the timing of adult and juvenile migrations in and through the waterways of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (NMFS 2012). Impact BIO-1 – Disturbance to Special-Status Fish Although the vast majority of construction activities would occur above the OHWM and during the dry season, some limited work such as restoration of habitat or site-specific armoring could occur in the low-flow channel. To the extent that this work in the low-flow channel requires either dewatering or excavation, take of steelhead or Chinook, if present, could occur. Due to life history traits, take of Chinook during instream construction work between June-Oct is highly unlikely as juveniles are known to have vacated their natal streams by summer and are not known to over-summer in Marsh Creek or its tributaries. Neither of these species is covered under the HCP/NCCP. To ensure there is no take of either of these species is limited to the greatest extent practicable, if work in the low-flow channel becomes necessary, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented and impacts would be reduced. In addition, consultation with NMFS will ensure these measures are sufficient to reduce and/or avoid impacting species during construction. Once the proposed improvements are constructed, the project would not impede or interfere with fish movement. In fact the project would improve conditions for movement of fish species in this area. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special-status Fish Protective Measures To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October 31. 2. In-Stream Activities. If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. b. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. c. If dewatering is proposed, monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams. d. Native aquatic species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a qualified biologist. Use of electro-fishing should be conducted per NMFS/CDFW guidelines. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with FESA. Impact BIO-2 – Disturbance to Special-Status Plants Implementation of the Program may result impacts on special-status plants as defined in Section E4.1.3 above. Implementation of project-wide BMPs (Table 4), in addition to any specific conditions and conservation measures stipulated in the HCP/NCCP combined with Mitigation Measure BIO-2 as described below would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Special-status Plant Protective Measures • Project applicant(s) will retain a qualified biologist to determine if there is the potential for special-status plants to occur in the project area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 57 CCCFCD • If there is the potential for their occurrence, the biologist will look for these species during the properly- timed floristic survey. • If present, construction of the project will include a buffer zone of 20 feet around the plants to avoid impacts to the plants, whenever possible. • Removal of invasive, non-native plants by hand (i.e. using hand tools, hand pulling, etc.) within this buffer may occur and is recommended to protect special-status plants. • If impacts to specialstatus plants are unavoidable, the project applicant will coordinate with the appropriate resource agencies and local experts to determine whether transplantation of special-status plant species is feasible. If the agencies concur that transplantation is a feasible mitigation measure, the biologist will develop and implement a transplantation plan in coordination with the appropriate agencies. If the impacted species are annuals, it is expected that the current seed crop from the individuals to be lost would be collected (as well as immediate soils making up the dormant seed bed) and then sown on appropriate habitat located on the project site. If the species is a perennial, it is expected that both the seed and the plants themselves would be salvaged and relocated. Seed from the populations that would be impacted may be collected and propagated at a native plant nursery, prior to planting to increase the potential for establishment and survival. Impact BIO-3 – Disturbance to Special-Status Birds Several species of birds may use the agricultural fields, fallow fields, non-native annual grassland and freshwater marsh areas within Program Area for foraging, roosting and nesting and wintering. Implementation of the Program may result temporary impacts on special-status birds including white-tailed kite, northern harrier and loggerhead shrike as well as birds protected by CFGC §3503 and birds protected by the MBTA may occur during construction of individual projects under the Program. Potential construction-related impacts may include temporary changes in foraging patterns or territories, noise disturbance, winter roost abandonment, etc. Implementation of project-wide BMPs (Table 4) in addition to Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special-Status Bird Protective Measures • To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 31. • If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. • Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31. • If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. The buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Impact BIO-4 – Disturbance to California Red-legged Frog Implementation of project activities under this Program could temporarily disturb aquatic and upland habitat with potential to support the movement and/or estivation of federally threatened California red-legged frog. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frog, if necessary, would be achieved through payment of wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP. In Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 58 CCCFCD addition to fees, potential impacts to this species during construction would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog Protective Measures • A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify if any potential red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys) exists within the project boundaries. • If the project site contains suitable breeding habitat, then the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy of the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required. • Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Impact BIO-5 – Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Silvery Legless Lizard The Program Area contains suitable foraging, dispersal, and/or breeding habitat for western pond turtle and marginal habitat for silvery legless lizard. During construction, there is potential for injury or mortality of these reptiles moving through the site, due to being crushed by vehicles, humans, or construction equipment associated with proposed project activities. Potential impacts to HCP/NCCP-covered reptile species during construction would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 which would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Compliance with HCP/NCCP In addition and consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization, the following measure will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to Western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard during construction activities. • The HCP/NCCP requires written notification to the USFWS, CDFW, and the ECCC Habitat Conservancy prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. If necessary, impacts to western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard, and their habitat, would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 59 CCCFCD Impact BIO-6 – Disturbance to Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site If an active nest of a Swainson’s hawk was present on or immediately adjacent to a future project during implementation of the Proposed program then construction activities could result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest. Because of the regional rarity of this species, loss of an active Swainson’s hawk nest would be significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures The project would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for the Swainson’s hawk, which require a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If a nest is determined to be occupied, covered activities within 1,000 feet of the nest would be prohibited during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) to prevent nest abandonment. In addition, Swainson’s hawk nest trees removed from the project site during the non-nesting season would be mitigated as required by the HCP/NCCP. The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. AND either: 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: • Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. • Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. • Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. • Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. • Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 60 CCCFCD • Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. • Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. Impact BIO-7 – Disturbance to Western Burrowing Owl The proposed Program activities could impact nesting and/or roosting burrowing owls if present during construction. If an active nest of a burrowing owl were present on or immediately adjacent to a future project site during construction activities, then the project could result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest. Because of the regional rarity of this species, loss of an active burrowing owl’s nest would be significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Western Burrowing Owl Protective Measures Program projects would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for burrowing owl. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable habitat for western burrowing owl. Surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Impact BIO-8 – Disturbance to Pallid Bat Project construction activities could impact suitable roosting and/or foraging habitat for special-status pallid bat, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 61 CCCFCD Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Pallid bat Protective Measures Project-related impacts to pallid bat roosting habitat can be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measure: • All potential roost trees within 50-feet of the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. The survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within two weeks following the survey. • If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans. • If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by CDFW. • Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees. • No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site. • All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours. 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 CDFW or USFWS? Sensitive natural communities recorded from the project region include alkali meadow, alkali seep, cismontane alkali marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, coastal brackish marsh, northern claypan vernal pool, stabilized interior dunes, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley sink scrub (Wood 2016). However, there are no known special-status natural communities in the Program Area. Although the Program’s projects would involve the removal of some limited riparian habitat along the stream corridors in order to widen the channel, substantially greater riparian habitat would be created by converting the creek channel to a more natural channel and planting the banks with riparian trees and plant species. Impact BIO-9 – Disturbance to Riparian Habitat Removal of native trees is not anticipated under the proposed Program. However, if tree removal is unavoidable, then the project proponent shall implement measures consistent with the HCP/NCCP (outlined below), measures outlined in any CDFW LSAA permits, and local tree ordinances, if applicable. The following measures would be implemented to offset potential impacts of construction activities under the proposed Program. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9, combined with the BMPs listed in Table 4 of this document, would reduce potential impacts. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures BMPs provided in Table 4, in addition to the following general construction requirements, would be implemented: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 62 CCCFCD • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non- sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types. • No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Loose soil, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. • All no-take species will be avoided. • Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory nonresident species, including covered species. • Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use clean sand or gravel in bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife. • Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down-gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site. • Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate. • On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, BMPs, and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. • Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted. • Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. • Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, noninvasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. • Tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. • Heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline. • Construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees. • If the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Prior to initiating any work associated with projects under the Program the project proponent/applicant will have a qualified wetland specialist to conduct a wetland delineation in accordance with the USACE wetland delineation guidelines and determine if project activities would result in impacts on protected wetlands as defined by Section 404/401 of the CWA. Project applicants will strive to design individual projects to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. If an impact is unavoidable and the project would result in direct removal, filling, hydrological Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 63 CCCFCD interruption, then the applicant will obtain the appropriate regulatory permits as determined through consultation with USACE, RWQCB and CDFW. In addition, the project proponent will comply with the HCP/NCCP and can utilize that mechanism to determine the implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and payment of applicable fees. The applicant will provide relevant information about the project site(s) to the appropriate regulatory agencies. The applicant will abide by all requirements contained in the Section 404/401 permit to ensure that there will not be a net loss of wetland function or values. Impact BIO-10 – Disturbance to Wetlands Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures during construction and post-construction ecological improvements to wetlands are anticipated to result in a net increase in wetland acreage and function at individual project sites, however, it is possible that a net loss of wetland functions or values could occur during implementation of the Program. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Wetland Protective Measures Projects under this Program would result in a net increase in wetland footprint and function; therefore, mitigation for temporary impacts would not require compensatory mitigation. If impacts on wetland resources are deemed greater than the net benefit of the project then USACE and RWCQB may require one of the following standard mitigation measures: • Establishment, reestablishment, enhancement, rehabilitation, or preservation of wetlands either on- or off- site to compensate for the wetland functions lost. USACE shall determine the compensation ratio for this option based on a variety of factors; typically, it is greater than 1:1. USACE will likely also require on- going monitoring and annual reporting for compensatory mitigation; and/or • Payment into a USACE-approved in-lieu fee fund, specifically the National Fish and Wildlife Fund (NFWF) sponsored In Lieu Fee Program (if available); or • Purchase of an appropriate number of credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank. 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? Lower Marsh Creek corridor is contiguous with extensive open shoreline lands downstream; however, it connects to the uppermost part of the watershed only after passing through commercial, industrial and residential development and numerous buried culverts. Much of the aquatic habitat in the Program Area lacks significant riffles, pools, irregular bank features, and overhanging vegetation that provide suitable cover or refuge for resident or dispersing wildlife. Furthermore, the adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial development bring predators such as pets, feral animals, and those attracted to human habitation. Increased human activity, noise, and lighting further inhibit the movements of wildlife species. Post-Program does not involve any activities that would interfere with the movements or migrations of fish or wildlife, or impede use of a known wildlife nursery site. Implementation of projects under the Program would result in improved conditions for the movement of native fish and wildlife species over the long term. However, temporary impacts on movement of wildlife species during construction activities may occur; however these impacts would be short term and would only occur in discrete areas allowing movement of wildlife to occur in available habitat that surrounds individual project sites. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 64 CCCFCD e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Vegetation within the Program Area primarily consists of ruderal habitat and non-native annual grassland. Implementation of individual projects under the proposed Program may result in conversion of these two vegetation types to riparian vegetation, seasonal wetland and/or herbaceous annual and perennial grasses and forbs. A key component of the Program is to plant numerous trees alongside the creeks to provide shade for pedestrians utilizing the trails and to shade waters within the creeks to improve water quality. The removal of native trees protected by local tree ordinances is not expected; however, if removal of native trees is unavoidable, the project applicant(s) would comply with tree replacement standards and would provide a greater number of trees than are currently on-site. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 65 CCCFCD E5. CULTURAL RESOURCES / TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. X d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 1) 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, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. X E5.1. Setting The geology of the Program Area is recent (Holocene 11,700 years ago to present) alluvial loam or clay, or sand dunes (Dibblee and Minch 2006). Prior to European contact the Program Area would have consisted of Valley Grassland (Munz and Keck 1968). Several soils are mapped within the Program Area including Brentwood, Capay, Dehli, Kimball, Rincon, Sorrento, and Sycamore (Welch 1977: Sheets 21 and 29). For the most part, these soils are well-draining soils that typically support the growth of grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks. Historically these soils have primarily been used for growing crops, orchards, and grains with some areas used for pasture or homesites (Welch 1977:12-13, 15, 20, 28, 42, and 49-51). At the time of European settlement, the Program Area was situated in an area near the boundary between the Bay Miwok and the Northern Valley Yokuts (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Wallace 1978). Both the Bay Miwok and the Northern Valley Yokuts were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich marsh and plains environments, which allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Wallace 1978). The Bay Miwok settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 66 CCCFCD villages were inhabited throughout the year while other sites were visited seasonally to obtain particular resources. Sites were often established near fresh water sources and at ecotones where plant and animal life were diverse and abundant. The environmental setting enjoyed by the Bay Miwok provided abundant plant and animal resources for their use (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978). The Northern Valley Yokuts also settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. While their primary village sites were occupied throughout the year, they generally were located on, or near, low mounds and the banks of large watercourses. Other sites were visited to procure resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Populations were not evenly distributed, but rather clustered in a narrow strip of land along the San Joaquin River and its main tributaries, in accordance with periodic flooding (Wallace 1978:463). This region provided variety and an abundance of fish, fowl, small and large game mammals, acorns, tule roots, and seeds as sources of subsistence. Historically, a large portion of the Program Area lies within the Rancho Los Meganos. The rancho was granted to Jose Noriega in 1835. Mr. Noriega built some corrals and outbuildings on the land and then sold it to John Marsh in 1837. Mr. Marsh constructed an adobe house on the land and lived in it for many years. In 1851 Marsh, a widower, married his second wife Abbie Tuck. They had a daughter, Alice, in 1852. Mr. Marsh wanted to build a stone mansion for his wife and began constructing this building, but in 1855 Mrs. Marsh died. Mr. Marsh was killed the following year (Hoover et al. 2002:62 and 63). The Marsh House had fallen into disrepair, but it is now a part of a State Historic Park, and recently local groups have been working on restoring the building. The Marsh House was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. The Marsh house is located nearly two and a half miles south of the southern end of the study area. E5.1.1. Methodology Archival research included examination of the library and project files by Tom Origer & Associates. A review (NWIC File No. 17-2891) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Directory (OHP 2012). Regulations CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource (Public Resources Code § 21084, 21084.1, 21083.2). A resource can be a precontact or historic structure, object, site, or district, and is considered significant if: • It is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR); • It is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code 5020.1(k); • It has been identified as a significant in an historical resources survey, as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(g); or • It is determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency [CCR Title 14, §15064.5(a)]. The CRHR eligibility criteria are used to determine significance. A significant resource must meet one of the four criteria, as follows: • The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or California’s history and cultural heritage; Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 67 CCCFCD • The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • The resource 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 • The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. If a significant resource would be impacted, the project applicant must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support a finding of significant effect (Section 21080(e)). CEQA requires examination of mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that would avoid or minimize any impacts or potential impacts. Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether or not the proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that this consideration be made separately from cultural and paleontological resources. Section 21073 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 Native American Heritage Commission (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: • 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: • Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; and/or • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or • 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. Because criteria listed above also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. 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 (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. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 68 CCCFCD On May 31, 2018, a record search of the database at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University (NWIC) was completed by Tom Origer & Associates (TOA) to determine if archaeological or historic resources would be impacted by implementation of the program (available upon request) This archival review encompasses all land within a quarter-mile corridor centered on portions of Deer Creek, Marsh Creek, and Sand Creek (study area). The portion of Deer Creek is from Fairview Avenue in Brentwood to its confluence with Marsh Creek. The Sand Creek segment is from State Highway 4 in Brentwood to the confluence with Marsh Creek. The portion of Marsh Creek is from Balfour Road in Brentwood to Cypress Road in Oakley. A search of the archaeological base maps at the NWIC found that an estimated forty percent of the Lower Marsh Creek archival review area had been subjected to prior historical resources study as documented in 47 reports (TOA 2018). These studies resulted in the documentation of twelve historical resources within the study area; though eight of the twelve resources are components of a complex at a single location. All of the resources recorded within the study area are historic-era sites. Impact CR-1 – Disturbance to Historical Resources There are known and potentially unknown historical resources within the Program study area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Identification Efforts by a Qualified Archaeologist As projects are designed and proposed, they should be reviewed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards to evaluate their potential to impact existing or unknown historical resources. If it appears that a project could impact existing or unknown historical resources, then the project area should be subjected to an historical resources study that complies with Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to identify resources (including buried archaeological resources). Mitigation Measure CR-2: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Archaeological Resources are Encountered During Construction The construction contractor shall participate in a historical resource identification training session by a qualified archaeologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction contractor shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified archaeologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, archaeological test excavation and/or archaeological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Impact CR-2 – Disturbance to Archaeological Resources As discussed in subsection a) above, there are known and potentially unknown resources that could be impacted by proposed Program activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 69 CCCFCD c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact CR-3 – Disturbance to Human Remains Excavation has the potential of disturbing previously unrecorded Native American remains. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 would reduce this potential impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CR-3: Discovery of Human Remains. If at any time during site preparation, excavation, or other ground disturbance associated with the proposed project, human remains are discovered, the construction contractor shall immediately cease and desist from all further site excavation and notify the District and the District shall notify the sheriff-coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are not of recent origin, a full archeological report shall be prepared and representatives of the local Native California Indian group shall be contacted. Disturbance shall not resume until the significance of the archeological resource is determined and appropriate mitigations to preserve the resource on the site are established. d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either: 1) 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, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), or 2) A resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? The State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission, members of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, and the Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe were contacted in writing in support of this project (letter available upon request). This contact represents notification regarding the project to provide an opportunity to comment and does not constitute consultation with tribes. The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated January 27, 2017, in which they provided a list of tribes to be contacted that have cultural affiliations within the proposed project area. The District initiated consultation with the Wilton Rancheria via a letter dated July 2, 2018 as part of the consultation effort with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area that the proposed project is within. To date, no tribe has contacted the District and the District is awaiting response from the Wilton Rancheria. No other comments have been received as of the date of this report. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 70 CCCFCD E6. ENERGY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? X b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X E6.1. Setting In 2018 former Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 committing California to obtaining 60% of its electric energy from carbon-free sources and 100% of electric energy coming from renewable sources by the year 2045. The former governor also signed an executive order establishing a target for the State to be carbon-neutral by 2045. In order to comply with the State policies, the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) for Contra Costa County presented findings of the Contra Costa Renewable Resources Potential Study in December 2018 (The Cadmus Group 2018). The study finds that there is potential for 50-83% of the electricity consumed in the County to come from local renewable sources, primarily wind and solar. The results of this study are being incorporated by DCD into the County’s General Plan update and the Climate Action Plan update, both scheduled for 2020. Would the Program: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Implementation of the Program would not require use of electric energy resources during construction activities. No impact. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed program is consistent with State goals for decreasing dependence on non-renewable sources of energy. The 2018 Renewable Resources Potential Study identified wind and solar as potential sources of renewable energy for the County (The Cadmus Group 2018). The study concluded that the stream setback areas identified in the HCP/NCCP, and which make up the Program Area considered in this evaluation, are not suitable for wind or solar developments because these areas provide habitat value and have viewshed concerns (The Cadmus Group 2018). Restoring the setback areas for flood control through planting native vegetation will not conflict with existing state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 71 CCCFCD E7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including lique- faction. X iv) Landslides. X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. X 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? X X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. X f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 72 CCCFCD E7.1. Setting According to the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Bay Area Map, liquefaction potential in the proposed Program Area is considered moderate to high (ABAG 2018). Individual projects under the Program have potential to be affected by seismic hazards, landslide potential and expansive soils. The Great Valley fault, a buried thrust fault, underlies the general Brentwood area. The location of the Great Valley fault is inferred from regional data; the fault does not extend to the ground surface and its location is not accurately known (ENGEO 2015). The geology of the Program area is recent (Holocene 11,700 years ago to present) alluvial loam or clay, or sand dunes (Dibblee and Minch 2006). A review of the paleontological database at the University of California Museum of Paleontology showed that a Pleistocene mastodon jaw was found during excavation for the Mokelumne Aqueduct (TOA 2018). The fossil was found at a depth of ten feet below the ground surface in sands with fine gravels. No exact coordinates for the collection site are with the fossil; however, based on the description provided it was collected near the intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Sunset Road in the city of Brentwood. Would the Program: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to 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? The Program Area is not delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The Program Area could experience ground shaking due to an earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region. If cut slopes to create the floodplain and flood benches are steeper than 3:1, they could become unstable or collapse as a result of ground shaking. However, projects constructed under the Program would not expose people or habitable structures to potential substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides because the implementation of the Program would not result in habitable structures but restored riparian habitat. That said, the proposed Program requires projects to implement Pre-Con 4: Geotechnical Analysis (Table 3, in the Program description) and comply with all recommendations specified in the report. Less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading could result in increased erosion. However, substantial erosion is considered unlikely due to the final grades for the floodplain terraces and channel banks post-construction (3:1 or lower) and required erosion control post-construction. Construction activities of one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). In addition, project-wide BMPs provided in Table 4 will be implemented and include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to stormwater runoff from these areas. Less than significant. 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? While the liquefaction potential in the proposed Program Area is considered moderate to high, implementation of Pre-Con 4: Geotechnical Analysis (Table 3, in the Program description) would not affect the stability of the Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 73 CCCFCD geologic unit or soil or result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Program Area may include expansive soils, but with proper engineering, the construction and operation of the pipeline is not expected to result in any significant adverse short- or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity and there would be no substantial risk to life or property. Less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No septic tanks are proposed under the proposed Program. No impact. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Program Area primarily contains Holocene alluvial deposits, which are considered too young to be fossil bearing. However, deposits below the alluvium would be older, and could contain fossils. Impact GEO-1 – Disturb Paleontological Resources If Program projects require excavation below Holocene deposits (greater than 10 feet deep) then there could be impacts to paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize the potential impact of an accidental discovery of a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Encountered During Construction. The construction contractor shall participate in a paleontological resource identification training session by a qualified paleontologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction personnel shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified paleontologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, test excavation and/or paleontological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 74 CCCFCD E8. GREENHOUSE GAS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X E8.1. Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, they are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and would continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of that role, the BAAQMD has prepared CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects (i.e., 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year), which is also considered the definition of a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG burden and, therefore, of a significant cumulative impact, but has not defined thresholds for project construction GHG emissions. The Guidelines methodology and thresholds of significance have been used in this Initial Study’s analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 75 CCCFCD Would the Program: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2016.3.2) model was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with the proposed Program construction activities. The estimated GHG emissions are 16 to 60 metric tons per year. Since the Program would restore portions of the Program Area and create flow conditions closer to their natural state, there would be no net new operational GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Program. Less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The BAAQMD’s Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Plan), focuses on two closely-related goals: protecting public health from air pollutant exposures and protecting global climate from GHG emissions from human activities. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the State of California, the 2017 Plan lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 Plan GHG control strategy is based on the following key priorities: • Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases. • Decrease demand for fossil fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel and natural gas). o Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems. o Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services. • Decarbonize the energy system. o Make the electricity supply carbon-free. o Electrify the transportation and building sectors. Since the proposed Project would have no operational GHG emissions after the creek restoration and flood risk reduction actions (as described in the Project Description) are complete and would have no direct or indirect effects on Bay Area or statewide energy or transportation systems, the proposed Program does not conflict with any plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions nor conflict with any County or State policies to reduce GHG emissions. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 76 CCCFCD E9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. X 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. X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List,” prepared by the California Integrated Waste Manage- ment Board) and, as a result, would it create a signifi- cant hazard to the public or the environment. X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. X g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. X Would the Program: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed Program would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No routine transportation or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed. However, during construction, fuel would be used at the project site and re-fueling may occur within the limits of the project staging areas. Implementation of the Program-wide BMPs (Table 4) by the applicant’s contractor would minimize potential impacts from hazardous materials. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 77 CCCFCD 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? Construction activities would involve the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels as described above. Fuel would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Sand Creek within the proposed Program Area is located 200 feet north of William B. Bristol Middle School; however, Program implementation would not result in hazardous emissions or the release of hazardous materials. No impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List,” prepared by the California Integrated Waste Management Board) and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The Program Area does not include any sites that are currently on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which is California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. One site located 0.4-mile west of Marsh Creek in Oakley (Cook Battery Reclamation Site) is currently on the DTSC’s list. This site was used for a battery reclamation business in the 1950s and 1960s but has since been cleaned and capped and does not currently pose a threat to human health or the environment (DTSC 2016). No impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The proposed Program is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport is Byron Airport, which is located 7.7 miles southwest of the Program Area. No impact. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed Program would not be expected to interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The District would require their construction contractor develop and implement a traffic management plan (detail provided under Transportation and Traffic) that ensures any temporary street obstruction would be subject to all emergency access standards and requirements. Less than significant. h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The Program Area is located in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone area and is designated as a Local Responsibility Area (CalFire 2009). Implementation of the proposed Program would not result in the construction of structures on the project site or increase the site’s overall fire hazard severity. Therefore, the Program is not expected to create hazardous fire conditions and would not increase wildfire potential, nor would it expose people to wildfire risks. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 78 CCCFCD E10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. X b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riveror through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. X ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. X iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. X iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. X E10.1. Setting The Marsh Creek watershed drains the east side of Mount Diablo. Marsh Creek collects drainages from other tributaries such as Sand Creek and Deer Creek and continues flowing northerly through the cities of Brentwood and Oakley before discharging into the San Joaquin River. Marsh Creek is a perennial, 4th order stream. The watershed originates in the Morgan Territory on the north side of Mt. Diablo and covers some 332 km2 (128 mi2). Marsh Creek flows for 48 km (30 mi) and empties into the tidally-influenced Dutch Slough, and then Big Break and the lower San Joaquin River. Marsh Creek Dam, located near Briones Valley, was constructed in 1963 and contains runoff from approximately 38 percent of the watershed (PWA 2006). The four major tributaries draining into Marsh Creek are Briones Creek, Dry Creek, Deer Creek and Sand Creek. The confluence of Briones and Marsh Creeks is at the Marsh Creek Reservoir and the confluence with Dry Creek is upstream of Balfour Road. Briones and Dry creeks are not within the Program Area. Deer and Sand Creeks flow into Marsh Creek within the Program Area and have their confluences approximately 800 ft apart in the City of Brentwood. Historically, much of the lower reaches of Marsh Creek were dry in the summer. Currently, flowing surface water is present within the Program Area to its Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 79 CCCFCD mouth; these flows are made up primarily of nuisance water resulting from an elevated water table caused by runoff from agricultural and landscape irrigation and urban discharges (NHI & DSC 2007). FEMA online floodmaps reviewed in August of 2018 illustrate that the entire Program Area is within a Regulatory Floodway designated as Zone AE, an area subject to inundation with a 1.0 percent annual-chance of flood (FEMA 2018). These maps have been updated with the results from CCCFCD two hydraulic reports from 2010 that document the status of Marsh Creek and its tributaries in meeting the District and FEMA’s flood control targets of containing the 100-year water surface and the 50-year water surface plus freeboard (Boucher 2010 and Louis 2010). The modeling outputs and recommendations from these reports conclude that multiple locations along the Marsh Creek channel are currently under capacity and that new development along the creek corridor will require CCCFCD to coordinate with both the cities of Brentwood and Oakely to ensure that future development be designed to address these inadequacies. Moreover, both reports state that in their current condition, these creek channels do not have the capacity to accommodate the co-benefits of flood control, riparian habitat restoration, creation of wildlife corridors and improved recreational opportunities. Would the Program: a) Violate any water-quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Implementation of Program-wide BMPs described in Table 4 will minimize potential water quality impacts during construction and will ensure that projects moving forward under the proposed Program do not violate water quality standards. During construction of the projects proposed under the Program, there will be a potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of polluted runoff from the project sites. All projects will be required to obtain Section 401 of the CWA Water Quality Certifications from the Central Valley RWQCB and, depending on project size, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the SWRCB. Development and implementation of a SWPPP will include control measures (BMPs) to control erosion and release of sediment and other pollutants from the site. The 401 certification and SWPPP would ensure that construction activities would not cause an exceedance of the RWQCB water quality standards. Moreover, post-projects under this Program would explicitly be designed to decrease creek flow velocities and erosion potential while improving water quality. The Program would reduce the potential for erosion by lowering the water stage, reducing the velocity by widening the cross-sectional velocity of the channel, and establishing native riparian vegetation where compatible with the flood management objectives. The planting of vegetation such as trees along the widened creek channel would provide shade for surface waters, thereby decreasing water temperatures and increasing dissolved oxygen levels. This vegetation will also stabilize the banks, further reducing the potential for chronic bank erosion. Thus, the proposed Program would reduce erosion and improve water quality at project sites covered under this Program as compared to existing conditions. As a result, the Program would not involve any activity that would result in an exceedance of a water quality standard. Less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Projects proposed under this Program would not result in further incision of stream channels and the potential resultant impact of lowered groundwater tables. No impact. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 80 CCCFCD i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the surrounding area in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation either on the project site or at subsequent off-site locations. In fact, projects developed under this Program will be explicitly designed to improve local and regional hydraulics and will reduce erosion and siltation. However, construction of Program projects may result in erosion or siltation. Implementation of BMPs identified in Table 4 would minimize potential water quality impacts. Less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not add additional impervious surface to the area and would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns in the vicinity. The Program would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or result in flooding either on or off-site. In fact, the projects under this Program will be designed to reduce on-site and off-site flooding. No impact. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormeater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not create or contribute runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. As described in a), implementation of Program-wide BMPs described in Table 4, would minimize potential water quality impacts during construction. Less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? The projects moving forward under the proposed Program would not be designed or implemented in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows outside of the active stream channel. Project elements such as large woody debris installation and/or increase bank roughness resulting from native tree canopy could result in hydraulic changes within the active channel, but will not result in any additional flood risk to adjacent properties outside of the active stream channel as the projects under this Program will be designed to reduce on-site and off- site flooding. Less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Program Area is not subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 81 CCCFCD E11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community. X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. X E11.1. Setting The Contra Costa County General Plan is built around the interrelationship between the established Urban Limit Line (ULL), 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and land use designations identified in this Land Use Element. The ULL, originally established by County voters through their adoption of Measure C-1990 and extended through Measure L-2006, is an integral feature of the Land Use Element. In general, the purpose of the ULL is twofold: (1) to ensure preservation of identified nonurban agricultural, open space, and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of this General Plan, and (2) to facilitate enforcement of the 65/35 Standard. During the terms of the General Plan and ULL, properties that are located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan Amendments that would re-designate them for an urban land use. In addition, those properties outside the ULL may be subject to various agricultural and open space preservation measures identified in the General Plan. The 65/35 Standard limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and requires at least 65 percent of all land in the county to be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other nonurban uses. The 65/35 Standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and nonurban uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas. The entire Program Area is inside the ULL. All but a small piece of the Program Area (south of Delta Road) is within incorporated portions of Oakley and Brentwood. The areas of Oakley and Brentwood are designated in those respective General Plans for a range of urban land-uses. The piece of the Program Area that is in unincorporated Contra Costa County is designated as Agriculture in the County General Plan. The Program Area is also within the jurisdiction of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). All work proposed under this Program will be conducted within the HCP/NCCP’s established stream setbacks of 75 feet on Marsh Creek and 50 feet on Deer and Sand Creeks (HCP/NCCP Chapter 6, Conservation Measures 1.7 and 2.12 and Table 6-2). The setbacks were established for parcels and development projects subject to compliance with the HCP/NCCP to protect existing aquatic resources and provide areas to restore and enhance stream, riparian, and floodplain habitat. Ecological restoration within these setbacks is an approved use and is directly compatible with the goals and policies of the HCP/NCCP. Future development in the setback is extremely limited, though on-site flood detention facilities (C3 facilities), future expansion of flood control channels to accommodate growth within and downstream of the ULL, and activities that enhanced ecosystem processes and recreation are allowed. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 82 CCCFCD Would the Program: a) Physically divide an established community?Residential subdivisions are present in the Program Area; however, creek restoration projects would be situated within the creek and adjacent setbacks outside the subdivisions. Established communities would not be divided as a result of Program implementation. No impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effectThe entire Program Area is within the ULL and the activities proposed under the Program are compatible and directly support the land-use policies and designations in the County General Plan and both Brentwood and Oakley’s General Plans. In fact, implementation of the Program will directly support policies and actions within the HCP/NCCP that are developed to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts associated with urban development and infrastructure expansion. No Impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 83 CCCFCD E12. MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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. X b) 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. X E12.1. Setting Within the Program Area, mineral resources could include sand, gravel, coal, oil, and gas. Aggregate resource areas within the Program Area are classified as either MRZ-1, MRZ-3 or MRZ-4 in the California Division of Mines and Geology’s 1987 Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in SF-Monterey Bay Area. The Brentwood Quadrangle contains the entire Program Area (Figure 7). Areas classified MRZ-l are "areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence". Approximately 85% of the Program Area is classified as MRZ-1. There is a polygon of MRZ-3, to the west of Marsh Creek which appears to overlay areas of Domengine sandstone and Quarternary Dune Sand deposits. Areas classified MRZ-3 contain mineral deposits, but their significance cannot be evaluated from available data. There are 107 of these polygons delineated in the 1987 Report and only one of these is in close proximity to the Program Area. It exists west of Marsh Creek north of Sunset Blvd and extends just north of Delta Road. MRZ-4 indicates areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ category. There is a polygon of MRZ-4 to the south of Sand Creek near Highway 4, a small polygon near the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant and one at the downstream extent of the Program Area near Cypress Road. In general, sand is likely the most significant economic mineral deposit found in the Program Area and likely to exist in large quantities in the MRZ-3 polygon. It is possible that significant deposits of coal and specialty sand remain in the Program Area, within the Domengine sandstone. Oil and gas have been sporadically produced in the region since 1864 and are recovered from sands mostly of the Eocene age, at depths of approximately 4,000 feet. The potential for additional oil and gas reserves exists within the Program Area. Dry gas is presently being produced in the northeast portion of Brentwood, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the area (City of Brentwood 2014). While the Brentwood and East Brentwood oil and gas well are in close proximity to the Program Area, both of these facilities are no longer operational. The Brentwood field was operational from 1962-2005 and the East Brentwood field was operational from 1972-2016 (Elam and Hector, 2018). There are no existing active oil or gas wells or mineral extraction on or in the vicinity of the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 84 CCCFCD Figure 7. Mineral Land Classification Map Brentwood Marsh Cr. Sand Cr. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 85 CCCFCD Would the Program: 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? According to the California Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classification Map (Brentwood Quadrangle, Plate 2.28) the Program Area is located in an area with potential to contain mineral deposits (i.e. sand, gravel, and crushed stone), but the significance cannot be determined from available data. The proposed Program lies outside of any designated sand and gravel harvesting/mining areas. Furthermore, the proposed Program is located within the County ULL, which is designated for urban uses and limited nonurban uses, of which mining is not included. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact. b) 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? The proposed Program is within an area that is already developed and would not result in the loss of availability of any locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 86 CCCFCD E13. NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. X c) 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. X E13.1. Setting Environmental noise has many documented undesirable effects on human health and welfare, either psychological (e.g., annoyance and speech interference) or physiological (e.g., hearing impairment and sleep disturbance). The severity of such noise impacts have been measured through lab and field studies, and exposure standards have been established to limit their disruptive effects (i.e., Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organization, 1999). The most common contributors to community noise problems are often transportation sources (i.e., highways, railroads, aircraft, etc.). Temporary noise sources (e.g., diesel-powered equipment at a construction site) are also the common and widespread causes of substantial community noise impacts. Sound intensity (loudness) perceived by the human ear is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA) with a range of 0 (threshold of hearing) to 140 (threshold of pain); the higher the decibels, the greater the intensity. Exposure to high noise levels affects the human body, with prolonged exposure to 75 decibels (dB) or above increasing tension and thereby affecting blood pressure, heart function, and the nervous system; 85 dB or above resulting in physical damage to hearing; and 90 dB or above resulting in permanent cell damage. Prolonged exposure to 140 dB or above may cause a feeling of pain in the ear, and 190 dB or above would likely rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source. When the noise source is a continuous line, such as vehicle traffic on a highway, sound levels decrease by about 3 dB for every doubling of distance. Sound attenuation can also be affected by topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves, as well as atmospheric conditions (i.e., wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) and the presence of dense vegetation. Sound from multiple sources operating in the same area (i.e., pieces of equipment operating on a construction site) would result in a combined sound level that is greater than that from any individual source. The combined noise level produced by multiple noise sources is calculated using logarithmic summation. For example, if one Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 87 CCCFCD bulldozer produces a noise level of 80 dBA, then two bulldozers operating side by side would generate a combined noise level of 83 dBA. Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires that all city and county general plans include a noise element that identifies and provides mitigation for any existing and perceivable noise problems. The Noise Element of Contra Costa County’s General Plan follows the California Department of Health Services’ 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. Contra Costa County, however, does not have a noise ordinance and therefore does not specify construction or operational noise level limits. The County General Plan’s standard for daily-average outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 60 dBA. The Noise Element of the County’s General Plan specifies 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. This CEQA analysis will consider the project to have a significant construction noise impact if it would create a temporary noise increase of greater than 10 dB over the existing ambient noise level due to construction-related activities following the implementation of the above noise control and administrative measures. Table 8. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (Lmax at 50 feet, dB, Slow*) Backhoea 84 Excavator 84 Dump Trucka 82 Pump – Engine (with noise attenuation)b 71 Grader 85 Loader 80 Sweepera 88 Generator (with noise attenuation)b 60 *This is the maximum instantaneous noise level as measured by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for each equipment type. The average noise level (Leq) experienced at a receptor would vary depending on distance to receptor and the percentage of time during which the equipment operates. For example, a backhoe operated for a half hour over a one-hour period would produce an hourly Leq 3 dB less than the Lmax a Roadway Construction Noise Model Users Guide, Federal Highway Administration, January 2006. b Manufacturer’s Data: Pump – Generator based on Baker Corp 18 inch pump size, generator based on Multiquip Silent Diesel Generator - 11 kVA, 11 kW, 120/240V, 1-Phase portable generator. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 88 CCCFCD Would the Program: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction activities and traffic would cause temporary increases in noise due to site grading, use of construction equipment, and operation of construction vehicles. Table 8 identifies the typical construction equipment that would be operated intermittently over the course of construction at individual project sites and would last approximately 20-45 days during summer/fall work season. Routine noise levels from conventional construction activities (with a typical mix and number of pieces of equipment operating on the site) range from 75 to 86 dB(A) equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) at a distance of 50 feet, from 69 to 80 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 100 feet, from 55 to 66 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 500 feet, and 48 to 60 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 1,000 feet. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors are likely to be lower because the projects would be relatively small in size (less than 6.5 acres) and would require only a few pieces of construction equipment operating for a relatively short time during the construction period (approximately 20-45 working days). Impact NOISE-1 – Temporary Noise Disturbance to Sensitive Receptors During Construction Noise from grading activities could impact the surrounding residences and park facilities that are located less than 50 feet from various project areas along the creeks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, which requires the project to comply with the City of Brentwood and/or the City of Oakley noise ordinances, would reduce this impact. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Hours for Construction Activities in Brentwood and Oakley CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050 as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.2.208d as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Implementation of the proposed Program would not add any permanent new sources of noise to the Program Area. The creeks are currently maintained by the CCCFCD and will continue to be routinely maintained after implementation of individual projects covered under the Program. Monitoring of project sites would add a small number of vehicle trips to individual sites during the first 1-5 years post construction. In addition, trail improvements may increase the number of visitors to Marsh Creek, which may potential increase the number of Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 89 CCCFCD vehicles accessing parking facilities near Marsh Creek. However, this increase is not expected to be substantial compared to baseline conditions. Implementation of the proposed Program would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels above current conditions. Less than Significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Implementation of the proposed Program would not add any permanent new sources of noise to the Program Area. The most vibration-intensive piece of construction equipment is a pile driver, but no pile driving will be required for Program projects. Other types of construction equipment are far less vibration-intensive. Next in intensity are heavily loaded trucks or large tracked earth-moving equipment, which could pose a damage or annoyance threat if they regularly and often come within 25 feet of a vibration-sensitive receptor during construction. Other equipment to be used commonly for the Project (i.e., excavator, loader, grader, etc.) as identified in Table 8 would have even less potential for impact to local vibration-sensitive receptors. Less than significant. c) 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? The proposed Program is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport nor located within an airport land use plan. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 90 CCCFCD E14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned 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). X c) Displace substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. X E14.1. Setting According to the current Contra Costa County General Plan, “The remainder of East County includes the unincorporated Bethel Island and Discovery Bay communities, as well as the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. In this area, an additional 29,600 homes are projected by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) between 2000 and 2010 which would result in a population of about 97,800 more people by the year 2020.” This development has been addressed through the General Plan, updated General Plans for Brentwood and Oakley, as well as the Urban Limit Line. While the housing crisis and great recession had a significant impact on expansion of housing within the Program Area, Brentwood was the 6th fastest growing City in California as of 2016 and Oakely was not far behind. For example, according to the City of Brentwood the population grew over 100% from 2000 to 2010 and then another 18.5% between 2010 to 2016 with an additional estimate of nearly 12% growth between 2016-2020. Would the Program: 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)? The proposed Program would not induce any unplanned population growth in an area because the project implemented under this Program will not propose any physical or regulatory change that would remove a restriction to or encourage population growth in an area. No impact. b) Displace substantial numbers of people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed Program would not displace a substantial number of people or housing since the Program’s projects would be located in areas that are already designated for no development (e.g., setbacks). No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 91 CCCFCD E15. PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 following public services: X i) Fire protection. X ii) Police protection. X iii) Schools. X iv) Parks. X v) Other public facilities. X X Would the Program: a) 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 following public services: i) fire protection; ii) police protection; iii) schools; iv) parks; or v) other public facilities? No physical or environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities would result from implementation of the Program. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 92 CCCFCD E16. RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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. X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. X E16.1. Setting The Marsh Creek corridor is an integral part of both local and regional trail systems. The EBRPD owns and maintains the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which follows the mainstem of Marsh Creek approximately 6.5 miles from Big Break in Oakley to Concord Avenue/Creekside Park in Brentwood. EBRPD has proposed an expansion of the trail that would link it to Round Valley Regional Park upstream of the Marsh Creek Reservoir (Figure 3, Program Description). The current Marsh Creek Regional Trail also links to the Big Break Regional Trail along the Delta to the north and the Delta De Anza Regional Trail near Cypress Road in Oakley (Figure 3, Program Description). In addition to these regional trail linkages, the Marsh Creek Regional Trail links a number of small community parks or pocket parks in Brentwood and Oakley. In its current condition, the trail is heavily used and runs along the creek corridor for much of its length. Unfortunately, the trail lacks shade, greatly impeding its utility and safety for users during the warmer months. Sand Creek currently supports a small recreational trail that extends from Fairview Avenue to Minnesota Avenue Deer Creek has a trail from Fairview Avenue to San Jose Avenue. Neither of these trails currently have a formal connection to the larger Marsh Creek Regional Trail. Would the Program: a) 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? Impact REC-1 – Disturbance to Recreational Facilities Marsh Creek Regional Trail in Brentwood and the un-named trails along Sand Creek and Deer Creek provide recreational facilities to the general public. Trail access and conditions would be improved with implementation of projects under the Program through improved shade, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities. Construction of the proposed Program may temporarily impact users of the trails; however, trail access would be maintained through implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure REC-1: Provide Trail Users with Clear Re-Route / Detour Options During Construction Program project applicants and their contractors will coordinate with local traffic and recreational districts to minimize disturbance to the public trail from creek restoration activities located on or adjacent to, Marsh Creek Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 93 CCCFCD Trail. Appropriate signage, pedestrian/user management, and detours will be provided by the contractor, and a haul route will be designated and clearly marked. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed Program does not propose the expansion or construction of additional recreational facilities. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 94 CCCFCD E17. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. X b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). X c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). X d) Result in inadequate emergency access. X E17.1. Setting The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed to manage the County's transportation sales tax program and 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 2018 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transit Authority 2018). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies regarding Contra Costa County bikeways. Would the Program: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities There would be no permanent increase in traffic as a result of the proposed Program and therefore would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Project construction under the proposed Program would generate off-site construction worker vehicle round trips and trucks hauling equipment and materials to and from the project site which may temporarily impact existing traffic patterns.Mitgation Measure Traffic-1 would minimize impacts. Impact TRAFFIC- 1: Temporary Increase in Construction Traffic Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would ensure potential impacts associated with temporary increases in construction traffic are mitigated to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1: Prepare a Traffic Control Plan Prior to Construction A traffic control plan will be submitted with an encroachment permit application. In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant(s) will require their construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 95 CCCFCD accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Cities of Brentwood and/or Oakley for review and approval prior to construction. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) which pertains to vehicle miles travelled? In July 2020 CEQA Guidelines require project propoents to evaluate impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and § 15064.3 sets for the criteria and methodology for evaluating these impacts. Projects implemented under the proposed Program would generate inherently low vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for potential increase in visitors accessing the improved creek segments post-construction. and short term increases of VMT during construction activities. Impacts associated with construction-related emissions have been evaluated and mitigated in Sections E3 Air Quality and E8 Greenhouse Gas of this document and therefore Program implementation would not require additional transportation evaluation or analyses. The Program is consistent with SB 743. Less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed Program would not change the design or alignment of nearby roadways and would not introduce vehicles that are not already travelling on area roads. No impact. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? The construction contractor would establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimize disruption to emergency vehicle access. Implementation of mitigation measure TRAFFIC-1 would ensure potential impacts associated with temporary impacts on emergency access would be reduced. Less than significant with mitigation. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 96 CCCFCD E18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. X b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? X c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. X d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. X e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. X Would the Program: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed Program would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. It would be the responsibility of the construction contractor to obtain water that would be used for dust control during construction activities. The contractor would obtain water from an off-site source and truck it to the Program’s project sites. Reintroduced drought-tolerant, native vegetation and proposed trees would rely upon precipitation, storm water runoff from the surrounding areas, and creek inundation however supplemental limited watering over the first three years may be required to ensure plant establishment. The limited irrigation would not require the relocation of existing water facilities or construction of new water facilities. No impact. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The proposed Program does not require water entitlements. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 97 CCCFCD c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposed Program would not require wastewater treatment and therefore would have no impact on wastewater demands or providers. No impact. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The proposed Program would not generate solid waste. While construction may generate solid waste it would not be in excess or of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Program and individual project applicants would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste generated by construction activities. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 98 CCCFCD E19. WILDFIRE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: X a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? X d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X E19.1. Setting CalFire is the state agency responsible for mapping wildfire hazards and fire severity zones. The 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zones map (Figure 8) shows areas within the State Responsibility in the County and is the most recent map available for these data. The map in Figure 8 shows that the entire Program Area is outside of the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The SRA closest to the Program Area is to the south, in the upper Marsh Creek Watershed, and is categorized as moderate for fire hazard severity. This area is more than 2 miles from the Program Area. Figure 9 was updated in 2009 and shows the areas that are recommended for local responsibility. Similarly to Figure 8, there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in or near the Program Area. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 99 CCCFCD Figure 8. 2007 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 100 CCCFCD Figure 9. 2009 Contra Costa County Fire Severity Hazard Zone map showing Local Responsibily Areas. Would the Program: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City of Oakley’s 2015 Facilities Emergency Action and Fire Prevention Plan Oakley (https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-EAP-FPP.pdf) and the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services 2011Contra Costa Operational Area: Emergency Operations Plan (http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7352/Emergency-Operations-Plan-2010-11?bidId=), appear to be the only two adopted emergency response/evacuation plans that cover the Program Area. Implementation of the Program is not expected to impair the ability of the City or of the County to respond to an emergency or enable evacuation. No impact. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 101 CCCFCD b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Implementation of the Program would likely result in increase tree canopy along the stream corridors, but anticipated vegetation managment for flood channel purposes would not exacerbate wildfire risks. Less than significant. c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Implementation of projects within the Program could result in new infrastructure such as pedestrian bridges and may require existing flood control roads, trails, and possibly utilities moved further away from the creek banks. The Program will not result in new roads, trails, or utilities being installed and therefore, will not result in new infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in on-going impacts to the environment. Less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Implementation of the Program is intended to improve ecological conditions, increase drainage capacity in local streams, and improve channel stability. Any project implemented under this Program will be required to illustrate compliance with floodplain management regulations and will not result in increase downstream flooding. The Program will be implemented along reaches of Marsh, Sand and Deer Creek that are historic floodplain terraces, devoid of steep slopes (aside from existing channel banks) or geologic features that could result in landslides. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 102 CCCFCD E20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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? X 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.) X c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Would the Program: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? Implementation of the proposed Program would benefit the quality of the environment, improve habitat for fish and wildlife and increase populations of plant and animal communities. The Program would also improve habitat conditions for wildlife movement thereby enhancing the range of species within the watershed. None of the activities covered under the Program would eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Temporary impacts associated with construction during restoration activities would be short term and localized. At no point would all 150 acres of the Program Area be simultaneously under construction. In general, projects within this Program would range from being as small as < 0.5 acre to being as large as 6.5 acres. Temporary disturbance of small project areas would be considered less than significant because the habitat being restored is low quality and unlikely to support special-status plants or animals in their current state. Furthermore, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the mitigation measures described in the resource sections of this IS/MND and through implementation of measures required by regulatory agencies during the permitting phase of the project(s). No long-term adverse impacts were identified and Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 103 CCCFCD construction and operation of the proposed Program would not permanently degrade the quality of the environment. Less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355[b]) define cumulative impacts as those resulting from closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125[a]) also define the analytical baseline as the conditions on the ground at the time that the Initial Study is prepared. Impacts of past projects are generally considered as part of these baseline conditions. Restoration activities associated with the proposed Program could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction with other projects in the area. These projects, while in the same region, would be held to the same environmental impact evaluation and compliance regulations as the proposed Program. Temporary (construction- generated) impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, recreational resources and traffic for all projects, would be fully mitigated through measures identified in respective environmental compliance documents. No additional cumulative impacts were identified for the Program. Less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, construction sites present many hazards that have the potential to adversely affect human beings either through impaired air quality, construction noise and vibration or traffic impacts. These hazards are temporary, lasting only for the duration of Program’s project construction activities (approximately 20-45 work days). Restoration of the creeks would result in improved environmental conditions for humans through increased shade and improved water quality. Visually, the Program would also result in improved conditions for humans using the recreational facilities located along the Program Area creek corridors. To mitigate for the potential short-term impacts which may cause a substantial adverse effects on human beings, CCCFCD has committed to implementing project-wide BMPs (Table 4) and resource-specific, mitigation measures. Less than significant. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 104 CCCFCD F. REFERENCES American Rivers. 2015. An Update to: Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory, and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood, CA Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Bay Area Map. Accessed on: Aug. 22, 2018. Accessed from: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=cgsLiqZones Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed on August 20, 2018. Accessed from: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa-guidelines_final_may- 2012.pdf?la=en. Boucher. 2010. Marsh Creek Hydrology ReportCalFire. 2009. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, Local Responsibility Area. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/contra_costa/fhszl_map.7.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2018. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed at: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-Under-Contract?bidId= California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. Version 3.1.0. Database Query for the Brentwood and surrounding 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. December 1. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List. Website Accessed on November 30, 2016. Accessed from http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website accessed on August 22, 2018. Website accessed at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ California Division of Mines and Geology. State of California Special Studies Zones. Dublin Quadrangle, Revised Official Map Effective January 1, 1982. California Geological Survey. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed from http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v802). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 23 November 2016]. Christensen, Glenn A.; Waddell, Karen L.; Stanton, Sharon M.; Kuegler, Olaf, tech. eds. 2015. California’s forest resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-913. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. City of Brentwood. 2002. Parks Trails and Recreation Master Plan. June 2002. City of Brentwood. 2014. City of Brentwood General Plan 2020. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed at: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/30951/Urban-Limit-Line-Map?bidId Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 105 CCCFCD City of Oakley. 2015. City of Oakley General Plan. Accessed on August 22, 2018. Accessed at: (http://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Oakley_GPLU_Final_8-11-15.pdf ) Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, California. Contra Costa Transit Authority, 2018. Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Prepared for Contra Costa Transit Authority. Prepared by Fehr & Peers and Eisen- Letunic. October 2018. Dibblee, T. and J. Minch. 2006. Geologic Map of the Antioch South and Brentwood quadrangles, Contra Costa County, California. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193. Dibblee Geological Foundation. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Elam, T and S. Hector. 2018. Oil and Gas Fields around Mt Diablo. Adapted from oral presentation given at 2018 Pacific Section AAPG Convention, Bakersfield, California, April 22-25, 2018 ENGEO. 2015. Geotechnical Exploration Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project, Brentwood. May 15. Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson's hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Sec. Rep. Sacramento, CA. Fateman, A. 2016. Personal Communication with Sarah Puckett of American Rivers. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. National Flood Hazard ArcGIS Layer, Accessed August 23, 2018. Accessed at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle. 2002. Historic Spots in California. 5th edition, Stanford University Press. Stanford. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 pp. Jones & Stokes. 2003. Preliminary Impact Analysis for Salmonids in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. Jones & Stokes Associates. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. October. (J&S 01478.01.) http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/. San Jose, California. Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Levy, R. 1978. Bay Miwok. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Louis, M. 2010. Marsh Creek Channel HEC-RAS Modeling Results and Project Options to Provide Flood Protection For the 100-year Water Surface Elevation and 50-year Water Surface Elevation + Freeboard Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 106 CCCFCD Margesson, B. 2018. Personal Communication with Sarah Puckett of American Rivers. Munz, P. and D. Keck. 1968. A California Floral. University of California Press, Berkeley. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Status of ESA Listings and Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. October. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2018. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed on August 23, 2018. Accessed at: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper Natural Heritage Institute and Delta Science Center. 2007. Past and Present Condition of the Marsh Creek Watershed: 4th Edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Soil Map—Alameda Area, California. Accessed from http://websoisurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Office of Historic Preservation. 2012. Historic Property Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. PWA 2006. Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Plan and Feasibility Study. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy. PWA Report 1714 Sherwin, R., and D. A. Rambaldini. 2005. Antrozous pallidus pallid bat. Species account developed for the Western Bat Working Group 1998 Reno Biennial Meeting; updated for the 2005 Portland Biennial Meeting. The Cadmus Group. 2018. Contra Costa County Renewable Resource Potential Study. Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. December 18, 2018. Walkling, R. 2002. Corridor Width Report, Parcel Inventory and Conceptual Stream Corridor Master Plan for Marsh, Sand and Deer Creeks in Brentwood CA Wallace, W. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 462-470. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Welch, L. 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. 2016. Biological Resource Assessment for the Three Creeks Restoration Project at Marsh Creek City of Brentwood Contra Costa County, California. World Health Organization, Occupational and Environmental Health Team. 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217 Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2019 Page 107 CCCFCD G. LIST OF PREPARERS Jim Robins, Alnus Ecological Brook Vinnedge, Vinnedge Environmental Consulting John Cain, American Rivers Sarah Puckett, Water Resources Consulting Geoffery Horneck (Air Quality and Noise) Tom Orgier and Company (Cultural Resources) Matt Fremont, Fremont Environmental Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special Status Fish Protective Measures To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October 31. 2. In-Stream Activities. If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. b. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. c. If dewatering is proposed, monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams. d. Native aquatic species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a qualified biologist. Use of electro-fishing should be conducted per NMFS/CDFW guidelines. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure compliance with FESA. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and during construction. Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Special Status Plant Protective Measures o Project applicant(s) will retain a qualified biologist to determine if there is the potential for special-status plants to occur in the project area. o If there is the potential for their occurrence, the biologist will look for these species during the properly-timed floristic survey. o If present, construction of the project will include a buffer zone of 20 feet around the plants to avoid impacts to the plants, whenever possible. o Removal of invasive, non-native plants by hand (i.e. using hand tools, hand pulling, etc.) within this buffer may occur and is recommended to protect special-status plants. o If impacts to special status plants are unavoidable, the project applicant will coordinate with the appropriate resource agencies and local experts to determine whether transplantation of special-status plant species is feasible. If the agencies concur that transplantation is a feasible mitigation measure, the biologist will develop and implement a transplantation plan in coordination with the appropriate agencies. If the impacted species are annuals, it is expected that the current seed crop from the individuals to be lost would be collected (as well as immediate soils making up the dormant seed bed) and then sown on appropriate habitat located on the project site. If the species is a perennial, it is expected that both the seed and the plants themselves would be salvaged and relocated. Seed from the populations that would be impacted may be collected and propagated at a native plant nursery, prior to planting to increase the potential for establishment and survival. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Special Status Bird Protective Measures o To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 31. o If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. o Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31. o If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. The buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California Red-legged Frog Protective Measures o A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify if any potential red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys) exists within the project boundaries. o If the project site contains suitable breeding habitat, then the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy of the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required. o Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Conservancy, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Compliance with HCP/NCCP In addition and consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization, the following measure will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to Western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard during construction activities.  The HCP/NCCP requires written notification to the USFWS, CDFW, and the ECCC Habitat Conservancy prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. If necessary, impacts to western pond turtle and silvery legless lizard, and their habitat, would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures The project would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for the Swainson’s hawk, which requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If a nest is determined to be occupied, covered activities within 1,000 feet of the nest would be prohibited during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through September 15) to prevent nest abandonment. In addition, Swainson’s hawk nest trees removed from the project site during the non-nesting season would be mitigated as required by the HCP/NCCP. The loss of non-riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be mitigated by the project proponent by: If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below. And, either: Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-6 CONTINUED: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Site Protective Measures 1. Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost according to the requirements listed below, OR 2. The project proponent will plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP preserves), according to the requirements listed below. The following requirements will be met for all planting options: o Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years will be replaced. Success will be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least three years without irrigation. o Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. o Native trees suitable for this site should be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees will be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. o Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species. o Whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees should be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). o Whenever feasible, plantings on the site should occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the UDA. o Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location will occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area a nd as close as possible to high-quality foraging habitat. o Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Western Burrowing Owl Protective Measures o Program projects would comply with HCP/NCCP species-level measures for burrowing owl. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW- approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable habitat for western burrowing owl. Surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction. If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance will include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone. Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the project proponent should avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance will include the establishment of a buffer zone. o During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur will be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet will be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers will be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. o If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation will be implemented. Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors should be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area should be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Pallid bat Protective Measures  Project-related impacts to pallid bat roosting habitat can be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measure:  All potential roost trees within 50-feet of the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. The survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within two weeks following the survey.  If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans.  If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has be en approved by CDFW.  Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees.  No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site.  All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures BMPs provided in Table 4, in addition to the following general construction requirements, would be implemented:  Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non-sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types.  No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Loose soil, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks.  All no-take species will be avoided.  Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory nonresident species, including covered species.  Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use clean sand or gravel in bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife.  Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down-gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site.  Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate.  On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, BMPs, and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly.  Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted.  Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-9 CONTINUED: Riparian Habitat Protective Measures  Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, noninvasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions.  Tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist.  Heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline.  Construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees.  If the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Wetland Protective Measures Projects under this Program would result in a net increase in wetland footprint and function; therefore, mitigation for temporary impacts would not require compensatory mitigation. If impacts on wetland resources are deemed greater than the net benefit of the project then USACE and RWCQB may require one of the following standard mitigation measures:  Establishment, reestablishment, enhancement, rehabilitation, or preservation of wetlands either on- or off-site to compensate for the wetland functions lost. USACE shall determine the compensation ratio for this option based on a variety of factors; typically, it is greater than 1:1. USACE will likely also require on-going monitoring and annual reporting for compensatory mitigation; and/or  Payment into a USACE-approved in-lieu fee fund, specifically the National Fish and Wildlife Fund (NFWF) sponsored In Lieu Fee Program (if available); or  Purchase of an appropriate number of credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Biologist Before and During Construction E5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Identification Efforts by a Qualified Archaeologist  As projects are designed and proposed, they should be reviewed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards to evaluate their potential to impact existing or unknown historical resources. If it appears that a project could impact existing or unknown historical resources, then the project area should be subjected to an historical resources study that complies with Federal requirements outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to identify resources (including buried archaeological resources). Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing Mitigation Measure CR-2: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Archaeological Resources are Encountered During Construction  The construction contractor shall participate in a historical resource identification training session by a qualified archaeologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction contractor shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified archaeologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, archaeological test excavation and/or archaeological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Mitigation Measure CR-3: Discovery of Human Remains  If at any time during site preparation, excavation, or other ground disturbance associated with the proposed project, human remains are discovered, the construction contractor shall immediately cease and desist from all further site excavation and notify the District and the District shall notify the sheriff-coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are not of recent origin, a full archeological report shall be prepared and representatives of the local Native California Indian group shall be contacted. Disturbance shall not resume until the significance of the archeological resource is determined and appropriate mitigations to preserve the resource on the site are established. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Archaeologist During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Identification Training and Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Encountered During Construction.  The construction contractor shall participate in a paleontological resource identification training session by a qualified paleontologist in order to be aware of the potential resources that might be uncovered. If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and construction personnel shall avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the resource. Recommendations on how to treat the resource by the qualified paleontologist may include evaluation, preservation in place, test excavation and/or paleontological data recovery, and a draft and final report documenting such activities. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Qualified Paleontologist During Construction E13. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Limit Hours for Construction Activities in Brentwood and Oakley CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050 as follows: Outside Heavy Construction:  Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM CCCFCD, project applicant and contractor shall ensure that construction activities be limited to the hours set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.2.208d as follows: Outside Heavy Construction:  Monday-Friday 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor During Construction Lower Marsh Creek Stream Corridor Restoration Program DRAFT Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 April 2, 2019 Mitigation Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Mitigation Timing E16. RECREATION Mitigation Measure REC-1: Provide Trail Users with Clear Re-Route / Detour Options During Construction. Program project applicants and their contractors will coordinate with local traffic and recreational districts to minimize disturbance to the public trail from creek restoration activities located on or adjacent to, Marsh Creek Trail. Appropriate signage, pedestrian/user management, and detours will be provided by the contractor, and a haul route will be designated and clearly marked. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor Before and During Construction E17. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1: Prepare a Traffic Control Plan Prior to Construction. A traffic control plan will be submitted with an encroachment permit application. In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant(s) will require their construction contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. The traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Cities of Brentwood and/or Oakley for review and approval prior to construction. Project Applicant & Construction Contractor Construction Contractor Before and During Construction RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project) and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to advertise the Project, Martinez area. [Project No.7520-6B-8285] DCD-CP#19-25 (District V), 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 Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chief Engineer is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board’s decision is based, and that the record of proceedings is located at 255 Glacier APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Ave' Brown (925)313-2311 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Ave Brown - Environmental Division Manager C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project and take related actions under CEQA, Martinez area. RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) Drive, Martinez, CA. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and, AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of $2,354.75 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: $17,500,000.00 (45% San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Grant, 30% Flood Control Zone 3B Funds, 9% Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Improvement Grant, 9% Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Grant, 7% California Water Conservation Board Grant) Grant approval is anticipated but not yet received. Additional grant applications are being submitted. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Project is to restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats in Lower Walnut Creek and provide sustainable flood management, while allowing opportunities for public access and recreation. The proposed project would restore and enhance coastal wetlands and adjacent habitats along the southern shoreline of Suisun Bay and from the mouth of Walnut Creek at Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, improving habitat quality, diversity, and connectivity along four miles of creek channel, over approximately 386 acres in total. Key project elements include: Restoration and enhancement of tidal and seasonal wetlands, lowland grasslands, and upland grasslands and scrub in all reaches through invasive plant species control, excavation and grading, and revegetation in all reaches, creation of new setback levees in the South and Middle reaches to provide sustainable flood protection, creation of new public access opportunities including trails and boardwalks, recreational water access points, and an interpretive center in the North Reach, opportunities for the future extension of the Iron Horse Trail in the South Reach, protection of existing water and wastewater infrastructure in the South and North Reaches, and landfill infrastructure in the Middle Reach. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design, construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS CEQA Initial Study CEQA document | Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project i ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE OF CONTENTS Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page Chapter 1, Comment Letters and Responses .................................................................. 1-1  Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1  Chapter 2, Project Description .......................................................................................... 2-1  1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2-1  2.1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................ 2-1  2.1.2 Project Background .................................................................................. 2-5  2.1.3 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 2-6  2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................ 2-6  2.2.1 South Reach ........................................................................................... 2-17  2.2.2 Middle Reach.......................................................................................... 2-26  2.2.3 North Reach ........................................................................................... 2-30  2.2.4 Pacheco Reach ...................................................................................... 2-40  2.2.5 Project Construction for All Reaches ...................................................... 2-40  2.2.6 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring and Management ........................ 2-59  Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist ................................................................................. 3-1  3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................... 3-3  3.2 Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................... 3-4  3.2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. 3-4  3.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................... 3-14  3.2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 3-16  3.2.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................. 3-24  3.2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-69  3.2.6 Energy .................................................................................................... 3-75  3.2.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 3-77  3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................... 3-84  3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................... 3-87  3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 3-96  3.2.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 3-105  3.2.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 3-107  3.2.13 Noise .................................................................................................... 3-108  3.2.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................... 3-118  3.2.15 Public Services ..................................................................................... 3-119  3.2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................ 3-122  3.2.17 Transportation ...................................................................................... 3-124  3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 3-130  3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 3-132  3.2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................. 3-137  3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................... 3-140  Table of Contents Page Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project ii ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Appendices A. GHG and Air Quality ......................................................................................................A-1 B. Lower Walnut Creek Habitat Assessment ......................................................................B-1 C. Soil Quality Assessment ............................................................................................... C-1 D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................... D-1 List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed Project Location ................................................................................. 2-2  Figure 2 Existing Land Use, Utilities and Infrastructure (Proposed Project) ..................... 2-3  Figure 3 Existing Habitat Types ....................................................................................... 2-9  Figure 4  Project Restoration Plan .................................................................................. 2-10  Figure 5 Schematic Tidal Marsh Profile ......................................................................... 2-13  Figure 6 South Reach Plan View ................................................................................... 2-19  Figure 7 South Reach Cross Sections ........................................................................... 2-20  Figure 8 Middle Reach Plan View .................................................................................. 2-27  Figure 9 Middle Reach Typical Cross Sections ............................................................. 2-28  Figure 10 Project Plan ..................................................................................................... 2-31  Figure 11 Typical Cross Sections – Proposed Project (Expanded North Reach) ............ 2-35  Figure 12 Pacheco Marsh Public Access ........................................................................ 2-37  Figure 13 Potential Construction Haul Routes South Reach ........................................... 2-43  Figure 14 Potential Construction Haul Routes Middle Reach .......................................... 2-44  Figures 15 and 16 Representative Photos of the North Reach .......................................... 3-5  Figures 17 and 18 Representative Photos of the North Reach .......................................... 3-6  Figures 19 and 20 Representative Photos of the Middle Reach ........................................ 3-8  Figures 21 and 22 Representative Photos of the South Reach ......................................... 3-9  Figure 23 Industry in Distance, Representative Wetlands and Uplands (likely Middle Reach) .......................................................................................................... 3-10  Figure 24 Pipeline Adjacent to Waterfront Road .............................................................. 3-11  Figure 25 Contra Costa General Plan Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .............................................................................................. 3-112  List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Activities by Reach ........................................................................ 2-7  Table 2 Proposed Project – Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Area By Reach .... 2-11  Table 3 Preliminary Tidal Marsh Design Elevations ..................................................... 2-12  Table 4 Proposed Project - Tidal Channel Dimensions by Channel Order ................... 2-14  Table 5 Construction Overview ..................................................................................... 2-41  Table 6 Seasonal Work Windows for Special Status Species ...................................... 2-41  Table 7 Target Weeds and Management Methods ....................................................... 2-48  Table 8 Invasive Vegetation Management Schedule .................................................... 2-49  Table 9 Construction Equipment .................................................................................. 2-57  Table 10 Earthwork Volumes .......................................................................................... 2-59  Table 11 Construction Seasons and Duration ................................................................ 3-18  Table 12 Average Daily Project Construction-related Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................................................. 3-19  Table 13 Average Daily Operational Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) ......................... 3-20  Table 14 Annual Operational Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) ........................................ 3-20  Table of Contents Page Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project iii ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Table 15 Sensitive Natural Communities within the Project Area Relative to Natural Communities Identified in the Habitat Assessment ....................................... 3-55 Table 16 Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and of the State in the Project Area ........................................................................................ 3-60 Table 17 Cultural Resources Recorded within ½-mile of the Proposed Project .............. 3-70 Table 18 Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels – (50 feet from source) .... 3-114 Table 19 Summary of Estimate Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors During Proposed Project Construction ................................................................... 3-115 Table 20 Maximum Daily Construction Vehicle Trips ................................................... 3-126 Table of Contents Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project iv ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision CHAPTER 1 Comment Letters and Responses 1.1 Introduction This section contains the comment letters that were received on the Initial Study with Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Proposed Project) (State Clearinghouse #2019099043). Following each comment letter is a response by Contra Costa County intended to supplement, clarify, or amend information provided in the IS/MND or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues may be discussed or noted for the record. Where text changes are warranted based on comments on the IS/MND, those changes are generally included in or following the response to comment. Occasionally, a response to a comment provides a cross-reference to another response to comment. This occurs when the same, or very similar, comment was made or question asked, and an appropriate response was included elsewhere. Some of the following responses use the term “historical resource,” which is defined as a cultural resource—indigenous or historic-era archaeological site, tribal resource, or historic-era building, structure, or object--that has been found to be eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR or California Register) by a local or state government agency. When a response refers to a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, it is referring specifically to Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) as defined under California Public Resources Code 21074(a), i.e. a cultural resource that has heritage values to a tribal community(ies) such that a local or state agency has formally determined them eligible for the CRHR. The term “cultural resources” is used to refer to all other resources that have cultural attributes but which have either not been formally evaluated or have been evaluated and found ineligible to the CRHR. 1.Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-2 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Sent via electronic mail: No hard copy to follow September 26, 2019 Place ID 860162 Reg. Meas. 433295 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553 Attn. Mr. Paul Detjens Email: paul.detjens@pw.cccounty.us Subject: Notice of Incomplete Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Contra Costa County Dear Mr. Detjens: We reviewed the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 Water Quality Certification Application (Application) for the proposed Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project). The Project proposes to restore and enhance coastal wetlands and adjacent habitats to benefit native and special status species while also providing sustainable flood management. This letter is being sent to inform you that the Application does not provide all the information and items needed to be complete (23 CCR § 3856), nor does it provide sufficient information to determine whether the Project complies with State water quality standards. Accordingly, this letter outlines the information needed to complete the Application and certify that the Project will not violate State water quality standards. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts 1. Please specify what herbicides will be used to control and treat invasive plants and confirm that the Project will use only herbicides that are registered for use in or adjacent to aquatic habitats in California (not just EPA certified). 2. Please submit a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan, as identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, for our review and concurrence. If there is also potential to encounter contaminated soil during Project construction, this Plan should include measures that will be implemented if contaminated soils are encountered. 3. The IS/MND identifies Mitigation Measure BIO-11 for fish and marine mammal protection during pile driving. However, I did not see any Project activities discussed in the Project description that included pile driving and my understanding is that the only in-water work Letter 1 1-1 1-2 1-3 Incomplete 401 Application CIWQS Place ID 860162 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration CIWQS Reg Meas. 433295 Page 2 of 3 proposed is breaching levees. Please explain which Project elements will require pile driving. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan Please submit a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) that describes how monitoring will be used to assess success in meeting Project objectives; identifies monitoring methods, metrics, and performance criteria; and identifies adaptive management measures that may be implemented based on monitoring results. The MAMP should be consistent with the framework being developed by the Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program. Methylmercury Monitoring San Francisco Bay is listed on the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list as an impaired water body due to elevated concentrations of mercury. Tidal wetlands can be both sources and sinks of total mercury and methylmercury, and many factors can affect wetland biogeochemistry and thus methylmercury production. The limited data and studies available suggest that tidal restoration results in many factors that could reduce methylmercury production but that overall methylmercury supply can potentially increase because of greater hydrologic exchange,1 thereby increasing the amount of mercury entering the food web. To ensure that wetland restoration projects, either individually or cumulatively, do not cause or contribute to a net increase of mercury or methylmercury loads to the Bay, we will require either (1) contribution of funding to the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay for a project or projects to support regional methylmercury monitoring; or (2) development and implementation of a site-specific Methylmercury Monitoring Plan (MeHgMP). If a MeHgMP is developed, it should describe sampling methods and frequency of biosentinel monitoring. Monitoring should be conducted pre- and post-construction and include at least six monitoring events that occur over a period of ten years at minimum. Closing If you have any questions please contact me at (510) 622-2401 or via email to agnes.farres@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, Agnes Farres Environmental Scientist Cc: Water Board, Victor Aelion, victor.aelion@waterboards.ca.gov U.S. EPA, Region IX, Luisa Valiela,valiela.luisa@epa.gov 1 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Region to Establish New Water Quality Objectives and a Revised Total Maximum Daily Load and Implementation Plan for Mercury in San Francisco Bay. Resolution No. R2-2006-0052. August 9, 2006. Digitally signed by Agnes Farres Date: 2019.09.26 15:46:31 -07'00' Letter 1 1-3 (cont.) 1-4 1-5 Incomplete 401 Application CIWQS Place ID 860162 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration CIWQS Reg Meas. 433295 Page 3 of 3 Corps, SF Regulatory Branch: Frances Malamud-Roam,frances.p.malamud-roam@usace.army.mil NMFS, Alison Weber-Stover, alison.weber-stover@noaa.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Valary Bloom, valary_bloom@fws.gov CDFW, Tami Schane, tami.schane@wildlife.ca.gov BCDC, Anniken Lydon, anniken.lydon@bcdc.ca.gov ESA, Jill Sunahara, jsunahara@esassoc.com Letter 1 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-6 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-7 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Letter 1 Response State Water Resources Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board) September 26, 2019 1-1 The Proposed Project will use only herbicides that are registered for use in or adjacent to aquatic habitats in California. Herbicides will be applied as per manufacturer, State, and Certified Pesticide Applicator’s regulations and guidelines. Herbicides will be applied in a manner that does not result in overspray into adjacent native habitat areas. Specific herbicides to be used to control invasive plants have not been determined at this time. The project construction contract will require that, prior to commencement of onsite work, the Contractor prepare and submit for approval a Weed Management Plan addressing pre- and post-planting/seeding weed management that must include: A schedule of weed maintenance operations; List of species and color photos of weeds to be removed; Types of herbicides and proposed application methods, including concentrations and spray volume rates per acre; Types of equipment and methods of calibration of spray volumes to be used for weed management measures; and, Sequence of herbicide treatments, including combinations tailored to specific weed populations. 1-2 The Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan identified in the IS/MND Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be prepared and submitted to the Regional Water Board for review and approval prior to the start of construction. The plan will include measures that will be implemented if contaminated soils are encountered. 1-3 The IS/MND includes evaluation of future public access elements in the North Reach that would be designed and constructed by the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT). These elements would be permitted by the JMLT, separately from the restoration work in the North Reach. The conceptual plan for the North Reach/Pacheco Marsh public access elements is shown in Figure 12 of the IS/MND, and includes a floating dock, which is discussed under Water Access Points in the Project Description on page 1-38 of the IS/MND. Pile driving may be required to support the proposed floating dock. Therefore, potential effects of pile driving were evaluated and Mitigation Measure BIO-11 was identified to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 1-4 The Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MAMP) is currently under development and a draft will be provided to the Regional Water Board and other regulatory agencies once it is completed. The MAMP for the Proposed Project describes monitoring actions that will be conducted to evaluate progress toward desired outcomes. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-8 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The MAMP will be consistent with the framework being developed by the Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program and include monitoring metrics and performance criteria for hydrology, geomorphology, vegetation, and wetlands. To evaluate whether goals are being met, monitoring data and results will be compared from current and previous years with the success criteria, and trends interpreted based on professional judgment. The District, in consultation with Qualified Personnel, will assess monitoring results and, if necessary, evaluate potential adaptive management approaches. Adaptive management actions will be discussed with regulatory agency personnel to the extent necessary. All adaptive management recommendations and actions implemented will be documented in monitoring reports. 1-5 The Contra Costa Clean Water Program already contributes about $150,000 per year [for the past 26 years] to the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). This represents the ‘impacts’ from over 1 million residents of Contra Costa County. The County (including the unincorporated portion where the Proposed Project is located) and the Flood Control District are part of the County Clean Water Program, and so the County and Flood Control District are already contributing funds to receiving water monitoring, including in the Bay margins where the project is located. As permittees of the program, the County and the Flood Control District would be willing to advocate for an RMP-led special study of mercury methylation in the project area and similar Bay margin restoration sites, as part of the RMP Technical Committee’s ongoing scoping and budgeting process. Letter 2 2-1 Letter 2 2-1 (cont.) Letter 2 2-2 2-3 Letter 2 2-4 2-5 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-13 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Letter 2 Response California State Lands Commission (CSLC) October 14, 2019 2-1 The comment notes that areas of the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project are within State-owned sovereign land and require the County to submit a lease application for the CSLC to issue a new lease. The County is in the process of preparing a complete application for submission to the CSLC for this new lease. 2-2 The Proposed Project would not use any floating vessels, such as boats or barges, in the course of construction and would not introduce water to the Project site, such as from a ballast; therefore, there is no known potential for the introduction of aquatic invasive species from construction of the Project. The Project includes steps to reduce the spread of existing invasive plant species at the Project site, as well as to reduce the potential introduction of invasive plant species and plant pathogens to the site. At locations that will be excavated to lower elevations, the topsoil with weed seed will be buried in the lower lifts of fill onsite, to the extent feasible, in order to suppress establishment of invasive plant species in the restoration areas. At locations to receive fill, surface soils and their weed seed banks will be buried once fill is placed over the existing grade. Where habitats will be enhanced or restored in-place, minor recontouring, scraping and/or raking of the surface soils may be performed to remove weed seed and/or prepare the surface to receive native plant material. It is anticipated that weed control activities will be initiated at least one season prior to commencement of construction, focused on areas that will not be graded or filled. The District is currently consulting with the resource agencies to determine parameters for pre-construction weed control activities. In addition, all native plants and seed to be installed in the restoration areas will be propagated from local sources collected from the project site and from local, ecotypically appropriate sites. No seeds, propagules or plant material will be purchased from commercial suppliers without prior expressed authorization by the project restoration ecologist. All plant materials will be stored and grown under phytosanitary conditions and tested as remaining free from disease in the nursery or other growing facility. Planting stock shall be protected from potential contamination from the point that it leaves the production nursery or collection site until planting. To avoid contamination of revegetation sites with exotic pathogenic Phytophthora species or other plant pathogens, all planting and related activities shall follow the guidance provided in the “Guidance to Minimize Phytopthora Contamination in Restoration Projects” (Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats, 2016), available at: http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Restoration_guidance_FINAL-111716.pdf. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-14 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Further, the IS/MND identifies Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters, to reduce the potential for introduction of invasive species via dried mud and soils attached to vehicles. The Mitigation Measure BIO-10 states, in part, that the introduction of exotic plant species shall be avoided through physical or chemical removal and prevention. Measures to prevent the introduction of exotic plants into the project site via vehicular sources shall include vehicle cleaning for vehicles coming to the site and leaving the site. Earthmoving equipment shall be cleaned prior to transport to the project area. Weed-free rice straw or other certified weed-free straw shall be used for erosion control. In conclusion, the IS/MND determined the potential for introduction of invasive species during construction and revegetation activities would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10 and the construction and revegetation approaches summarized above and detailed in the Project Description of the IS/MND on pages 1-46 to 1-51. 2-3 The IS/MND includes Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 on pages 2-73 to 2-74 to mitigate potential impacts on inadvertent discovery of historical, cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources during project construction to less than significant levels. Should any archaeological resource be found on CSLC lands, the County would contact the staff person listed in the comment, as requested. Staff initiated text additions to clarify this have been added to the second paragraph of the mitigation measure Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to reflect CSLC’s comment on page 3-73 shown underline as follows: If prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the contractor shall notify the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District). Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Should any cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the Proposed Project, the District shall consult with the Commission. The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on State lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the California State Lands Commission. 2-4 The County has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) that will be included in the final IS/MND adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The MMRP will incorporate any revisions to mitigation measures considered through comments received. The IS/MND and MMRP will be available on the Board of Supervisor’s website when agendized for Board consideration of approval. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-15 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 2-5 The comment correctly notes that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze environmental justice-related issues. For the reasons explained below, the County does not intend to address environmental justice issues in the context of CEQA; however, in its broader decision-making context as well as in its application to the CSLC for a lease, the County will consider and provide analysis of public access and equity issues and any potential for disproportionate distribution of burdens and benefits of the Proposed Project. CEQA does not use the term “environmental justice” or require the evaluation of public access and equity implications or a demographic analysis of the populations that would experience adverse or beneficial impacts of a project. The Office of the California Attorney General (OAG) has clarified that environmental justice concerns are relevant to the analysis of a project under CEQA, but has recommended that lead agencies address environmental justice by evaluating whether a project’s impacts would affect a community whose residents are particularly sensitive to the impact (i.e., sensitive receptors) and whether a project would have significant effects on communities when considered together with any environmental burdens those communities already are bearing, or may bear from probable future projects (i.e., cumulative impacts).1 The impacts of the Proposed Project on sensitive receptors are analyzed where appropriate in Draft IS/MND (e.g., Section 2.2.3, Air Quality, and Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). The cumulative effects of the Project’s impacts considered together with existing or foreseeable environmental burdens experienced by nearby communities are addressed in Section 2.2.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance. 1 Office of the California Attorney General (OAG) 2012. Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level: Legal Background. http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_sheet.pdf. July. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-16 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Letter 3 3-1 Letter 3 3-1 (cont.) 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-19 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Letter 3 Response Contra Costa County Mosquito & Vector Control District September 25, 2019 3-1 Current conditions within the Proposed Project site include diked wetlands that routinely pond water for long periods following spring tides and storm events when high waters inundate the entire marsh and become trapped in a large topographic basin in the marsh interior (roads/levees/undersized culverts restrict drainage). The ponded water in these areas leads to high mosquito production rates and reduced vigor of marsh vegetation. By improving the connections between isolated, ponded areas and the adjacent tidal waters of Lower Walnut Creek/Suisun Bay, and by improving internal drainage pathways within the restored marsh, the Proposed Project would reduce areas of ponded water and thus would reduce mosquito production. Following project implementation, it is anticipated that the Vector Control District would continue its existing monitoring and treatment activities on the marsh, but those activities would be significantly reduced from current conditions. Further, reduction in the local mosquito population in Lower Walnut Creek would result in a reduction in exposure of the public to mosquitoes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exacerbate current vector populations in Lower Walnut Creek. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-20 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Letter 4 4-1 Letter 4 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-1 (cont.) Letter 4 4-8 (cont.) 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-24 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-25 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Letter 4 Response Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) October 14, 2019 4-1 The County acknowledges that CCWD facilities and easements are located within portions of the Proposed Project site. Accordingly, the County is currently coordinating with CCWD on a Memorandum of Understanding regarding CCWD access to their easements and facilities for operation and maintenance of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and CCWD pipelines in the project site. 4-2 The comment refers to text on page 1-24 of the IS/MND that describes future potential extension of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) Iron Horse Trail. The County would not implement the trail described on page 1-24 of the IS/MND and the County would coordinate with EBRPD when and if they choose to move forward with extension of the trail. The Proposed Project would not obstruct CCWD access to its easement and facilities in the area described on page 1-24 of the IS/MND. If and when the trail is completed, EBRPD and CCWD would coordinate regarding CCWD access and temporary trail closures for pipeline maintenance. 4-3 See response to comment 4-1. Also, see Figure 2 on page 1-3 of the IS/MND for the locations of all utilities and easements in and adjacent to the Proposed Project. The County is currently coordinating project plan review and approval with CCWD and will continue to do so per the Memorandum of Understanding, in development. 4-4 See response to comment 4-1. The comment refers to text on page 1-50 of the IS/MND that describes general construction methods for setback levee and upland fill construction. Details on the exact location of the setback levee construction in relation to SCPL, RWPL, and their related easements is presented in text on pages 1-24, 1-25, and 1-52 of the IS/MND. Also, see Figure 2 on page 1-3 of the IS/MND for the locations of all utilities and easements in and adjacent to the Proposed Project. 4-5 The comment is noted. The USBR and CCWD can choose to use the IS/MND as prepared by the County and make any necessary addenda as needed for their decision- making processes. 4-6 As described on page 2-28 in the IS/MND, ongoing operation and maintenance activities are expected to include levee monitoring activities, including inspection for erosion or rodent damage along the levee tops and slopes, and levee maintenance activities, including mowing, weed control and repair of erosion sites. Impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance are expected to be of short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and are a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. In addition, routine maintenance activities will follow Best Management Practices outlined in the District’s Routine Maintenance Agreement with CDFW; examples include, but are 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-26 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision not limited to, performing Habitat Assessments, establishment of sensitive area buffers, and biological monitoring if applicable. Potential impacts of O&M activities on SMHM were evaluated in the IS/MND on pages 2-41 through 2-43. The evaluation concluded that ongoing maintenance could have a significant impact, especially during high tide events, when SMHM may attempt to cross levees in search of high tide refugia. Although Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun Shrew primarily relates to construction-related impacts, the measure includes a requirement that O&M activities be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides, i.e., tides in excess of six feet as predicted for the Point Chicago tide gauge, in order to protect SMHM:  Construction activities related to restoration and recreational infrastructure, as well as ongoing Operations and Maintenance activities will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Extreme high tides would be in excess of six feet as predicted for the nearest tide gauge, Point Chicago tide gauge. To clarify that Mitigation Measure BIO-5 applies to future O&M activities, the following paragraph on page 3-43 has been modified as shown in underline and strikeout: Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-4: The project would result in potential impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew. In summary, construction-related impacts and ongoing Operation and Maintenance (O&M)-related impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-5 would reduce potential construction and ongoing O&M vegetation management impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew to a less-than– significant level by providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, conducting pre-construction surveys, identification and avoidance of suitable habitat for the species, and where avoidance is not possible, using hand tools to clear vegetation. Further, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, suitable marsh habitat will be protected during work activities, silt fencing will separate suitable habitat from adjacent work areas, a biomonitor will be in place to stop work if the species is detected, and work during high tide periods will be avoided. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-5, construction- and ongoing O&M-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be less than significant. 4-7 See Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources for the analysis of Project impacts on biological resources, including wetlands mapped by ESA in the Project site as shown in Figure 3 on 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-27 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision page 1-9 in the IS/MND. See Figure 2 on page 1-3 of the IS/MND for the locations of all utilities and easements in and adjacent to the Proposed Project, including the USBR easement. The impacts evaluation included wetlands mapped by ESA on the District’s property, and wetlands mapped on Conco’s property by others (Salix, 2015). Any wetlands within the project area that have been mapped by ESA or others would be undisturbed by project activities, as disclosed in Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetland, and Waters, was identified to reduce construction-related impacts on existing wetlands. The mitigation measure requires that all work areas be demarcated with stakes or flagging prior to construction to avoid any sensitive natural resources, including wetlands, that are outside of the restoration construction area. Driving, parking, temporary access, sampling or testing, or storage of materials outside of the work area boundaries would be prohibited without explicit approval of the District and biologist. 4-8 Please refer to the analysis of soil contamination on pages 2-92 through 2-94. Various soil sampling investigations were conducted in 1994, 2002, 2007, 2009, and 2017. The samples were analyzed for a variety of chemicals to determine the potential presence of contaminants that could affect the reuse of onsite soil in restoring and enhancing the tidal wetlands. The District conducted a Soil Quality Assessment (SQA) that consolidated and evaluated the available analytical results by comparing the results to background levels and reuse guidelines that are based on ecological receptors. The results of the SQA indicated it would be acceptable for the proposed project to reuse all soil within the project site. Although the purpose of the SQA was focused on ecological receptors, the sample testing results for petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, and motor oil) and gasoline components (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE]) were compared to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), which are based on a variety of criteria, including human health. None of the testing results exceeded ESLs. Although ESLs were not used as a screening level in the SQA for pesticides, the only detection of one pesticide (Dieldrin) in only one sample at 0.003 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) is below the construction worker ESL of 1.1 mg/kg. Although ESLs were not used as a screening level in the SQA for metals, the concentrations of metals were within background levels and below ESLs. Finally, as per OSHA regulations, contractors that move soil on the project site would be required to prepare and implement a health and safety plan (HASP) for their site workers. The HASP would identify the existing soil conditions, provide training for workers to recognize contaminated materials, and describe procedures in the event that currently unknown contaminated materials are discovered. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-28 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank From:Ave Brown To:Erick Cooke Subject:FW: Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Date:Thursday, October 24, 2019 5:10:30 PM Attachments:1_Mitigation_Measures_NEPA_Avoidance.docx 1_Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_TCR_Avoidance 04-19-19.docx 2_Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_NativeAmericanMonitors 04-19-19.docx 3_Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_Discoveries 04-19-19.docx 5_Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_Construction_Worker_Awareness_Training 04-19-19.docx Hi Erick, Wilton Rancheria confirmed on September 26th that this email is a comment letter for the Lower Walnut Creek CEQA document. Thank you, Ave’ Brown (925) 313-2311 From: Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 3:47 PM To: Ave Brown <ave.brown@pw.cccounty.us> Cc: Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Subject: Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Good afternoon, Please see attached for the project mentioned above. Thank you Wilton Rancheria Letter 5 5-1 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-30 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-31 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Letter 5 Response Wilton Rancheria September 25, 2019 5-1 The commenter provided example mitigation measures the Wilton Rancheria uses for CEQA and NEPA projects. The IS/MND includes Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 on pages 2-73 to 2-74 to mitigate potential impacts on inadvertent discovery of historical, cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources during project construction to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are consistent with Wilton Rancheria’s construction worker awareness training, inadvertent discovery, and tribal cultural resources avoidance mitigation measures, which are applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation measures for monitoring and NEPA are not applicable to the proposed project. 1. Comment Letters and Responses Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-32 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision CHAPTER 2 Project Description 2.1 Introduction The Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (proposed project or project), led by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), would restore and enhance tidal wetlands, adjacent lowland grasslands and seasonal wetlands, and uplands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and from Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary, Pacheco Creek. By doing so, the proposed project would improve habitat quality, diversity, and connectivity along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, and along the southern Suisun Bay shoreline, provide more sustainable flood protection that would avoid the need for significant dredging, and provide a public access trail corridor for future connection of the Iron Horse Regional Trail and San Francisco Bay Trail extension through the project site. 2.1.1 Project Location The proposed project site is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, with two small parcels within the City of Martinez boundary, along the lower 2.5 miles of Walnut Creek and 1.5 miles of Pacheco Creek (Figure 1). The Walnut Creek watershed is the largest watershed in Contra Costa County, and one of the largest in the Bay Area, draining approximately 150 square miles. The proposed project is generally organized into the following reaches:  The South Reach, located between the BNSF Railroad embankment and the confluence of Pacheco and Walnut creeks; the  Pacheco Reach, located along Pacheco Creek from the confluence with Walnut Creek to the upstream project limits; the  Middle Reach, located between Pacheco Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) embankment; and the,  North Reach, located between Waterfront Road and Suisun Bay in the area historically called “Pacheco Marsh.” Land use within the project site is largely industrial, with areas of undeveloped land (Figure 2). !North Reach !Middle Reach !South Reach ! Pacheco Reach !Point EdithEcological Reserve !PeytonMarsh Martinez §¨¦680 §¨¦680 UV4 S o l a n o Pache c o Waterfront MorelloPin e Marin a V is ta Marina Vista Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 1Project Location SOURCE: ESA, 2019; Digital Globe, 2017 ^_ProjectLocation 0 1 Mile rESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 2Existing Land Use, Utilities and Infrastructure NOTES:Locations of utilites and easements shown are approximateWaterfront Road Oil Pipelines include buried and above ground pipelines owned by TransMontaigne, Andeavor, and Kinder Morgan.Imagery Source: Contra Costa County, 2014 0 2,000 Feet S S CCCSD Outfall TransMontaigne Pier Road TransMontaigne Pipeline Waterfront Road Oil Pipelines !(ACME Compliance Wells CCWD Shorcut Pipeline !(CCWD Shortcut Pipeline Settlement Monitors CCWD Recycled Water Pipeline Refined Petroleum Product Pipeline IT Leachate Pipeline Railroad d d PG&E Power Lines North Reach South Reach Pacheco Reach Middle Reach FCD Property Easements PG&E & Tidewater Oil Co.Easements CA Water Service CompanyEasement CCCSD Easement Approx. IT Pipeline Location (Not Verified)CCWD Easement PG&E Easement(Not Verified) Tesoro/Andeavor Acme Landfill ConcoInc.MARTINEZ GUN CLUB CCCSD Waste waterTreatmentPlant IT Vine Hill CopartAuto City of Martinez ConcoInc. Closed Landfill(IT Baker)ClosedLandfill(Acme)!Closed Landfill(Acme) WATERFRON T R O A D!TransMontaigne Pipeline and Pier !CCCSD Outfall Pipeline State LandsCommission Point Edith Ecological Reserve Peyton Marsh Tesoro/Andeavor Suisun Properties UNION PACI FI C R AI L R O A D BNSFRAILROADW A L N U T C R E E K P A C H E C O C R E E K ConcoProperty State Lands Commission Property Acme Landfill Property PachecoMarsh rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-4 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-5 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 2.1.2 Project Background In the 1960s, the lowest four miles of Walnut and Pacheco creeks became part of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood control project. Levees were constructed along the creek banks and the Walnut Creek channel was dredged to provide flood conveyance. The channel has since experienced extensive sedimentation and a wide band of tidal marsh has emerged adjacent to the open water channel. This fringing marsh provides habitat for sensitive fish and wildlife species in the previously-dredged area; however, sediment accumulation in the marsh areas also reduces the channel conveyance capacity below the level mandated by the original USACE project Operations and Maintenance Manual published in 1968. Ongoing dredging to restore creek capacity is not environmentally or economically feasible. The District was recently successful in “deauthorizing” the project area from the larger USACE-constructed project, returning management of Lower Walnut Creek to local control. The proposed project responds to large losses of historic wetlands habitat, the recent deauthorization that has provided an opportunity to re-evaluate the District’s flood protection strategy within the project site, and the limited public access and recreational opportunities in this region of Contra Costa County. Loss of Wetland Habitat. San Francisco Bay has lost 80% of its historic tidal wetlands, with areas immediately adjacent to Walnut Creek losing 85% of the historic tidal wetland.2 This reduction in habitat area threatens native marsh-dependent fish and wildlife species, including special status species such as salmonids, salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, and California black rail. The State-listed Mason’s lilaeopsis, Delta tule pea, and Suisun Marsh aster, are rare plant species in California that have been adversely affected by loss of tidal marsh habitat. Sustainable Flood Protection. The USACE’s Lower Walnut Creek Flood Protection Project was designed in the 1960s to provide flood protection during a 100-year flood event. However, recent hydrologic analysis indicates that the USACE under-estimated the 100-year peak flow rate during project design.3,4 Consequently, the original flood control channel design is undersized relative to the 100-year flood event, and as a result, the adjacent areas to the west of Lower Walnut Creek are within the 100-year floodplain.5 Maintaining a 100-year level of flood protection under these conditions requires expensive and environmentally destructive large-scale dredging to protect relatively flood tolerant land uses. For the current project, the District seeks to provide appropriate levels of flood protection that are suited to the existing land uses and are also in line with ongoing natural geomorphic processes. 2 San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2016. Flood Control 2.0 Project Website. http://www.sfei.org/projects/flood- control-20. Accessed March 2017. 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. Lower Walnut Creek General Reevaluation Report Hydrology Appendix. June 2008. 4 The 100-year peak flow used for the Flood Protection Project design (25,000 cfs) is significantly smaller than the 100-year peak flow calculated as part of a 2008 USACE hydrology study (31,200 cfs). 5 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Study – Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas. FIS #s: 06013CV001B, 06013CV002B, 06013CV003B, 06013CV004B, 06013CV005B. September 30, 2015. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-6 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Public Access. The Lower Walnut Creek Project area is located in a gap between several existing and planned regional trail connections. The regional Iron Horse Trail currently ends 1.5 miles south of the project site, and does not provide access to the Suisun Bay shoreline. An extension of the Iron Horse Trail along Lower Walnut Creek could connect to a trail network on Pacheco Marsh and provide shoreline access. In addition, the regional San Francisco Bay Trail passes 1.3 miles west of the project site. The proposed project presents an opportunity to link these two major regional trail networks, and would allow visitors on both trail systems to experience the natural amenities within the project site. 2.1.3 Goals and Objectives The proposed project goal is to: Restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats in Lower Walnut Creek and provide sustainable flood management, while allowing opportunities for public access and recreation. The proposed project objectives are to:  Restore wetlands to improve ecological function and habitat quantity, quality, and connectivity (including upland transition zones) in the Lower Walnut Creek area for native, resident plant and animal species including special status species.  Maintain appropriate levels of flood protection along Lower Walnut and Pacheco creeks, as warranted by the land use.  Allow for future public access, education, and recreational opportunities.  Create sustainable benefits that consider future environmental changes such as sea level rise and sedimentation. 2.2 Project Description The proposed project would restore and enhance coastal wetlands and adjacent habitats along the southern shoreline of Suisun Bay and from the mouth of Walnut Creek at Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, improving habitat quality, diversity, and connectivity along four miles of creek channel, over approximately 386 acres in total. Key project elements include:  Restoration and enhancement of tidal and seasonal wetlands, lowland grasslands, and upland grasslands and scrub in all reaches through invasive plant species control, excavation and grading, and revegetation in all reaches  Creation of new setback levees in the South and Middle reaches to provide sustainable flood protection  Creation of new public access opportunities including trails and boardwalks, recreational water access points, and an interpretive center in the North Reach  Opportunities for the future extension of the Iron Horse Trail in the South Reach  Protection of existing water and wastewater infrastructure in the South and North Reaches and landfill infrastructure in the Middle Reach. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-7 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Public access amenities and trails are expected to be completed by other entities such as the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Construction of the project is expected to occur in three phases. It is anticipated that the District would construct levees and berms that provide width and opportunity for trails and would conduct the initial grading for public amenities during the first and second phases of the project. The other entities would complete trail surfacing, construct the bridges, and interpretive center, etc. during the third phase of the project. The temporary construction and long-term operational impacts of the restoration of the South, Pacheco, Middle, and North Reaches in phases 1 and 2, and the creation of public access in the North Reach, are disclosed and analyzed herein. Impacts related to creation of public access in the South Reach are not included in this document. The following subsections describe in detail the anticipated habitat restoration, flood protection, future public access, and other elements that comprise the project. The overall habitat restoration is presented first, followed by reach-specific descriptions by element. It is important to note that natural processes involved in restoration will likely lead to some variation in the acreages of various habitat types. Table 1 below includes a summary of the activities for each of the reaches in the project. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES BY REACH Reach Habitat Restoration and Enhancement* Flood Protection Public Access Implementation Phase Lead South 47 acres Restored floodplain and 3,200 feet of new setback levee Potential future extension of the Iron Horse Trail along new levee alignment 1 - Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection Contra Costa County Flood Control District Future - Public Access East Bay Regional Park District Middle 80 acres Restored floodplain and 4,800 feet of new setback levee Not Applicable 2 - Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection Contra Costa County Flood Control District North 232 acres Restored floodplain 4 miles of trails, new water access points, and an interpretive/ education center 1 - Habitat Restoration and Flood Protection Contra Costa County Flood Control District 3 - Public Access John Muir Land Trust Pacheco 27 acres Not Applicable Not Applicable 1 - Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County Flood Control District NOTE: See Table 2 - Proposed Project - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Area by Reach Habitat Restoration Habitat restoration elements would consist of creating and enhancing tidal wetlands and waters, adjacent non-tidal wetlands and waters, and transitional ecotones and upland habitat to support a diversity of plant communities and wildlife species. Existing habitats in the project area are shown in Figure 3 and the proposed project would restore and enhance approximately 130 acres 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-8 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision of tidal wetland, 20 acres of non-tidal wetlands, 14 acres of tidal waters, 4 acres of non-tidal waters, and 118 acres of transitional and upland areas. In addition, the project would also benefit and enhance approximately 100 acres of tidal wetlands adjacent to the project site by increasing tidal and habitat connectivity. Each proposed habitat element is described below and illustrated in Figure 4. Table 2 includes a summary of restoration and enhancement areas by project reach for the proposed project. Tidal Wetlands Restoration (Tidal Marsh) Tidal marsh restoration elements planned for the site include vegetated brackish tidal marsh, tidal channel networks, and shallow brackish marsh ponds. These elements would be achieved through grading channels that would re-connect Walnut Creek to its adjacent habitats and through general grading to provide topographic variety. Complex restored tidal marshes would support a diversity of native wildlife species. Fish could forage in the marsh plain during spring high tides and forage in channels during most levels of the tide. Small mammals, such as the salt marsh harvest mouse, would have access to some high marsh areas where cover and available flood refuge habitat would be created. Birds such as California black rail, Suisun song sparrow, salt marsh common yellowthroat, and Ridgway’s rail may forage or nest in the low and high marsh. Special status plants such as Mason’s lilaeopsis, Delta tule pea, and Suisun marsh aster currently occur in the existing marsh plain of Lower Walnut Creek, especially along channel edges. They are expected to colonize areas in analogous subhabitats of the restored tidal marshes. Tidal channels and marsh ponds would provide habitat diversity within the brackish tidal marsh. Channels through the marsh would provide estuarine fish habitat and wildlife corridor connections between the marsh and adjacent terrestrial ecotones. Ponds would provide habitat for native brackish submerged aquatic vegetation, small prey fish, and many waterbirds, including dabbling ducks that would also use adjacent lowland grassland habitats. Tidal Marsh Plain Most of the restored tidal marsh habitat would be created by reintroducing tidal circulation to appropriate existing grades and substrates in the project site through breaching and lowering levees and revegetation. Select areas in all reaches, including the existing levees to be lowered (re-graded) and some areas where artificial fill has been placed, would be excavated to current mid- and high-marsh elevations to create tidal marsh. Graded marsh plain slopes would range from approximately one to five percent. Tidal marsh plain (and channels) would be graded into areas of restored lowland terrestrial habitats to enhance ecological values and function in the short term, but primarily to provide long-term high marsh habitat during sea level rise over decades. The revegetation approach relies on a combination of passive (natural filling in of vegetation) and active (planted) revegetation. Area on ConcoProperty Mapped bySalix Consulting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 3Existing Habitats SOURCE: ESA 2017, 2018; LSA 2012; Salix, 2016; NAIP 2016 * Wetland creeping wild rye occurs in small areas along the north edge of Pacheco Marsh. 0 980 Feet Uplandseucalyptuscoastal scrub creeping wild ryetrail/road/parkingruderal/non-native grasslandWetlandslow marsh mid/high marshmuted marshpickleweed marshseasonal wetland creeping wild rye *Waters scald/playaseasonal pondtidal channel BrackishTidal MarshNon-Tidal WetlandsrESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 4Project Restoration Plan SOURCE: ESA, 2018 MIDDLE REACH SOUTHREACH NORTH REACH Tesoro/Andeavor ACMELandfill ConcoInc.Martinez Gun Club CCCSD Waste waterTreatmentPlant IT Vine Hill CopartAuto City of Martinez ConcoInc. Closed Landfill(IT Baker)ClosedLandfill(ACME) ! ACMELandfill WATERFRON T R O A D!TransMontaigne Pipeline and Pier !CCCSD Outfall State LandsCommission Point Edith Ecological Reserve Peyton Marsh Suisun Properties UNION PACI FI C R AI L R O A D BNSFRAILROADW A L N U T C R E E K P A C H E C O C R E E K Future Great C alif or ni a D elt a Tr ail Project Area South San Francsico Bay San Pablo Bay PacificOcean Suisun Bay Walnut Creek Watershed !Existing Creek and Adjacent Habitat 0 1,000 Feet PACHECOREACH Flood Control District Access Future EBRPD Public Access Trail Future Pacheco Marsh Trail (JMLT) New Setback Levee Uplands Upland Lowland Grassland Wetlands Pickleweed Marsh Seasonal Wetland Tidal Pickleweed Marsh Tidal Marsh Waters Scald/Playa Seasonal Pond Tidal Channel/Pond Area of Potential Effect North Reach Middle Reach South Reach Pacheco Reach Non-TidalWetlandsTidal WetlandsrESA � 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-11 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 2 PROPOSED PROJECT – HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AREA BY REACH Habitat Type North Reach (Expanded) (acres) Middle Reach (acres) South Reach (acres) Pacheco Creek Reach (acres) Total (acres) Restoration Enhancement Restoration Enhancement Restoration Enhancement Restoration Enhancement Restoration Enhancement Upland Upland 42.82 0.02 9.17 0.02 8.75 0.00 7.85 0.00 68.59 0.04 Lowland Grassland 25.51 0.00 6.42 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.36 0.00 Developed (trail/road/parking) 4.18 0.00 3.49 0.00 1.56 0.00 3.87 0.00 13.10 0.00 Non-Tidal Wetlands Pickleweed Marsh 10.88 0.00 0.28 0.00 5.41 0.00 0.72 0.00 17.29 0.00 Seasonal Wetland 2.96 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.00 3.26 0.00 Tidal Wetlands Brackish Tidal Marsh 27.98 72.73 7.55 21.83 11.32 4.91 12.34 0.00 59.19 99.47 Pickleweed Marsh (Tidal) 33.97 0.00 29.51 0.00 6.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.36 0.00 Non-Tidal Waters Scald/Playa 2.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.82 0.04 Seasonal Pond 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 Tidal Waters Tidal Channels 7.60 0.48 1.92 0.20 2.20 0.15 2.45 0.00 14.18 0.82 Subtotal 158.64 73.26 58.44 22.05 41.67 5.06 27.37 0.00 286.11 100.37 Total 231.90 80.49 46.73 27.37 386.48 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-12 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Elevation and vegetation transect surveys completed by ESA within the project site were used to establish preliminary design tidal marsh plain elevations, shown in Table 3 and illustrated on Figure 5. The elevations in the table provide a guide; however, habitat types blend into each other based on elevation and would be comprised of a mix of their component species, as dictated by soils, micro-topography and hydrologic conditions. TABLE 3 PRELIMINARY TIDAL MARSH DESIGN ELEVATIONS Marsh Type Elevationsa (feet NAVD88) Target Plant Community High Marsh 6.2 – 7.2 pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta var. angustifolia), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserina), western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), salt marsh baccaris (Baccharis glutinosa), salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus). Mid Marsh 5.5 – 6.2 Chairmaker’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus). Low Marsh 2.1 – 5.5 hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), and cattail (Typha latifolia, Typha domingensis). NOTE: a Unit of measurement in feet using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) Existing tidal marsh within Lower Walnut Creek, outside of the constructed project area, would be improved and enhanced through the introduction of tidal flow to the restoration area and by the increased connectivity with the restored adjacent habitats. Tidal Channels Networks of tidal channels would be excavated in restored tidal marsh areas. These networks would be connected to Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek via existing tidal channels in the fringing marsh or new channels excavated through the existing fringing marshes through poorly drained areas. Additional small tidal channels (more than the minimum required to connect the breached areas) may be excavated in the existing poorly-drained high fringing marsh in the North Reach, where they constrain marsh habitat quality. Small tidal channels would not be located near existing channels that support tidally well-drained marsh and have high habitat value. Implementation of these additional channels would depend on constructability and other considerations. The tidal channel layout (e.g., channel length per marsh area, branching patterns, and sinuosity) and sizing (cross-section dimensions) would be similar to channels in relatively undisturbed historic brackish tidal marshes of Suisun Bay (e.g., existing historic marshes, U.S. Coast Survey topographic surveys). Preliminary channel sizing is shown by channel order6 in Table 4. 6 Channel order is a system for identifying and classifying types of channels based on their number of tributaries. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 5 Schematic Tidal Marsh Profile SOURCE: ESA PWA 2012; USBOR, 2013 MLLW +1’ rESA � 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-14 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 4 PROPOSED PROJECT – TIDAL CHANNEL DIMENSIONS BY CHANNEL ORDER Channel Order Tributary Marsh Area (acres) Top width at Mean High Water (MHHW) (feet) Cross Section Area (feet2) Side slope (H:V) Invert elevation (feet NAVD88) Depth (feet below MHHW) 3 10 25 76 1:1 0 6 2 5 17 45 1:1 1 5 1 2 10 22 1:1 2 4 NOTE: Design channel geometry is based on Coates et al., Williams et al., and ESA (unpublished) work in the Suisun Marsh SOURCES: Coates, R, P.B. Williams, C.K. Cuffe, J. Zedler, and D. Reed. 1995. Design Guidelines for Tidal Channels in Coastal Wetlands. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. January. PWA report #934. Williams, P.B., Orr, M.K. and Garrity, N.J., 2002. Hydraulic Geometry: A Geomorphic Design Tool for Tidal Marsh Channel Evolution in Wetland Restoration Projects. Restoration Ecology, vol. 10, pp. 577–590. Material excavated from the channels would be sidecast (cast to the landside) and spread adjacent to the channels to create subtle, low-relief high marsh berms (analogs of natural creek bank levee micro-topography), where appropriate. The berms would alternate sides of the channel, include gaps, and otherwise be aligned to avoid obstruction of marsh drainage into the channels. These berms would provide topographic diversity to support a greater variety of marsh vegetation and support higher vegetation canopies, and areas for marsh dwelling animals. Areas that are already at (or near) high marsh elevations and areas in highly sensitive habitats (such as areas with existing pickleweed vegetation) may not be appropriate for sidecast deposition of sediment for marsh berms. In these cases, material would be transported for disposal in upland areas. Marsh Ponds Marsh ponds provide habitat for native brackish submerged aquatic vegetation, small prey fish, and many waterbirds (especially dabbling ducks and wading birds), including mallards that would also use adjacent lowland grassland habitats. Marsh ponds are proposed in the North Reach in select high marsh areas and in poorly-drained areas between channels. Ponds would be at least 0.5 acre in size (open water), large enough so that wind-waves would inhibit mosquito larvae production and may contain islets for habitat structural diversity and bird use. Ponds would be constructed by excavating one to two feet below the adjacent high marsh plain. Ponds would have steep banks and an irregular, complex edge. Ponds would be revegetated with native brackish submerged aquatic vegetation: wigeongrass (Ruppia maritima) and sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata). Transitional Lowland Habitat (Terrestrial lowland and Non-tidal Wetlands and Waters) The proposed project would take advantage of supratidal (above-tide) areas and existing degraded landscape features to reconstruct a matrix of lowland terrestrial and non-tidal aquatic habitats that are analogs (or surrogates) of historical, natural equivalent features destroyed by agriculture and 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-15 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision industrial development near the original bayland edges.7 These long-lost components of tidal marsh ecotones8 of Walnut Creek include lowland grassland (upland ecotone habitat described below), seasonal wetlands, and sandy alkali playa. Non-tidal wetland habitat would include these seasonal wetland and sandy alkali playa habitat types as well as existing non-tidal pickleweed marsh that would be enhanced. The spatial arrangement of transitional lowland habitats relative to adjacent tidal marsh is an important component of ecological function. The proposed project restoration design intergrades adjacent transitional lowland habitat with tidal marsh to increase ecological connectivity between the tidal and supratidal habitats, as in natural estuarine-terrestrial transition zones. The approach includes excavation of tidal marsh channel networks and intertidal marsh benches within the transition lowland matrix, increasing ecotone edge extent and complexity. The matrix of lowland habitats would be gradually sloped, from high marsh to upland elevations for a wide ecotone (transition zone). The adjacent transitional lowlands are designed to be successional habitats, gradually converting to tidal marsh with sea level rise. The tidal marsh-terrestrial ecotone would persist, moving upslope over time. Seasonal Wetlands Seasonal wetlands would be located in poorly-drained depressional areas and would contain target vegetation similar to the lowland grasslands (creeping wildrye, sedges, rushes, and forbs). Seasonal wetland types may vary depending on the microtopography, substrate (soil texture and chemistry), hydrology and other factors. Similar to lowland grassland, seasonal wetlands would be restored at existing grade where there is an existing gradual slope, or fill areas. Prior to construction they would be managed for weed-control (see the vegetation management discussion below) and revegetated with native plants post-construction. Sandy Alkali Playa Wetlands (Scald/Playa) Restoration would include two types of sandy alkaline wetlands: playa flats and playa ecotones (sand splays). These features will occur in the North Reach only. Sandy alkali playa Restoration of alkali playa flats would take advantage of the (accidental) historical formation of sandy alkali playa-like flats in the northwest quadrant of the North Reach, from historical discharges originating at the former sand offloading site at Suisun Properties. The playa-like sandy flats on the project site occur south of the Suisun Properties sand stockpiles. The sand veneer over clayey bay muds established playa-like soils and hydrology, but currently supports few native plant species and many weeds. These existing flats would be enhanced to support native plant species assemblages of alkali vernal pools, alkali flats, and their ecotones, similar to some natural historical ecotones of Suisun tidal marsh. Restoration of this habitat type would incorporate regionally rare terrestrial ecotone diversity with tidal marsh. 7 San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2016. Resilient Landscape Vision for Lower Walnut Creek: Baseline Information & Management Strategies. A SFEI-ASC Resilient Landscape Program report developed in cooperation with the Flood Control 2.0 Regional Science Advisors and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Publication #782. November 2017. 8 Ecotone: A region of transition between two biological communities. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-16 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The sandy alkali playa flats would be enhanced in place, using minimal grading combined with revegetation with native plant species. The surface of the flats would be scraped to remove weeds and their seed bank, and to create micro-topography. Tidal marsh and lowland grasslands would be intergraded into the flats in select locations to increase habitat complexity. Where this intergrading occurs, a subtle drainage divide (sill) would be graded at the edge of the flat, to avoid draining the flat into the adjacent habitat. Wide areas of these playa flats (over 200 feet) would be left in place with no sinuous tidal channels. The playas may be finished by washing over the graded surface with high-volume, high velocity jets of bay water (firehose and portable pumps) to re-establish stratified, sorted sediment structure that supports the distinctive vegetation. The sandy alkali playa flats would be vegetated with native plants suitable to the habitat. While some revegetation would occur to support native alkali vernal pool flora and a diversity of other native annual and perennial species, these areas would be expected to remain relatively bare or sparsely vegetated, as typical of such naturally occurring habitats. The sandy alkali playa flats are expected to develop a highly dynamic, variable vegetation pattern and species composition including increased diversity of native species in the higher topography areas Sandy alkali playa ecotones (Sand Splays) Constructed sand splays are very shallow slopes or cones of sand at the tidal marsh-terrestrial lowland interface and adjacent lowlands, similar to sandy alluvial fans deposited over clayey soils. Sand splays replicate many features of some natural alluvial fans that spread over tidal marshes, which support plant assemblages intermediate between high tidal marsh and alkali playa or grassland. Sand splays formed accidentally in the North Reach by past sand processing at the Suisun Properties parcel are similar to some natural historical ecotones of Suisun tidal marsh. Sand splays provide regionally-rare transitional ecotone diversity in tidal marsh restoration and may become suitable habitat for rare native plant populations, provide high tide shorebird roost habitat, and rare insect habitat. Sand splays may be hydraulically slurried into place or placed and graded with earth moving equipment. Target sand thickness is approximately 0.5 feet. over clayey tidal marsh. Final grade should include micro-topographic heterogeneity, such as small-scale ridges, flats, and pools. The sand splay would be actively revegetated with one or more of the following: smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata subsp. glabrata), sea spurrey (Spergularia salina), and salt marsh owl’s- clover (Castilleja ambigua subsp. ambigua). Extreme high tides and wave events are expected to result in marginal re-working and movement of the sands, with wind-wave transport building a micro-topographic berm along the edge, impeding drainage and creating conditions favorable for select target plant species. Non-tidal Pickleweed Marsh Existing non-tidal pickleweed marsh that is located outside of the grading area and above tidal influence would be kept in place. Vegetation management activities such as native plant installation and invasive removal may be implemented at these locations. These areas are anticipated to remain as non-tidal pickleweed marsh in the near term and transition to tidal marsh with five feet of sea level rise naturally in the future. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-17 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Uplands Upland habitats to be restored by the project include upland grassland and coastal scrub and transitional lowland grassland. Upland grassland and scrub Upland grassland and scrub habitats would be created in fill placement areas and on levees to remain, and would consist mostly of coastal scrub plant assemblages that occur on estuarine coastal bluffs bordering Suisun Marsh and the western Delta. Species composition would include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), lupines (Lupinus albifrons, L. bicolor.), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), golden-aster (Heterotheca sessiflora), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), tarweeds and spikeweeds (Hemizonia, Centromadia spp.), and native bunch grasses (Stipa pulchra, Elymus glaucus, Bromus carinatus). Lowland grassland Lowland grasslands interspersed with seasonal wetlands (described above) are proposed in supratidal areas adjacent to tidal marsh. Lowland grassland and seasonal wetlands would be restored to form a mosaic on the landscape, with grasslands established in the better drained areas. In some locations, this habitat would be enhanced at existing grades (vegetation management and revegetation only) and in other locations this habitat would be planted on newly‐graded areas. Lowland terrestrial grasslands would be planted in mixed patches of creeping wild rye, field sedge (Carex praegracilis), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), alkali-heath (Frankenia salina), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), alkali-weed (Cressa truxillensis), California rose (Rosa californica), western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis) and common aster (Symphyotrichum chilense). 2.2.1 South Reach The South Reach would be restored by breaching and lowering the existing flood protection levees along Walnut and Pacheco Creeks to restore tidal inundation to the existing non-tidal wetlands. New tidal channels would be excavated within the restored wetlands and adjacent existing fringe marsh, to connect the restored wetlands to the creeks. The existing levees would be lowered to create predominantly high and mid marsh habitat, but would also include areas of terrestrial lowland grasslands and uplands. Flood protection would be provided by a new setback levee along the western edge of the project site. The project site would be designed to facilitate the implementation of future public access improvements, including the extension of the Iron Horse Trail along the new setback levee, construction of a pedestrian crossing over the BNSF railroad, and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Pacheco Creek. Details of these project elements are provided below and conceptual grading plans and cross-sections can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Habitat Restoration Tidal Marsh The existing diked marsh in the South Reach varies in elevation from low to high tidal marsh elevations in the north to supratidal elevations in the south. Removing the existing levee in the 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-18 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision South Reach would restore these areas to tidal marsh. Tidal marsh would also be created by excavating portions of the existing levee to high and mid marsh elevations. Excavated marshplain along the lowered levees would have slopes ranging from 50 H:1V to 150 H:1V.9 Three new channel networks connecting to Walnut Creek and one new channel network connecting to Pacheco Creek would be excavated within the South Reach. Some of the material excavated from the channels within the diked basin would be sidecast and spread adjacent to the channels to create high marsh berms. Channels and breaches would be located to avoid conflicts with existing buried utilities within the South Reach. Adjacent Transitional Lowland and Upland Habitat Lowland and upland grassland habitat would be created along portions of the existing levees in the southeast area of the reach where adjacent existing grades are supratidal, and along portions of the new setback levees. Lowland grassland areas would have slopes ranging from 10 H:1V to 40 H:1V. Most of the existing levees along the South Reach would be lowered to high and mid marshplain elevations as described above. The remaining levees would be graded to support lowland grassland and upland habitat. Non-tidal pickleweed marsh and seasonal wetlands habitat exist at the southern end of the South Reach project area at supratidal elevations. These areas would be preserved and enhanced through invasive species management. No grading is proposed in these areas except as needed to construct the setback levee. Transitional and upland habitats would be created on the side-slopes of the toe berms of the new setback levee. Graded upland areas would be revegetated with native plants to restore lowland grassland (transitional) and upland grassland and coastal scrub habitats and to minimize soil erosion. Flood Protection A new setback levee, approximately 3,200 feet long, would be constructed along the western boundary of the South Reach. The new setback levee would connect with the existing levee along Pacheco Creek at the north (downstream) end and to the existing levee just north of the BNSF railroad embankment at the south (upstream) end. Setback Levee Configuration The northern 2,150 feet of the setback levee would be constructed on Conco’s property and would be incorporated into the planned improvements to Conco’s contractor yard. The southern 1,050 feet of the new setback levee (adjacent to the closed IT Baker landfill) would be constructed on both Conco and District property and would also be incorporated into the planned improvements to Conco’s contractor yard. 9 H:V is used to represent slope ratio, where H = horizontal distance and V = vertical distance. For example, 50 H:1V indicates that for every 50 feet in horizontal distance the vertical distance changes by 1 foot. "'a. LINE, TYP _[ PROPERTY i WALNUT CREEi( \ \ LOWER (E) SOUTH REACH LEVEE--------'------'- '----" LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WORK LIMIT GRAD ING LIMIT MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ (N) BREACH, TYP CCWD ACCESS PAD (N) STORMWATER CULVERT (TYP OF 4) (N) RESTORED TIDAL MARSH (NO GRADING) CCWD TURNAROUND AND ACCESS RAMP ) / � � ', (E) SEASON:L�TLA�- TRANSITION ZON N� D � GRA DING) , ' ' � LOWER(E) � FLOODPLAIN ' , ' � ' ' '---..." ' ------ � '' � ' , _____ --------- -� - � '---------------', � ------- ------- ------ (N) SOUTH REACH LEVEE � ',', � � ' ' � ' 2� 75 150 300 SCALE (FEET) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 6 Project Plan South Reach rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 i 25 20 15 z Q10 � W 5 ....I w -5 NORTH (E) PACHECO CREEK --r I r L µWER(E) EVEE r 11 rr-t, I I-+-I-+--+-+-----+--- -l- I-----, '-_r --=7 r;=-g, I I I I I ' \ I (N)TI[ AL CHANI EL, TYP- m ----n --r +-+-+- ---+--+---+-/ E r----L--------=;t--,1 --i---i--t I I IV I DESIGN G RADE, TYi ·: ,El --r-rr m ---rr r r r r r-r-rr- --+-- -+--+-.-+-+------+-+-+--+---l---1--l---+-+--_L-J-XISTING C RADE, TYP (N)MARS BERM, T -,. -�-,-1•-� ----n--i---r=t=--IA/1u J v1 I IV I I j I y1 I I _J (E)C CWD20-lt CH_/ I REC CLED WA ER PIPEL INE (E)C WD 48-IN :::H RAW'I' ATER PIP �LINEJ r r---r --n r, I I I I -+- --+--+--+-+--+--'-J_ J_ p \ '"A --/-'; �--1T-7r--�__,<-------------- ---v-�-;;;, --i---i----+-T T V I V I 'J \ V I I I I I I (E)S HELL 10-1� CH GAS L NE-I (E)S HELL 4-IN( H HYDRO GEN GAS INE-------v(E) SHELL 20 INCH CRU DE OIL PIF ELINE (I )SETBAC <LEVEE-� r -:-r-EL 18 I \ 1, -+-+---l----+ V \ -�-�-I----r---It - _J 1----i----r -i---i----+-I ' I I I I (I) BNSF R! ILROAD- ·-,�, --· -,-,rr-J --+--;-----� -+--,-----,---I I SOUTH -- II -{n I----+-' 25 20 15 z 10Q � SW ....I w -5 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 SOUTH REACH PROFILE VIEW CONGO SITE IMPROVEMENT (BY OTHERS) 2s�--------,,�----�--------�---------�---------�---------�---------�---------�---------�---------�---�2s LEGEND EXISTING GRADE DESIGN GRADE NOTES 200 300 1. MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (6.0' NAVO) AND KING TIDE (APPROX . 7.0' NAVO) ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM PORT CHICAGO NOAA TIDE GAUGE (STATION #9415144). 400 500 600 SOUTH REACH SECTION VIEW LO ER (E) LEVEE 700 800 900 KEY PLAN -SOUTH REACH PLAN VIEW 1000 1100 SCALE: 1 -300 1150 150 300 600 SCALE (FEET) �-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 7 South Reach Typical Cross Sections rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 8 � � � 'al � 25 20 215 0 j:: / - / V ' CONGO SITE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS) ,." -----· , __ r-\. / \\. ..... ,c:\l/lA ..... ,.... EXISTING GRADE TYt l (N) MARSH BERM, TYP � LOWER(E) EVEE� -/--"' /PRESERVE(E)FLC PDPLAIN tc:\ .lll"T...,.,....."":C:1/ ;; 10 UJ _J UJ 5 ' -----'\. --------,"-..:, __ --J__\_-,;---�r--/ f--�----------" ,,.) ---MHHW EL 6.0' /NOTE 1l ,., - )\. / uc;:,1<.,N��UL ITt"'- 160 200 300 400 WEST CONGO SITE IMPROVEMENTS 25 20 --/(BY OTHERS) I N-)-Sle+BAGK-bE--Vle" 215 0 j:: �10 "\. '- LEGEND EXISTING GRADE DESIGN GRADE NOTES ---, _J UJ 5 220 ..... ✓----- 300 1. MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (6.0' NAVO) AND KING TIDE (APPROX. 7.0' NAVO) ELEVATIONS TAKEN FROM PORT CHICAGO NOAA TIDE GAUGE (STATION #9415144). -� 400 ---- -'\_} V V -\ -/ ' DAL CHANNEL, TYP_,/ ------- -1------__ J (N)l 500 600 700 800 900 1000 SOUTH REACH SECTION VIEW LOWER (E) LEVEE AND FLOO[ PLAIN� , __ eSER.\,LE-fE-)-MARS '"' " AbNU+-GI l!E-eV --/ ""' '---------"--------MHHW EL 6.0' /NOTE 11 ,., / " /-., �--., 500 600 700 800 900 1000 SOUTH REACH SECTION VIEW KEY PLAN -SOUTH REACH PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1 - 300 EAST -- 25 20 152 0 j:: 10� _J 5 UJ 1074 25 20 152 0 j:: 10;; UJ _J 5 UJ 1100 150 300 600 SCALE (FEET) �-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 7 Continued South Reach Typical Cross Sections Continued rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-22 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-23 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The setback levee crest elevation along the South Reach would range between 18 feet elevation North American Vertical Datum (NAVD)10 and 13 feet elevation NAVD. Along the northern segment of the South Reach levee to be constructed on Conco’s property, the proposed levee design consists of a 21-foot crown width with 3H:1V slopes on both the inboard (dry) and outboard (creek) sides of the levee. On the inboard side, the levee slope would grade into Conco’s proposed corporation yard improvements, where fill would be placed by Conco, as part of their corporation yard improvement project, to raise the ground surface up to 10 feet elevation NAVD. On the outboard side, the levee slopes would extend to the existing grade. Use of a 3 H:1V slope on the outboard side is proposed to avoid placement of fill in existing jurisdictional wetlands on Conco property. Along the southern segment of the South Reach, the new setback levee would be constructed on both Conco and District property. The proposed levee design along this segment would have slopes varying from 3H:1V to 30 H:1V on the outboard side to support upland and lowland grassland habitat. Drainage pipes with tide gates would be installed along the length of levee to allow drainage from Conco to Lower Walnut Creek. Construction of the levee would be coordinated with the scheduling of construction of Conco’s corporation yard improvements. The design sections for the setback levee are shown in Figure 7. The setback levees would support an access road for District inspections and maintenance and that would allow for the potential for future public access as part of the extension for the Iron Horse Trail (see Section 1.2.2 – Future Public Access for more details). The access roads would be 14 feet wide and surfaced with 6 inches of class II aggregate base. The access road would also support Contra Costa County Water District (CCWD) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) access to their respective water pipeline facilities for the operation, maintenance, and repair thereof. Levee Settlement Bay muds along the setback levee alignment have moderate to high settlement potential. Placement of fill to construct the setback levees would result in post-construction settlement of approximately 2.7 feet over 50 years.11 To account for this settlement and to maintain the same level of flood protection in the future as currently, the levees would be constructed higher than the existing levee elevation to ensure appropriate levels of flood protection as subsurface materials consolidate and settle. Settlement of the setback levee has the potential to affect buried utilities within the setback levee footprint, including the Shortcut Pipeline (described below), owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and operated and maintained by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), and Recycled Water Pipeline owned by CCWD, and petroleum product pipelines owned/operated by Calpine and Shell Chemical Company. The District is working with the owners/operators of underground utility infrastructure within the project site to identify potential impacts on underground infrastructure and to incorporate design measures as-needed to avoid such impacts as analyzed in the Chapter 2, Environmental Checklist in this document. 10 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) is a vertical datum standard to which heights are referenced for elevations. 11 Hultgren – Tillis Engineers. 2019. Draft Geotechnical Investigation Lower Walnut Creek Project. Letter memorandum to ESA. March 2019. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-24 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Future Public Access Extension of Iron Horse Trail The EBRPD is evaluating the potential for extension of the Iron Horse Trail through the project site. The proposed alignment of the trail extension runs along the proposed setback levee in the South Reach, across Pacheco Creek to the south of the Martinez Gun Club, then west and north to Waterbird Regional Preserve (Figure 4). The greatest challenge facing potential EBRPD trail alignments is cost-effective ways to cross the BNSF railroad. The BNSF railroad crossing would likely be via an elevated pedestrian walkway. This structure would likely require an enlarged “landing” area in the South Reach where the new setback levee meets the BNSF embankment. The location and size of the landing area would be refined in coordination with EBRPD during the design phase. The proposed setback levee at the South Reach would be compatible with future improvements to support a public access trail. The proposed 21-foot wide levee crown would be adequate to support a two-way Caltrans Class I bikeway (11.6 feet minimum width required) and the levee profile and crest cross slopes would be within ADA tolerances. The District and/or Conco would construct fencing along the new levee as a security measure to prevent trespass from the levee onto the Conco property. The District would continue to work with the EBRPD to refine plans for future public access through the project site. Utilities Existing utilities in the South Reach include the USBR Shortcut Pipeline, the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Recycled Water Pipeline, overhead Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) transmission lines and support towers, and buried petroleum products pipelines operated by Calpine and Shell Chemical Company running parallel and to the north of the PG&E transmission towers (Figure 2). Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline The Shortcut Pipeline, a 48-inch diameter cement-mortar-lined and coated steel water supply pipeline owned by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and maintained and operated by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), traverses the South Reach of the project site through property owned by Conco and property owned by the District. The Shortcut pipeline crosses through said properties via easements recorded in the Official Records of Contra Costa County. The USBR Shortcut Pipeline crosses through Conco’s property and under District’s Walnut Creek and the existing levees along the creek. Various pipeline facilities, including air release valves and settlement monitoring stations are installed on the Shortcut Pipeline, including stations within the South Reach, to monitor settlement of the pipeline due to ground subsidence or seismic activity. A 20-inch Recycled Water Pipeline owned, operated and maintained by CCWD is located within the South Reach in a 10-foot wide easement running east-west located north of the USBR’s Shortcut Pipeline. Among other things, the Recycled Water Pipeline connects to a storage tank on Vine Hill and runs under Pacheco Creek and Walnut Creek towards the Marathon Refinery, but is not currently in use at this time. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-25 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The new setback levee would cross over the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline and their respective easements. To avoid potential settlement impacts to the pipelines by the levee and potential seepage issues through the levees from the pipelines, the Shortcut and Recycled Water Pipelines would be re-routed vertically to go up and over the levee core. The levee adjacent to the pipelines would be constructed using a combination of lightweight and earthwork fill and would result in no new net loading and thus no new potential for settlement. Sheetpiles would be installed in this section of the levee to control through-seepage. The Recycled Water Pipeline would also be realigned horizontally to run adjacent to the Shortcut Pipeline. The design of the levee to avoid impacts to the pipeline would require the demolition and replacement of approximately 170-feet of the Shortcut Pipeline and 220-feet of the Recycled Water Pipeline. Air release valve assemblies would be provided for both pipelines and space for maintenance access of the air valves would also be provided. An access ramp will be constructed south of the Shortcut Pipeline to allow USBR/CCWD access to maintain and inspect the portions of the pipelines within the South Reach on the District’s property. The existing levee would remain at current elevations above both pipelines. In addition to the design measures to avoid impacts to the pipelines from settlement, new tidal channels and breaches implemented as part of the South Reach habitat restoration would be designed to avoid conflicts with existing buried utilities. In order to inspect and maintain their facilities, CCWD requires the use of roads on District and Conco property to access the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline. Access is granted through an easement from Conco and a license from the District. To maintain the existing level of access and to inspect and maintain the pipelines, the District’s license to CCWD will need to be modified and new easements will need to be obtained by CCWD from Conco and the District. PG&E Overhead PG&E 115 kV transmission lines and two support towers are located within the South Reach within a 70-foot wide easement that runs in an east-west direction. This east-west easement alignment continues onto the Conco property. A PG&E easement also runs in a north- south direction along the western side of the District property. There is no known PG&E infrastructure installed in the north-south easement. The easements, power lines and tower locations are shown in Figure 2. Per PG&E, a vertical clearance of at least 28-feet must be maintained between the wires and the ground surface. The easement agreement grants right-of- way to PG&E to access the property for maintenance of their facilities. The new setback levee would cross under the PG&E transmission lines roughly 30 feet west of the west transmission tower located in the project site. Under existing conditions access to the towers and lines can be achieved by vehicle or foot and may be limited during the wet season due to ponding and saturated soil conditions. Access post construction would remain similar to the existing condition as grading in this area is not proposed and the ground surface in this area is above tidal elevations. Petroleum Products Pipelines The Martinez Gas Line (a 10-inch diameter carbon steel natural gas pipeline) owned and operated by Calpine and the Coalinga-Avon Pipeline (a 20-inch concrete coated carbon steel crude oil pipeline) and the Martinez-Shell Point Platformer Off-Gas Line (a 4-inch steel natural gas pipeline) 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-26 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision owned and operated by Shell Chemical Company are located within the South Reach. The Martinez Gas Line and the Martinez-Shell Point Platformer Off-Gas Line are located in a 10-foot wide easement identified as belonging to Shell Chemical Company and the Coalinga-Avon Pipeline is located in a 20-foot wide easement identified as belonging to Tidewater Oil Company.12 The agreements grant easement for installation of buried pipelines and right-of-way for maintenance and repairs. The easements cross the Walnut Creek levee and extend across the creek. The new setback levee would cross over all three pipelines. Design and construction of the setback levee could require special measures to protect the pipelines installed in the easements from damage from settlement of soils or construction activities; see Section 1.2.2 – Setback Levee Configuration for a more detailed discussion of construction constraints. New tidal channels and breaches implemented as part of the South Reach habitat restoration would be designed to avoid conflicts with existing buried utilities. Design details related to the pipelines, including pipeline material improvements or improved coverage requirements would be resolved during final design in coordination with the pipeline operators. Under existing conditions, access to the pipeline easements can be achieved by vehicle or foot and may be limited during the wet season due to ponding and saturated soil conditions. Post- construction access would be similar to the existing condition as grading in the area is not proposed and the ground surfaces would be above tidal elevations. 2.2.2 Middle Reach Construction of the Middle Reach is pending agreements with neighboring landowners. Proposed work, impacts and analyses are included in this document if or when the necessary agreements are realized. Tidal marsh would be restored by breaching and lowering the existing flood protection levees along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek to restore tidal inundation to the existing non-tidal wetlands. New tidal channels would be excavated within the restored wetlands and adjacent existing fringe marsh, to connect the restored wetlands to the creek. The existing levees would be lowered to create predominantly high marsh habitat, but may also include marsh ponds and small areas of terrestrial lowland grasslands and uplands. The lowest portions of the Acme landfill cap could be inundated (but not eroded) for brief periods and would not require a new setback levee to provide flood protection. The existing private landfill perimeter access road would be improved to support landfill operations and access for District maintenance. New drainage swales would be constructed on the upslope side of the improved perimeter access route to direct stormwater runoff from the landfill into existing non-tidal basins to the north and south of the Middle Reach project area. Two new short sections of levee would be constructed at the upstream and downstream ends of the reach and would connect to the existing levees along Pacheco and Lower Walnut Creeks. Details of the proposed project elements are provided below and typical cross-sections and the conceptual grading plan can be seen in Figures 8 and 9. 12 Nicholas Farros, President/Engineering Manager, Acme Fill Corporation, and Patrick Lacey, Acme Fill Corporation Compliance Officer, conversation with Michelle Orr and Paul Detjens, March 17, 2016. I NEW SETBACK -----I " LEVEE 11 I I I NEW SETBACK LEVEE ( I I ACME LANDFILL I \ NEW TIDAL CHANNELS, TYP. MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR RESTORED TIDAL MARSH (NO GRADING) • \ N A 75 150 SCALE (FEET) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 8 Project Plan Middle Reach rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 � LEGEND EXISTING GRADE DESIGN GRADE N A 300 600 SCALE (FEET) TOWARDS WALNUT PROPERTY LINE LOWER GVEE CREEK CHANNEL RESTORED TIDAL WETLAND EXISTING FRINGING TIDAL MARSH +I+-+r-lMPROJE ACME LANDFILL PE�IMElER ACCESS ,--/A1'i ----,-----=30 r--- ..J:l:: J_ -ft ROAD. ACCESS ROAD GEOMETRY T.B.D. --+----+-1 \-) --+-+-+-1 ,� ---+--+-•-+-, --+- --+--+- +--� -----+--+-+-+----1=---+----+--+--+-- --+--+---+--rEXISTlNG GRADE, TYP. Ii------+-----c 1--+--+-I ,_ /DESl��DE, TYP� --+--+---+---------f----+ ';;;;.�: -····?�. + �1 -+-I I ,_-...._ '/ T + + : ''-..__ t ,I I I /_ ./ ,-I t t E 30 z 25O 20 i== 15 � 10 � 5 w 0 l l l T l T I I ,--,r 1 T I I 1 I I � ,T---17 --1----T, �-1- 25 z20 O15 i== 10 � 5 � 0 w l 0+00 I I I 0+50 1+00 1+50 WALNUT CREEK LEVEE LOWERING H: 1" = 30' V: 1" = 15' I I I I 2+00 RESTORED TIDAL WETLAND 30 z 25O 20 � 15 >10� 5 w 0 ' : : I I ------ ---1-------1-- ---r------t- 0+00 1-----i-- -+- 0+50 I I +- ------1------l- -t ....._----i----t- 1+00 1+50 B PACHECO CREEK LEVEE LOWERING H: 1" = 30' V: 1" = 15' I I I ---l------1-------1-- 2+00 2+50 I ---+- 2+50 I I!----1---'-U---..... ------l.....JI I I I I I I I 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 LOWE �PROPERTY LINE LEVEE PACHECO CREEK I /"s�I .__ .... 1 -----..... 1 ----, I I I I I I I \ I +-+ + I I ------l--I 1------l-1----l-I----+-_/ "' ------l--I -1------1---=� ----l- ------l--------l-- I / "-1------i--t .---,-, -----i-----r-"----, ----+-t--+ I -+-I L....::= ..__ -----....+-__J -+- 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 /C1\ t---------NEW SETBACK LEVEE--------i-----RESTORED TIDAL WETLAND-----il M -----------, I I I I J-----+- 8+00 " E 30 25 z20 O �� �5 ....I 0 w E E 8+00 20 z 20 Q 15 +-l !;i: 10 InR cccso ou1F ALL, APPROX I_ I l 'J-=F=F=�-t----'++------_�+-F-t---�+F-=F--,i-====i____j_===i1�----!===i LOCATION�PTH UNKNOv.N"'\=i=L+--1=+=+=-++= _j_ =i=+- j__ -+-=t=t=�-l= _l_ i=-�=i=i--==i==i==i-----a=j l µ_+-Jl==l==l =�-----+=+ _j_ =----+=1--�=i= _j_ =l--+�=i==i==� _j_____j_ z E 15 0 10 �iii 5 u:l O: I IJ 5 E o w w 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 MIDDLE REACH SETBACK LEVEE -SOUTH H:1�=30' V: 1" = 15' 15 l':t t t f = /l + t f t � � �T:f 4+00 3+75 5 4+00 4+50 LEVEE LOWERING MIDDLE REACH -WALNUT CREEK 4+00 LEVEE LOWERING MIDDLE REACH -PACHECO CREEK NEW SETBACK LEVEE 4+50 1" -10' 1" = 10· 5+00 MIDDLE REACH SETBACK LEVEE -SOUTH 5+00 5+50 4+50 5+00 5+25 5+50 1' = 10' z0 i== w ....I w 15 z 10 0 �5 w ....I w 6+00 6+20 -+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 9 Middle Reach Typical Cross Sections rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-29 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Habitat Restoration Tidal Marsh The existing levees along the Middle Reach would be breached by new tidal channels and lowered to high marsh elevations. The existing diked marsh areas, which vary between low to mid marsh elevations, would not be graded. A segment of the existing levee would be graded down to high marsh elevations with new marshplain slopes ranging from 50 H:1V to 150 H:1V. Figure 8 shows the plan view for restoration of the Middle Reach. Three new channel networks connecting to Walnut Creek and two new channel networks connecting to Pacheco Creek would be excavated. The channel networks connecting to Walnut Creek would connect to existing tidal channels in the fringing marsh as possible to minimize the need for excavation within the existing tidal wetland habitat along Lower Walnut Creek. The channel networks connecting to Pacheco Creek connection would likely require the creation of new channels through the existing fringing marsh. Material excavated from the channels within the diked marsh area would be sidecast and spread adjacent to the channels to create high marsh berms. Adjacent Transitional Lowland and Upland Habitat Transition and upland habitat would be created on the side-slopes of the toe berms of the new setback levees and along portions of the improved Acme perimeter access road. The existing levees along the Middle Reach would be lowered to high marsh elevations. Graded transition and upland areas would be re-vegetated with native plants to minimize soil erosion. Flood Protection Setback Levee Configuration New setback levees would be constructed at the upstream and downstream end of the Middle Reach and connect the existing levees along Pacheco and Lower Walnut Creek with the improved perimeter access road. The final setback levee crest elevation for both setback levees would be approximately 12 feet NAVD. The elevation would be designed to maintain the same level of flood protection as provided by the existing levees. The preliminary levee design sections for the setback levee are shown in Figure 9 and consists of a levee core with a 55-foot wide crown for the north setback levee and a 43-foot width crown with on the south setback, both with 3H:1V slopes. Toe berms would be constructed on both sides of the levee core at 100 feet wide on the north and 80 feet wide on the south to provide stability. The setback levees would support an 18-foot wide access road surfaced with 6 inches of class II aggregate base for District inspections and maintenance. Improved Landfill Perimeter Access Road The existing landfill perimeter access road would be improved by raising the road and resurfacing to a 15-foot top width with an upslope shoulder varying in width from 0 to 40 feet and 2H:1V side slopes on the upslope and 3H:1V side slopes on the downslope sides of the road. The access road would be surfaced with 6 inches of class II aggregate base. Passing areas of at least 25 feet clear would be provided at appropriate intervals along the access road alignment. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-30 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The subsurface conditions along the perimeter access road alignment have moderate settlement potential. Placement of fill to construct the road improvements may result in post-construction settlement of between 1 to 2 feet for every 10 feet of fill placement. To account for this settlement potential, the road would be constructed higher than the elevations described above to ensure the roadway is accessible during high flow events as subsurface materials consolidate and settle. Lightweight fill material could also be used to minimize settlement. Implementation details for road construction methods would be determined during the design phase of the project. Existing drainage infrastructure along the access road would be demolished and/or plugged and abandoned in place. On the upslope side of the access road, a new concrete drainage swale would be constructed to collect surface water runoff from the landfill and deliver it to the Acme landfill buffer basins to the north and south of the Middle Reach restoration area. Directing the landfill runoff to areas of the Acme buffer basin that would remain non-tidal would maintain stormwater drainage practices currently in place at the landfill as required by the regulatory agencies. Landfill Infrastructure No excavation is proposed, or allowed, into the landfill cap. There are 13 existing water quality compliance wells used to monitor the Acme landfill within the Middle Reach project footprint (locations shown in Figure 8). Acme requires vehicle access to the wells every 3 months for as long as the landfill remains operational.13 The wells would remain and the standpipes may need to be raised as part of the restoration. Groundwater sampling methods require purging of groundwater prior to sampling, so a vehicle is needed to carry the generator used for purging. Acme currently uses a Gator utility vehicle for access. New well access berms would be constructed to allow continued monitoring of the wells. The berms would have a crest elevation of 6 to 7 feet NAVD 88, a minimum top width of 5-feet and side slope of 3H:1V. Utilities Overhead 21 kV electrical distribution lines and three support poles are located within the Middle Reach. These lines and poles are not identified in PG&E electrical distribution maps and are likely privately owned by a third party. The southern new setback levee would be constructed to the west of the pole located along the existing Pacheco Creek levee and the existing levee adjacent to the pole would be lowered. The new setback levee would not cross under the distribution lines. The improved landfill perimeter access road would cross under the distribution lines. 2.2.3 North Reach The North Reach project design is divided into four quadrants for planning purposes, as shown on Figure 10, and the proposed habitat restoration varies in response to the distinct ecological, topographic and hydrologic characteristics of different parts of the site. In general, existing grades in the North Reach would be higher relative to the tides compared to the Middle and South Reaches. The North Reach design would preserve large portions of the site at supratidal elevations (above the elevations of present day tidal marsh) with the expectation that these areas 13 Nicholas Farros, President/Engineering Manager, Acme Fill Corporation, and Patrick Lacey, Acme Fill Corporation Compliance Officer, conversation with Michelle Orr and Paul Detjens, March 17, 2016. WALNUT CREEK WATERFRONT ROADUNION PACIFIC R/RLOWER (E) BERM EXCAVATE (N) TIDAL MARSH (N) SEASONAL WETLAND, TYP. (N) CCSD ACCESS ROAD (N) BREACH, TYP (N) RESTORED TIDAL MARSH NO MASS GRADING (N) ACCESS TRAIL SUBGRADE (N) TIDAL CHANNELS, TYP PROTECT (E) SEASONAL WETLANDS (E) SANDY PLAYA, PIP, TYP (N) UPLAND FILL PLACEMENT PARCEL BOUNDARY, TYP. WORK LIMIT, TYP GRADING LIMIT, TYP EXCAVATE (N) TIDAL MARSH, TYP. (N) UPLAND FILL PLACEMENT (N) UPLAND FILL PLACEMENT LOWER (E) BERM (N) LOWLAND TERRESTRIAL TRANSITION ZONE TIDAL CHANNEL CONNECTION SITE ACCESS FROM WATERFRONT ROAD STAGING AREA EXCAVATE (N) MARSH POND FUTURE PARKING AREA AND PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE FACILITIES LEGEND PROPERTY LINE WORK LIMIT GRADING LIMIT MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR DWG: \\sfo-file01\PROJECTS\SFO\17xxxx\D170378.00 - Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project\10 CAD\Dwgs\_CEQA_Figures\Fig 10 Project Plan North Reach.dwg USER: Eddie Divita PLOT DATE: 7/2/2019 2:01:10 PMFigure 10 Project Plan North Reach Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 NORTHEAST QUADRANT NORTHWEST QUADRANT SOUTHWEST QUADRANT SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 10 Project Plan North Reach SOURCE: ESA rESA � 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-32 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-33 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision would gradually convert to tidal marsh habitats over time as sea levels rise. Restored tidal brackish marsh areas would be fully tidal east of the CCCSD outfall pipeline and muted tidal west of the outfall pipeline. The proposed project includes the Suisun Properties lands. Habitat Restoration Habitat restoration features on the North Reach are described below and shown on Figure 10 and Figure 11. Northwest Quadrant New tidal marsh and channels in the northwest quadrant would connect to the historic Walnut Creek channel at the northern most boundary of the project site, through the Suisun Properties area. New tidal wetlands would be created in the eastern and southern areas of the northwest quadrant. Grades would be lowered by three to five feet to high- to mid-marsh elevations and new tidal channels would be excavated and integrated with swales in the adjacent terrestrial lowlands to allow for the gradual conversion of the adjacent lowlands to tidal wetland habitats as sea levels rise. The project would create a mosaic of lowland terrestrial habitats in the areas adjacent to the tidal marsh restoration, in particular in the southern and central sections of the quadrant. These habitats would include a mix of grasslands, seasonal wetlands, and sandy alkali playa flat. Mass grading would be performed in some of the lowland terrestrial habitat areas in order to achieve a gently sloping landscape with an average slope of 50 H:1V or shallower. Typical cut depths in the lowland terrestrial habitat areas would be approximately two to three feet below existing grade. Swales would be excavated through the lowland terrestrial areas extending upslope from the adjacent muted tidal wetland channels. The CCCSD access road would be re-located within the CCCSD easement, and new habitat excavated within the existing road alignment. Earth excavated from other parts of the project site (South, Middle and North Reaches) would be placed in two locations of the northwest quadrant. The dune feature slopes would vary from 3 H:1V to 20 H:1V, and would be graded to direct runoff towards seasonal wetland areas to the extent possible. Fill thickness would vary, with thickness up to 25 feet in some areas depending on geotechnical design considerations. Southwest Quadrant In the southwest quadrant, the existing seasonal wetland basin would be breached and connected to a new fully tidal channel that connects to historic Walnut Creek closer to Suisun Bay. The perimeter berm running along the south and west sides of the quadrant would remain at existing elevation. Northeast Quadrant In the northeast quadrant, new tidal marsh and lowland terrestrial habitats would be restored at grade at the north and south ends of the quadrant by re-introducing tides from Lower Walnut Creek. Tidal channels and a marsh pond would be excavated within the new tidal marsh areas and then be re-connected to the tides by breaching the perimeter berm along the east side of the quadrant and connecting to existing tidal channels in the outboard marsh. The perimeter berm 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-34 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision would be lowered to create a gentle transition to the existing fringing tidal marsh along Walnut Creek, and some grading may be performed in adjacent areas in the central and northern thirds of the quadrant to achieve a gently sloping landscape. Existing seasonal wetland habitat would be protected in place. Southeast Quadrant In the southeast quadrant, the existing non-tidal wetland basin would be breached and reconnected to Walnut Creek via a tidal channel excavated (as needed) through the fringing marsh and new tidal channels would be excavated within the basin. The berms along the north and east sides of the southeast quadrant would remain and be improved to accommodate future public trails. Lowland terrestrial areas that are impacted by earthwork would be revegetated with native plants, while un-impacted areas would be managed to remove non-native invasive plant species. Earth excavated from other parts of the project area would be placed in the southern part of the quadrant in a similar manner as described above for the Northwest Quadrant. Lower Walnut Creek Fringing Marsh The fringing marsh to the east of the northeast and southeast quadrants would be enhanced with additional excavated tidal channels to the extent feasible. Flood Protection The North Reach does not contain flood protection levees and the berms and informal levees that would be lowered as part of the proposed project do not provide flood protection for any vulnerable infrastructure. Existing infrastructure, including the CCCSD access road and Waterfront Road, are inundated during high tide events under existing conditions, which would remain unchanged with the proposed project. High tides flow from Walnut Creek through an existing tidal ditch north of Waterfront Road to overtop low points in the road. Tide waters can also reach low points on Waterfront Road via the existing TransMontaigne Access Road culvert. Public Access The North Reach includes public trials and other public access features to support recreational and educational use of the restored Pacheco Marsh site as described in detail below. Trails, Bridges, and Boardwalks The Project includes approximately 3.9 miles of recreational trails to bring visitors through the marsh restoration. Approximately 0.98 miles of the trail network is along the shared access road with Contra Costa County Sanitation District (CCCSD), while the remaining 2.92 miles of the trail network is dedicated solely to trail use. Trails are primarily within upland and transition habitat areas, although approximately 0.35 miles of trails travel closer to tidal wetlands allow visitors to get closer views of these habitat areas. The 0.35 miles of trails will have limited access and will be closed during sensitive breeding times. Figure 12 shows the anticipated trails and other public access features. ��'al � ,E � LEGEND EXISTING GRADE DESIGN GRADE WEST 30 "ILL (N) LOWLAND TERRESTRIAL EAST ---�---�---�---�---�____,_r __ � ___ H_A�B _IT _A _T __ �---�---�---�---�------=-------=-----------�---�---�---�---�---�---�---�-�30 ---+-!-T-/L----t-,-(' )Tl'L' M�FS��-? Nf9-S-:--f�l����r--=r�Fur� ill� Pµf1MFNT ,R,E��, -i-t---:cn=-----=T:=-tT=cc1==11-+-1=c-c=11,--------j, (1)TffrM��·f1r I I I I I I I I 25 20 ,11, 1111 I I I Ip '_j_l _j_ _J_ � --LI N) UPLAND A1CEMENT �RE'°) I I _j_ 1 j_µ_j_ j_ _j_ I I I _j_ '--L j_ '_j_l I I I I I I I I I I I _j_ 1 _j_ I +-l +-+-11 +-I -t--+-1-+l -+l -+I j_ _J_ 1 I I I I j_ _J_ 1 I� Lj_ _j_ _j_ 1---U 25 y K._j_l I ----+-----+--+----#------+----"-----¼-+----+--+----+----+-----++----+---+---+----t---------t---+-+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-+----+-----+--+---+20 1A Z15 Ill ,Ill _j__ I j_ _j__ \,.--' TT I I� T rlT I I I I T T 1 "--LJ I __J___f-L ' 1 I 1 _l_ rTT1 TTT '--1-l_j LlJ --7- - 1T T,T1111T,T --1-_ ___bj--j_ I --L l_lJ J LI TTTI T ,Tl---rTl T T TI l__j___lC----+--1,_-+-I -+I J_ _j_ 1 __J___I LlJ I I I I _J__ I I 11 TIT1---rl I I I I j_ _j_l m 1 TT1T1 LU J j_ --L l__j___' IT 152 lt1 0 0i= i= I ;; 10 -----' --+--� -- ------I/ 10;; w I----' -' -----r--" MHHW w -' W 5 V V \ I I 5 W rt----(E)CCC�D72"CMP - -1--_ / f)I ,T�•.t I DIEELJ,u"'�"+----+-----t---------t-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----1,__I _--+ { VIF, (P.1.1'.), NOTE 1 '---------- __ / -5+----+----+----t---------t-----+-----+-----+------+------+----+�t-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+----+----+----+----+----1-----t---------t-----+---+-5 100 200 300 400 500 600 WEST 30 (N) UPLA�D FILL PLAI 1 EMENT ARI A 25 20 15 -+--+--+ I� ---,----,----+--+ .----r -+--+--+ T +-++ 5P " + -+-l----l----' ,-----r/' � ----r----t-t' � �:: ,r -+--c-r -i----r-t l7 � -+-++-I----+----+---+------+= -t-+--t ---r--t------r-----r-- ----1------1-----l- -5 -10 --+-----+---, ' -+--+--+--+ ----r-----1------+------1-- -----1-----l- 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 � \__-_/ (E) SANDYPLAYA (N)TIDAL M 1�-1.� -r----,----++ ----r-----r------+--+- ;t-� -t, � ----1------+-----1- f----+---+ -I- ------r-----t-t----t---1----1--+ -----r---+--+ --1----1--+ NORTH REACH PROFILE VIEW �RSH AND dHANNEL-- -r-----,------- -----rrt--t --+-----+---+-'-r TT---t-l � / I ' /-t -t---1----1--+ L-JL+-l- -+--+--+ ' -1--+--1- (N)CCCSD ACCESS�7, .-----r-T T I----+--+ ,_ :J ----+--+-+- i,._.....✓ / ----r----t-t � � -+- -----1-----l-V 1500 1600 1700 ��mt\ 1:�605t<1 CXAuurn,.,IUN �� II.ST LMARSH (N)TIDJ LOWER(E )EAST 7 ---r--t--t-l�IMlµ-fR BERM ---r -+--+-+ --+-----+---+- ---+--+ -l--T � ---t (E)C �CSD72"CMP /OUTI ALL PIPELI� E .,, ' •• • ,, 1'1'-' --1-------1-----l- 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2467 WALNI � -r-----,-------(EJTII ��/I.RSM, .t.t'. &-t-1 ---t-----r----t-t T ----r----t-t �-l---+-----+---+-T Cf -+-+--+--+ ---+-----+--, ' v -1------1-----\_ ++-+--+----------" ----r----1----1--+ -----+----+- ---I- -+---+-----+--, ----r-----r----+--+--1----1--+ ! . KEY PLAN -NORTH REACH PLAN VIEW SCALE, 1" � 1000' EAST 30 JT CREEK-� 25 20 ,----t-15 ---+-,---+-----l----f-----1-----1--f-----1-----1---I-MHHW --r----,-----,___ .-----t- -5 -+--+--+ ,---+--1--+--1-'----1----l----l -I--10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2752 WEST 20 �(E)V, EST PERIM TERBERM (N)N( RTH WEST GRADING 15 Z10 0 i= � -' W 0 -5 kl 200 NOTES -- 300 400 ---� ----------,,,--V 500 600 "nr -., .. -- ·--- --, ,..... V 700 800 1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF CCCSD OUTFALL PIPELINE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CCCSD AND TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD --· ,nn -· ,_. ·--, ... , ··�" �· ·-, ..... ,_ r--.. V 900 1000 • ,n A '·-·" ···- -- \ A I -\ u 1100 1200 NORTH REACH PROFILE VIEW (N)CC CSD ACCESS ROAD- \ -____; ---- 1300 1400 1500 NORTH REACH PROFILE VIEW \ I� -------" V 1600 1700 (N) NORTHEAS GRADING ��!; +ID ·-nn, l ·-EAST I\ I -· \t:/ \ PERIMETE � BERM \_ � C � ____________ j__ � - /�(E)CCC! D 72" CMP I OUTFAL PIPELINE � '"I\'•• ., - V 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 (E TIDAL MAR pH, P.I.P. � ------- 2500 2600 2700 EAST 20 WALNUT CREEK_-----._ � 2800 'v MHHW ' 1-------- 15 1oz 0 i= 5 � -' 0 W -5 2900 3000 3049 500' I 000' 2000' SCALE (FEET) tv 4 �-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 11 North Reach Typical Cross Sections rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 i LEGEND EXISTING GRADE DESIGN GRADE 20 15 210 0 j:: ;;: 5 ....I W 0 -5 WEST ,TrTI ..L'---1 ) -,--t --t-t-t T �(E)WES T PERIMETEjR BERM 7 (NO GRi DINGJ-r,,. nE-s:i:©R-E-f (N{TI PALCHANN I\ �Tr,--.,,+•---rr-i-•----, v+---l----J--'fl! t/-1--+-+ 1---t-t-t t----t-t-t -t 1---t-t-t t---+---+--+--...+---+--+--J. --+---+--+-- uTT T 419Ab-MAR LGRADING o"i-iLY l -I _e----�--';= ,�t-fl !-1---+--l -I- ---t-t-t -t 1---t-t-t t----t-t-t -t ...+---+--+--J. --+---+--+--...+---+--+--J. �NEW CC CSD TACyErs ROAD T,. �Al!-MAF )-R-E-S+GR-EI j_ j_ I (N)T DALCHANN ELGRADINC �✓ D � -+--,----, T T --,--•r-� -1---+---+--l---1---+---l--l-rr--+/ -�)CCCSC 72"CMP VIF, (P.I.P. , NOTE 1 t-t-i t----t- � +--+-- --+---+--+-- -(E)EAl Si T TRAIL I ON�Y LI /-�I - --l-------1---- t-t t----t-t-t -t --+---+--+--...+---+--+--J. TBERM �UBGRADE --- I-+-+-+ T --+---+---+--1- 1---t-t-t t---+---+--+-- ----T -1---l----l---l- ---t-t-t -t ...+---+--+--J. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 NORTH REACH PROFILE VIEW WEST 25 (E)WE T -(E)C CCSD ,c, T'QAil-M ARS!rl,P-lio. I I I I I I I -1---l---+ -r---- 1---t-t-t t----t-t-t -t 1---t-t-t t----t-t-t -t 1---t---+---+--+--...+---+--+--J. --+---+--+--...+---+--+--J. --+---+--+-- 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 EAST ,.., lcMff" ---l-..i �REEK TT MIHHW I I I -1---l----l-- '.__..,-� t-t-t-+---+--+ 2000 2100 ' T T,� l j_ I I 1--J---J/ 1/ ---t-t--t---+---+--+-- 20 15 102 0 j:: 5 ;;: w ....I 0 W -5 2200 2282 (N RESTOREC TIDAL MARl H ,PE;RIMl;:T R --+--,ACC �ss f-OA\J (,N)Ulj'Ll',N P Ell� IE TID}'tL M}'tRl H 1 P.1.i=f. t- T T ' NF )AL-Clc!Alllllll L-GAADJIII~ "·''VI I '1----1-------1\P.1. C T -------,---20 215 0 j:: �10 ....I W 5 NOTES .JBERM, P.I P.'- -\ I/ 100 IL..+ '----- 200 -l-------1----- e------...______ IY- )' 300 400 500 1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF CCCSD OUTFALL PIPELINE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CCCSD AND TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD -'=--+-=-1-l-f-----l-------j _I_ -�--,_. -------- ( � 600 700 800 900 __,,,- __./" I--""" ------! - -rs,nl 7?" /"'. ,., "'' ('( OUTF O.LL PIPELIN � VIF (P .I.P.), NOTE 1000 1100 1200 NORTH REACH PROFILE VIEW --l-------1---- -- 1300 1400 l..+ -I-' N --L -I-------- _,----- 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 T I """"'--- 2400 KEY PLAN -NORTH REACH PLAN VIEW 1W,i\Li:,JL h"CR.EEK ' _[ , MHHW EAST --1------1----� 25 20 152 0 j:: 10� v / ....I 5 W -r----- _,,/ 2500 2600 2700723 500' 1000' SCALE: 1" = 1000' 2000' SCALE (FEET) �-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 11 Continued North Reach Typical Cross Sections Continued rESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay Bridge (maximum of 100 feet long) ŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Bridge (60 feet long) ŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂů ĐŚĂŶŶĞů džŝƐƟŶŐůĞǀĞĞƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶĨŽƌƵƐĞĂƐƚƌĂŝůBridge (maximum of 70 feet long) over ŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay ^ŵĂůůǁĂƚĞƌĐƌĂŌĚƌŽƉͲŽīĂŶĚůĂƵŶĐŚ ƌŝĚŐĞ;ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵŽĨϴϱĨĞĞƚůŽŶŐͿŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay Bridge (maximum of 100 feet long) ŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Bridge (60 feet long) ŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂů ĐŚĂŶŶĞů džŝƐƟŶŐůĞǀĞĞƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶĨŽƌƵƐĞĂƐƚƌĂŝůBridge (maximum of 70 feet long) over ŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Elevated vista point 25 feet above the Bay ^ŵĂůůǁĂƚĞƌĐƌĂŌĚƌŽƉͲŽīĂŶĚůĂƵŶĐŚ ƌŝĚŐĞ;ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵŽĨϴϱĨĞĞƚůŽŶŐͿŽǀĞƌŶĞǁƟĚĂůĐŚĂŶŶĞů Pi Vista Point Parking AreaP Restrooms Wildlife Viewing Point Water ĐĐĞƐƐ Bridge /ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟǀĞ Feature /ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟǀĞ ͬĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ &ĂĐŝůŝƚLJi Legend 300150 600 feet Seasonal Wetland Channel Upland dƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶ Tidal Wetland Seasonal Pond Habitat Areas Bird Blind ;>ŝŵŝƚĞĚĐĐĞƐƐ) sĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌZŽĂĚ WĂĐŚĞĐŽDĂƌƐŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ Boardwalk ^ĐĐĞƐƐZŽĂĚ Unpaved Trail ;EŽWƵďůŝĐsĞŚŝĐůĞĐĐĞƐƐͿ Central San Easement Oil Pipeline >ŝŵŝƚĞĚĐĐĞƐƐdƌĂŝů City of DĂƌƟŶĞnj Wa terfront R o a d Wa lnu t C r ee k State Lands Commission Suisun Bay Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 123achecR 0aUVh 3XEOLc $cceVVrESA � SOURCE: ESA, 2018 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-38 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision All trails will have a natural surface tread of either rock or dirt. It is anticipated that trail elevation will be between 10 and 30 feet above sea level and all trails will have grades less than 4.9 percent. The service road is anticipated to be 22 feet wide. All other trails will be eight feet wide with two feet of shoulder on either side. The trail network includes four bridges across tidal channels. The bridges will be prefabricated steel and wood structures and will range in size from 60 feet to 100 feet depending on the width of the channel. All bridges will be eight feet wide and include railings along both sides. Some bridges may have interpretive signage integrated into the railing. There will be three overlook points along trails at high points or areas with views of the tidal restoration. These overlooks will be constructed of wooden decking and enclosed with guardrails to prevent access beyond the overlook area. It is anticipated that some of the overlooks may be constructed on piers to provide visitors with an elevated view. These overlooks will include benches, interpretive signs, and may include stationary binoculars or viewing scopes to allow for bird watching. Additionally, two wildlife viewing points are located at lower elevations in areas anticipated to have unique wildlife viewing, such as channel confluences or near ponds. One of the wildlife viewing areas is located along a limited access trail and will not be open to the public during sensitive breeding times. The wildlife viewing areas will be constructed in a similar style to the overlooks but will incorporate design elements to limit interaction between the public and wildlife, such as taller guardrails and solid fencing. Interpretive signage will be placed at all overlooks and wildlife viewpoints. Together the overlooks and wildlife viewing areas will compose approximately 0.3 acres and will include eight to ten benches, eight to ten signs, and three to five stationary binoculars or viewing scopes. Trails will be open for hiking and bicycling, but dogs will not be allowed on the trails. Motorized vehicles will be restricted to the entry driveway and parking lot, with the exception of CCCSD maintenance vehicles that will utilize the service road. Removable bollards will be placed along the service road to limit entrance and split rail fence will be used around the parking area and at the property edge to prevent driving on to the site. The entry to Pacheco Marsh will be controlled by a lockable gate and it is assumed that it will remain locked during closed hours. Water Access Points The Project includes one water access point within the Project for small personal watercraft, such as kayaks and canoes. The water access point will be along a new tidal channel near Suisun Bay. A boat drop off will be located near the water access point at the end of the CCCSD access road. Use of this drop off point will be limited by removable bollards along the service road and reservations will be required for use. The water access point may be a floating dock within the channel with space to accommodate up to two boats or a concrete ramp constructed at grade, with a suitable footprint to allow for the launch of small non-motorized watercraft. Buildings The Project will include an interpretive/education center (approximately 3,600 square feet) located near the entry. The building would be sited to overlook a restored seasonal wetland, and would include both indoor and outdoor space to view the restoration. It is anticipated that the 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-39 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision interpretive center would include restrooms, and would be used for environmental education classes, conferences, and as a rental space for events. It would include interpretive material about the Pacheco Marsh Restoration. An additional standalone restroom (approximately 400 square feet) would be located near the interpretive center. This restroom would be available to all visitors to the Project, while the interpretive center may have limited hours. The developed area, including the interpretive center, restroom, and associated outdoor space, would be approximately 0.3 acres. Restrooms would be constructed over concrete vaults and would be maintained/emptied by a contractor as needed. No water or wastewater connections would be required for the interpretive center. Drinking water would be supplied by a water cooler with water jugs brought in by a vendor, as needed. Parking The Project includes a 0.55‐acre asphalt parking area that will accommodate approximately 50 parking spaces, including four accessible parking spaces. The Project additionally includes 0.23 acres of unpaved (gravel or earth) parking area for buses and overflow. Both parking lots can be accessed from Waterfront Road by a 480-foot asphalt entry road (0.24 acres). The parking lot also includes a trail connection to the City of Martinez’s parking lot to the west. The parking lot will be enclosed by a split rail wood fence except at entry points. Landscaping Within the parking lot, there would be additional landscaping to manage stormwater. These areas would include bioretention soil to allow for treatment of surface runoff. Plants selected for these areas would be suitable for stormwater treatment and would be compatible with plants used in the restoration. Trees may be included in these areas. It is assumed that these areas would be irrigated to allow for plant establishment. Visitor Use It is anticipated that the project would be open to the public during daytime hours with some night time events at the interpretive center on a limited basis and with approval from the Project owner. Trail use would likely be the primary use of the Project, including visitors who use the trails for wildlife viewing, walking, or biking. It is assumed that most use by the general public would take place on the weekends, although education groups, such as school groups, summer camps, or scouts, may use the site during the week for field trips. Similarly, it is assumed that the interpretive center would be most used during the weekends, although it may be utilized for conferences or events during the school year. Due to the need to carry boats to the water access point, it is assumed that use of this facility would likely be somewhat limited. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the Project could have approximately 13,000 visitors annually. The mild climate of the Bay Area suggests that the Project would likely have similar use levels during all seasons, although visitation would likely drop during periods of extended rain in the winter months. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-40 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Utilities The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) outfall pipeline runs from south to the north through the center of the North Reach. This 72-inch concrete pipe is located in a 130-foot wide easement and has ten manholes, which are used for maintenance of the outfall within the project area. The CCCSD uses the existing access road to inspect and maintain the outfall pipeline. This access road is located within the easement on the south half of the site, however on the north half of the site the access road veers to the west of the easement starting approximately 2,500 feet north of Waterfront Road. The elevation of the existing access road varies from approximately 6.5 feet NAVD to 13 feet NAVD, and sections of the road become inundated during spring tides. The project would raise and re-align the CCCSD access road to provide continued access to the pipeline under the proposed project. Project features including tidal channel excavation and upland fill placement would be offset from the outfall pipeline to avoid any potential impacts to the pipeline. 2.2.4 Pacheco Reach Invasive species removal and native vegetation planting would occur along Pacheco Creek Reach of the project site. Vegetation management activities could include removal of invasive species using hand, low impact mechanical, and/or herbicide application methods. Revegetation would focus on planting native species to enhance habitats for native fish and wildlife along Pacheco Creek. 2.2.5 Project Construction for All Reaches The proposed project would construct/restore all four reaches in an integrated manner that allows for balance of cut and fill between the reaches, that minimizes potential impacts to ecologically sensitive areas, and in the case of the Middle Reach, when agreements can be obtained. Table 5 presents the main disturbance activities and their size for each reach. The following sections describe construction schedule and phasing, site access, haul routes, and staging, construction methods, sequencing and equipment and provides a summary of earthwork volumes. Construction Schedule The available construction window for the project is limited by the presence of protected species and sensitive habitats and by the potential for flooding in the project area due to rainy season storms. Seasonal work windows related to special status species and the preferred construction season are shown in Table 6 below; with green shaded months indicating when work is acceptable by species and orange shaded months indicating the preferred duration to allow flexibility in construction approaches and minimize costs. To avoid disturbing special status wildlife species, including Ridgway’s rail, California black rail, and nesting birds, project construction could be limited to September 1 – January 30 (non-breeding season). To minimize impacts to special status fish species, in water work could be further limited to September 1 – November 30. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-41 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 5 CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW Reach Item Area (acres) South Existing Levee Cut 5.05 Interior Channel Cut 4.77 Connector Channel Cut 0.26 New Levee Foundation Cut - New Levee and Transition Fill 8.14 Source - Import from North - Source - South Excavation - Export to North Reach - Middle Existing Levee Cut 6.46 Interior Channel Cut 10.26 Connector Channel Cut 1.78 Levee Fill 6.08 Export to North Reach - North NW Cut 34.64 NE Cut 9.78 Interior Channel Cut 5.63 Connector Channel Cut 0.83 Upland Fill 21.94 Road/Trail Fill 2.86 TABLE 6 SEASONAL WORK WINDOWS FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES January February March April May June July August September October November December Ridgway's and Black Rails Nesting birds Steelhead Chinook salmon Longfin smelt Delta smelt Preferred Construction Season Protocol-level surveys for the presence of rails would need to be conducted the year of construction to determine the seasonal work restrictions. If Ridgway’s and California black rail are present in tidal marsh habitat, they would require an appropriate buffer between work areas and potential habitat during the breeding and nesting season (February – August) to avoid 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-42 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision impacts. Rail surveys were conducted in early Winter 2019, the results of which are described in the Biology Section. While it may be possible to construct the project within the limited special status species construction season, it is preferable to have a longer construction period available. In particular, it may be necessary to provide a longer construction period for the construction of the new setback levees in order to allow for adequate time for moisture treatment and compaction of levee fill. The construction schedule presented here assumes that the work windows are not limited by the presence of special status species and that the preferred construction season is available for the project. Construction for the North and South Reaches would be conducted in the Phase 1, anticipated to begin in 2020 and the Middle Reach would be constructed at a later date under Phase 2. See detailed construction phasing descriptions further in this chapter. Construction of each reach would ideally occur within one construction season, but this may occur over multiple construction seasons depending on seasonal work restrictions and timing and sequencing related to new levee construction/existing levee removal. Construction of the North Reach is expected to occur over several construction seasons. The North Reach would receive excess cut from the South and Middle Reaches, to be placed as upland fill, and therefore the timing for of completion of the final upland fill placement in the North Reach would be dependent on the construction of the South and Middle Reaches. Vegetation management in the Pacheco Reach is independent of the construction of the North, Middle, and South Reaches and could be implemented as early as Spring 2020. The John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) is leading efforts to design and install public access amenities on the North Reach. Construction of the public access amenities is dependent on the completion of the restoration grading work and as such will follow in Phase 3. The timing of the installation of these amenities will be determined by the JMLT in coordination with the District. Other public access improvements, including the proposed East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) trail network, would be installed by EBPRD after the Phase 1 restoration earthwork has been completed. Site Access, Haul Routes, and Staging Site access, haul routes, and staging areas are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Site access and haul routes are discussed in the sections by color as shown in the figures. South Reach Construction access to the South Reach would be provided from Interstate 680 (I-680) via Highway 4, Pacheco Boulevard, Blum Road, Imhoff Drive, and Waterbird Way (see yellow route on Figure 13). From Waterbird Way, access would be along Conco’s access road. After the access road crosses the BNSF railroad tracks, access would be via existing access roads on Conco’s property. On-site access routes, parking, and staging would be limited to the project footprint. Haul routes within the project area are shown in black in Figure 13 and utilize the existing levee and the new setback levee alignments. Two-way traffic along the existing levee alignments may be limited by the width of the levee crests (approximately 16-feet) and movement of materials may require a !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!Ó !Ó !Ó Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Path: K:\projects\_2014\D140703.00 - LowerWalnutCreek_Restoration\08_Graphics-GIS-CAD\08 GIS\MXDs\PSR_Figures\Revised PSR_Figures\Figure 26 - Haul Routes.mxd, rt 2/5/2018SOURCE: ESA 2017 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 13Potential Construction Haul Routes South Reach Waterfront Road District Levee Arthur Rd Central Ave I-680 Conco Road Imhof Dr Highway 4 Blum Rd Pacheco Blvd Legend !Ó Railroad Crossing Haul Route ! ! !District Levee ! ! !Hwy 4 to 680 ! ! !Pacheco Placement Circuit ! ! !South Reach Loading Circuit !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ó !Ó Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Path: K:\projects\_2014\D140703.00 - LowerWalnutCreek_Restoration\08_Graphics-GIS-CAD\08 GIS\MXDs\PSR_Figures\Revised PSR_Figures\Figure 27 - Haul Routes.mxd, rt 12/15/2017SOURCE: ESA 2017 !Ó Railroad Crossing Haul Routes ! !District Levee ! !Hwy 4 to 680 ! !Pacheco Placement Circuit ! !South Reach Loading Circuit 0 2,000 Feet Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 14Potential Construction Haul Routes Middle Reach N Acme Landfill Waterfront Road District Levee I-680 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-45 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision circular haul path. Staging would be on District owned property at upland elevations at the south end of the South Reach area. Prior to construction, the selected contractor would develop a site operations plan to finalize the locations of site access routes, construction equipment staging and support areas, exclusion areas, limits of work, and parking areas that would be approved by the District. Potential haul routes between the South and North Reaches for placement of excess cut from the South Reach in the North Reach are shown in yellow, blue, and black in Figure 13. Along the yellow route, access from the South Reach to I-680 would be as described above. Access to the North Reach is provided from I-680 via Waterfront Road. Along the blue route, access to the North Reach would be provided via Conco’s access road, Central Avenue, the existing levees along Pacheco and Lower Walnut Creek and Waterfront Road. This route requires crossing the UPRR railroad tracks that parallel Waterfront Road. This is a passive crossing (no warning lights or gates) and would likely require safety measures such as a flagger to ensure safe crossing of the tracks. The final haul routes for the South Reach would be determined during the final design phase of the project. All access and haul routes to and from the South Reach require travel along portions of Conco access roads and would require agreements allowing access prior to the start of construction. Middle Reach Construction access to the Middle Reach would be provided via two potential routes as shown in Figure 14. All routes access the Middle Reach from I-680 via Waterfront Road. The most direct access is via the blue route, which runs directly from Waterfront Road to the existing levees. This route requires crossing the UPRR railroad tracks that parallel Waterfront Road. This is a passive crossing (no warning lights or gates) and would likely require safety measures such as a flagger to ensure safe crossing of the tracks. The yellow route provides access to the north end of the Middle Reach via Waterfront Road, Waterbird Way and Acme landfill access roads. The yellow route would require agreement with Acme prior to the start of construction. On-site access routes, parking, and staging would be limited to the project footprint. Haul routes within the project area are shown in black in Figure 14 and utilize the existing levee and the new setback levee alignments. Two-way traffic along the existing levee alignments may be limited by the width of the levee crests (approximately 16 feet) and movement of materials may require a circular haul path. Areas for staging and support are limited within the Middle Reach due to the presence of wetland habitat over much of the project area and high, sloped land along the landfill. Temporary placement of fill within existing wetlands may be needed to create an on-site staging area in the Middle Reach. Prior to construction, the selected contractor would develop a site operations plan to finalize the locations of site access routes, construction equipment staging and support areas, exclusion areas, limits of work, and parking areas. Potential haul routes between the Middle and North Reaches for placement of excess cut from the Middle Reach on the North Reach are the same as the access routes discussed above. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-46 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision North Reach Construction access to the North Reach is provided from I-680 via Waterfront Road. Staging for the North Reach would utilize an existing gravel staging area created by the Marathon Refinery just inside the entrance to Pacheco Marsh. Prior to construction, the selected contractor would develop a site operations plan to finalize the locations of site access routes, construction equipment staging and support areas, exclusion areas, limits of work, and parking areas that would be approved by the District. Construction Methods, Sequencing, and Equipment There are several important considerations affecting construction methods, sequencing, and equipment including:  Removing populations of invasive exotic weeds prior to ground disturbing activities; and collecting propagules/salvaging native plant material for revegetating the restored site as possible.  Maintaining appropriate levels of flood protection when lowering and breaching existing levees  Setback levee and upland fill construction  Constructability of elements in existing wetland habitats and soft soils This section provides discussion of key factors affecting construction methods, descriptions of construction sequencing by phase and reach, a summary of potential equipment to be used to complete project construction. Construction Methods Vegetation Management Prior to initiation of ground disturbing construction activities, vegetation management would be implemented to remove/restrict the spread of invasive exotic plant species and to collect propagules of native plant species needed for restoration of target habitats as feasible. Invasive Species Control Actions to control non-native invasive plant species are outlined below. Mediterranean stinkwort and perennial pepperweed are species of particular concern and thus top priority for control. Populations targeted for interim management would be selected based upon population size and location relative to restoration design elements, and on feasibility of elimination/control within the available timeframe.  Mechanically treat (hard mow, manually pull, mechanically scrape) selected stinkwort colonies in late summer/early fall, during the earliest flowering stages, prior to seed set; treat regrowth and new seedlings with herbicides approved by federal (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and state (e.g., California Environmental Protection Agency) of regulatory and permitting agencies for wetland applications.  Treat selected pepperweed and other invasive plant species with mechanical removal and/or glyphosate herbicide formulations approved for wetland applications. Treat during late pre- flowering bolting (maximum shoot elongation) or up to earliest flowering stages (usually late 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-47 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision March to early May, depending on temperatures); retreat new growth with herbicides in summer prior to seed set. Table 7 identifies a list of target weeds for management and provides summary information on management methods. A preliminary schedule of weed management activities for control of potential invasive plant species is provided in Table 8. Collection and propagation/salvage of on-site native perennial plants It is anticipated that plant material for revegetation of the restored site would be sourced from a combination of onsite collection/propagation/salvage, contract growing at offsite location(s) and purchase of genotypically appropriate native plant nursery stock. Activities to implement a program of translocation and field propagation of onsite native perennial plant species for use revegetation would be conducted as follows:  Collect propagules/sod fragments from onsite native plant populations in late fall, during periods of cool, moist weather. Manually excavate spade-sized sod plugs or rolls of creeping wildrye, saltgrass, and alkali-heath. Excavation may be accomplished utilizing a small- tracked vehicle equipped with a bucket (e.g. smallest available bobcat) or by hand labor using spades. If a mechanized vehicle is used, it may be necessary to utilize marsh mats to minimize potential access impacts.  Transport: Cover harvested sods to keep shaded and moist; transport on-site by truck as immediately following excavation as is practicable.  Onsite Stockpile/Propagation: The southwestern section of the Suisun Properties parcel in the North Reach presents an ideal location for stockpiling salvaged material and/or onsite propagation of collected propagules. Levee Lowering and Breaching Levee lowering would involve a phased removal of earth to provide continuous flood protection while setback levees are constructed and to limit the risk of uncontrolled breaching. The construction contractor would be required to phase levee removal to prevent site inundation. The first phase would be accomplished by partially lowering and then removing the landside portions of existing the levee, leaving a smaller raised area (check berm) on the water side. The check berm would be wide enough to maintain egress and tall enough to prevent flooding in the dry season. The check berm would stay in place until the interior channel excavation and habitat grading is complete and the setback levees are constructed to adequate heights to protect from tidal inundation and flooding. Following completion of this work, the second phase of levee removal would begin. The second phase would be sequenced to maintain egress along the levee in consideration of breach locations and may be timed for a neap tide.14 Breaching would be completed by long reach excavators working from the lowered levee on either one or both sides of the breach to be excavated, with excavated material loaded into low ground pressure track dump trucks and hauled either for reuse within the Middle or South Reach or to the North Reach for fill placement. Following the completion of each breach, the remaining portions of the lowered levees would be removed using a combination of excavators and low ground pressure 14 Neap Tide: a tide just after the first or third quarters of the moon when there is the least difference between high and low water. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-48 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 7 TARGET WEEDS AND MANAGEMENT METHODS Species Common Name Plant Form Life Form Cal-IPC Priority Mgmt. Methods Recommended Priority for Control Notes Arundo donax giant reed G P High C,E,S High Excavate in uplands, cut near ground, spray cut ends Brassica nigra black mustard G A Mod C,M,S Moderate Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle H A Mod C,M,S High Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Carpobrotus edulis ice plant H P High E,S Moderate Excavate, place in piles to decompose, spray seedlings Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle H A High C,M,S High Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Cirsium vulgare bull thistle H A Mod C,M,S Moderate Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Conium maculatum poison hemlock H A Mod C,M,S Moderate Cut/mow in spring and repeat in summer, spray regrowth Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort H A Mod M,S High Mow and/or spray in late summer/early fall (~ 1st week Sept) Hirschfeldia incana short pod mustard H P Mod C,M,S Moderate Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed H P High C,M,S High Cut/mow in spring before seed set, spray regrowth Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry W P High C,S Moderate Cut in spring, spray resprouts Tamarix ramosissima Saltcedar T P High C,S High Cut near ground and spray stump at same time NOTES: Plant Form: G = Grass or grass-like plant; H = Herbaceous plant; W = Woody perennial; T = Tree Life Form: A = Annual plant, includes biennial plants; P = Perennial plant Cal IPC Priority: Moderate (Mod) = On a state-wide basis have substantial ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities and vegetation structure; High = On a state-wide basis have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities and vegetation structure Management Method: C = Cut with line trimmer, blade or chain saw; E = Excavate by soil knife, shovel or backhoe bucket; M = Mow with high clearance mower set to 6"; S = Spray with herbicide (Herbicides to be applied under the direction of a licensed pest control applicator) 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-49 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 8 INVASIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE Species Common Name PRE-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION POST-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2019 2020 2021 Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Arundo donax Giant Reed CES S MONITOR, NO VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TO BE PERFORMED S CONSTRUCTION WINDOW, NO VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TO BE PERFORMED MONITOR, SPRAY HERBACEOUS SEEDLINGS AS NECESSARY ES S MONITOR, CUT/SPRAY HERBACEOUS SEEDLINGS AS NECESSARY Brassica nigra Black Mustard CM M S M S Carduus pycnocephalus Italian Thistle CM M S S S Carpobrotus edulis Ice Plant S E ES S Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Starthistle CM M S S M S S Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle CM M S M S Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass BE BS S CS BS Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle C S BS S CS BS Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort MS M CS Lepidium latifolium Perrenial Pepperweed CM M S S S CS S Rubus armeniacus Himilayan Blackberry CS C S S S CS S Tamarix ramosissima Saltcedar CS S S S NOTES: B = Bag seed heads, C = Cut, E = Excavate, M = Mow and S = Spray with herbicide 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-50 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision dump trucks to haul material for reuse and bull dozers to quickly remove the check berms and side cast earth into the site. Setback Levee and Upland Fill Construction Setback levees in the South and Middle Reaches would be constructed using material excavated in lowering the existing levees in the South and Middle Reaches and material excavated from the North Reach to create new habitats. Upland fill in the North Reach would be constructed using materials excavated from the existing levees, diked basins, and fringing tidal marshes along Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creeks. Construction of both the setback levees and upland fill would require subgrade preparation, including excavation of foundations to remove unsuitable materials and placement and compaction of foundation fill material. Construction of the levees and upland fill would involve placement of fill in lifts15 to be moisture conditioned and compacted. Earthwork in Existing Wetlands Construction in areas with wet or saturated soils, such as the existing seasonal and tidal wetland habitats in the project area, requires special equipment and construction methods. To facilitate construction of the project elements, the following equipment may be utilized:  Low ground pressure (LGP) equipment: smaller, lighter equipment with large surface area tires or treads that reduce bearing pressure.  Mats: Timber planks lashed together or PVC mats used for access across soft soils.  Long reach excavator: Track or wheel mounted excavator with a long arm to allow extended reach to over 40 feet.  Amphibious Excavator: Excavator specifically designed to maneuver in marshes, swampy areas and soft terrain, as well as to float on water, and can excavate in shallow standing water.  Rotary Ditcher: Equipment that excavates with rotating wheels spraying sediment across adjacent areas, and resulting in a narrow ditch. Typically pulled behind other equipment but can be self-propelled. Revegetation Planting, seeding, and other revegetation techniques would be used after grading to create a mosaic of native wetland, ecotone transition, and upland habitats that would provide valuable ecosystem functions. Revegetation efforts would focus on active planting and vegetation management in the lowland terrestrial and upland areas of the restoration site. No significant active revegetation efforts are planned for the tidally inundated areas of the project site because native tidal wetland plant communities are expected to establish primarily through passive recolonization in these areas. Only tidal marsh benches along newly created tidal channels would be lightly planted to provide early cover in tidal areas. Planting actions would include planting of sod fragments, rhizomes and plugs, container plants, and seeding. Graded areas would be planted as rapidly after construction as feasible to stabilize the newly graded soil while also being timed 15 Lifts: Thin layer of material, usually 0.5-1 feet thick. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-51 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision with late fall/early winter rain events. Areas not planted with salvaged plants or container stock, would be drill seeded, broadcast seeded, or hydroseeded as appropriate to each habitat. If seed is not applied until just before the onset of winter rains, the seeded areas would be covered with straw mulch, tacked down and monitored throughout the first rainy season. If seed is applied earlier, it would be irrigated such that vegetation is sufficiently established to protect against erosion by the onset of winter rains. The revegetation strategy would incorporate pre-construction propagation of native plant species, selective grading practices during construction to scrape and bury topsoil containing invasive plant species seedbank, as well as post-construction monitoring and adaptive management to control early stage invasions by problematic weed species. Invasive, non-native plant species are present within all habitats on the project site and on adjacent properties. Upland communities in particular are dominated by invasive non-native plants with only small clusters of native vegetation. A successional planting strategy may be implemented to provide for short-term erosion control while encouraging the establishment of slower growing but ecologically valuable native perennial grasses and shrubs. Construction Phasing and Sequencing Implementation of the project would be completed in three phases. The first phase would include construction of the South and North Reaches, which would proceed simultaneously. Independent from the construction of the South and North reaches, but during the first phase, vegetation management would occur within the Pacheco Reach. The Middle Reach would be constructed as a second phase. Public access would be constructed in a third phase for construction of the public access trails and amenities, and the interpretive center, respectively. Each phase of work could take up to two construction seasons. Phase 1 South Reach Construction of the South Reach would begin in late spring with site preparation, including clearing and grubbing and installation of wildlife exclusion fencing to isolate the work area from adjacent habitat as needed. Material generated during clearing and grubbing would be hauled to the North Reach and stockpiled for future placement in the upland fill. Following site preparation, construction would begin with subgrade preparation and construction of the setback levee and protection of the existing utility infrastructure. Following commencement of the setback levee construction, the next steps would be excavation and grading of tidal channels and seasonal wetland and lowland terrestrial habitats within the diked basin, and the first phase of lowering of the existing levee, and completion of the setback levee to appropriate elevations for flood protection. When these elements are completed, the second phase of levee lowering would begin. Excavation of the tidal connector channels to Lower Walnut Creek would begin on September 1 and the breaches would be completed by November 30. Once site grading is complete, revegetation of upland and lowland terrestrial habitats would occur, as well as surfacing and fence installation along the new setback levees. The surfacing would include adding gravel material to the levee road. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-52 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Concurrent with the setback levee construction, the project would protect and modify the S hortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline. Realignment of the Shortcut Pipeline would require the pipeline to be taken temporarily out of service. The allowable shut-down windows for the Shortcut Pipeline would be a maximum 4-week duration between April 15 to May 30 and/or between September 1 to October 15. Any shutdowns during these time periods would also require the pipeline to be returned to service within 24 hours. In order to facilitate the construction of the new levee and the realignment of the Shortcut pipeline within these timeframes, the pipeline would be shut down during the April 15 to May 30 window, the pipeline drained, and a temporary bypass installed, designed to support the fully operational capacity of the Shortcut Pipeline. The pipelin e would then be returned to service using the temporary bypass. Then, construction of the new setback levee and demolition and replacement of the Shortcut and Recycled Water Pipelines would begin. Construction of the setback levee at the pipelines would include subgrade excavation, dewatering, placement of lightweight fill, placement of earth fill, and installation of the sheetpile cutoff wall. Following completion of the levee and installation of the new section of pipeline, the Shortcut Pipeline would be shut down during the September 1 to October 15 window, the pipeline drained, the temporary bypass removed and the new pipeline connected. The replacement of the Recycled Water Pipeline would occur during the same time as the Shortcut Pipeline replacement following the same general sequence of work, with the exception that the Recycled Water Pipeline is inactive and would not need to be shutdown or drained. Protection and modifications to the Calpine Martinez Gas Line and the Shell Coalinga-Avon and Martinez-Shell Point Platformer Off-Gas Line pipelines would also occur concurrent with the setback levee construction. While the setback levee is being constructed, tidal channels would be excavated within the diked basin and the excavated materials would be sidecast to create high marsh, reused on site to create transitional habitat along the new setback levee, or hauled to the North Reach to be sorted and treated for use as upland fill, as needed. Tidal channels would also be excavated between the existing levee and Lower Walnut Creek, to connect the new tidal channels within the diked basin to the creek. Excavating the connector channels would require work in existing high and low marsh and within the creek channel. A temporary access road would be constructed along the alignment of the tidal connector channels to facilitate access for construction equipment. The final means and methods of access would be determined by the construction contractor, but would likely involve either the temporary placement of fill from material excavated elsewhere on site or the use of wooden or PVC mats. The access road materials would be removed as the tidal channels are constructed. Construction of the tidal connector channels would be isolated from Lower Walnut Creek using a silt curtain with a floating boom installed at the confluence of the new tidal channels and Lower Walnut Creek. Installation of the silt curtain would contain turbidity and sediment resulting from construction activity, exclude fish from access to the active construction area, and allow water to pass between the connector channels and Lower Walnut Creek with the tides. The curtain would span the width of the connector channel and would be at least 6 feet tall to maintain a fish barrier at high tide. The curtain would consist of permeable filter fabric supported by a line of floats on the water 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-53 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision surface and a line of weights on the channel bottom. Once excavation of the tidal connector channels and the breaches in the levees are complete, the silt curtain would be removed. Simultaneously with the excavation of the internal and connector tidal channels, the existing levee along Lower Walnut Creek would be lowered. Material excavated from the existing levee would be used to construct the new setback levee. Material would be transported from the existing levee to the new levee location, where it would be placed, treated as needed for moisture content, and compacted. Material excavated from the levee that is determined not to meet levee material requirements would either be reused within the South Reach to create terrestrial lowland slopes along the south end of the new setback levee or hauled to the North Reach for use as upland fill. Levee removal would be phased as described above to provide continuous flood protection. Following the completion of the earthwork and access road surfacing of the new setback levees, installation of fencing and revegetation of the terrestrial lowland and upland habitats would begin. Revegetation would be accomplished using a combination of hydroseeding, drill seeding, plug planting, and transplanting of dormant sod fragments and/or discing of sod fragments into the finished grades. North Reach Earthwork on the North reach would begin with clearing and grubbing of temporary stockpile areas and fill placement areas designated for the placement of material hauled from the South and Middle reaches. Fill placement on the North Reach would occur concurrently with the earthwork on the South and Middle reaches, and may occur over several construction seasons. The majority of the fill material brought to the North Reach would be placed on the existing upland area at the south end of the southeast quadrant. Select fill material, such as material with high sand or organic content and native topsoil, may be sorted and placed in temporary stockpiles and some of the sand material in the North Reach (approximately 44,000 cubic yards) would be removed to a stockpile site on the Marathon Refinery property prior to work in the northern section of the North Reach in coordination with the District. Following the initial placement of imported fill material, earthwork on each of the four quadrants of the North Reach can be sequenced independently. Considerations that would inform the timing of the restoration of each quadrant include:  integration with planned public access improvements (e.g., by EBRPD and JMLT)  ability of the Project Vegetation Management Program and local nurseries to provide sufficient native plant materials to support timely re-vegetation of restored areas  coordination with project partners and funding agencies The earthwork on each quadrant would begin with site preparation, including clearing and grubbing and installation of wildlife exclusion fencing to isolate the work areas from adjacent habitat as needed to protect biological resources. Temporary access routes would also be established within and between the four quadrants. Material generated during clearing and 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-54 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision grubbing would be hauled to the upland fill placement areas in the North Reach and stockpiled for future placement in the upland fill. Following site preparation, construction of the project elements would begin with mass grading, including the excavation and grading of tidal channels, grading seasonal wetland and terrestrial lowland habitats within the diked basins, and the excavation of the tidal connector channels to Lower Walnut Creek. Some upland and transition zone areas would require fine grading following mass grading activities. This may include the placement of stockpiled topsoils and the possible placement of mulch or other soil amendments; shaping to create fine scale drainage features such as shallow swales, depressions, ponds and berms; and/or surface treatments such as ripping, track walking, and/or application of water to achieve desired surface texture. Tidal channels would be excavated through the existing outboard marsh areas to connect the northeast and southeast quadrants to Lower Walnut Creek. Excavating the connector channels would require work in existing high and low marsh areas and within the creek channel. A temporary access road would be constructed along the alignment of the tidal connector channels to facilitate access for construction equipment. The final means and methods of access would be determined by the construction contractor, but would likely involve either the temporary placement of fill from material excavated elsewhere on site or the use of wooden or PVC mats. The access road materials would be removed as the tidal channels are constructed. Construction of each tidal connector channel would be isolated from Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creek using a silt curtain with a floating boom installed at the confluence of the new tidal channel and Lower Walnut Creek. Installation of the silt curtains would contain turbidity and sediment resulting from construction activity, exclude fish from access the active construction area, and allow water to pass between the connector channels and creeks with the tides. Each curtain would span the width of the connector channel and a sufficient height to maintain a fish barrier at high tide. The curtain would consist of permeable filter fabric support be a line of floats on the water surface and a line of weights on the channel bottom. Once excavation of the tidal connector channels and the breaches in the levees are complete, the silt curtain would be removed. Spoils from the outboard channel excavation would be placed in the upland fill placement areas. Due to the anticipated high moisture and organic content of this material, it may be necessary to spread and dry the spoils before final placement in the fill areas. Once all earthwork has been completed in the inboard and outboard areas of the project site, the contractor would then breach, lower or re-shape the perimeter berms as appropriate for each quadrant. The Southwest Quadrant perimeter berm would not be excavated. Excess material from the berm lowering would be transported to upland fill placement areas or side cast to create high marsh. The re-aligned access road would be fine graded and re-surfaced, permanent fencing would be installed and revegetation of the terrestrial lowland and upland habitats would begin. Revegetation would be accomplished using a combination of hydro-seeding, drill seeding, plug planting, and transplanting of dormant sod fragments and/or discing of sod fragments into the finished grades. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-55 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Pacheco Reach During Phase 1 invasive species removal and native vegetation planting would occur along Pacheco Creek Reach. Vegetation management activities could include removal of invasive species using hand, low impact mechanical, and/or herbicide application methods. Following vegetation management, revegetation would be accomplished using a combination of hydro- seeding, drill seeding, and plug planting. No excavation or earthmoving activities would occur in the Pacheco Reach. Phase 2 Middle Reach Construction of the Middle Reach would begin with site preparation, including clearing and grubbing and installation of wildlife exclusion fencing to isolate the work area from adjacent habitat as needed. Material generated during clearing and grubbing would be hauled to the North Reach and stockpiled for future placement in the upland fill. Following site preparation, construction of the Middle Reach would begin with construction of the new setback levees at the north and south end of the Middle Reach. Fill for the new setback levees would be hauled from the North reach and would consist of materials excavated from both the North and South reaches. Excavation and grading of tidal channels within the diked basin, excavation of the tidal connector channels to Lower Walnut Creek, improvements to the existing perimeter landfill access road and the first phase of lowering of the existing levee would follow construction of the setback levees. Excavation of the tidal connector channels to would begin in early fall to avoid impacts to special status fish species in the channels. When these elements are completed, the second phase of levee lowering would begin, including the levee breaches. Once site grading is complete, revegetation of upland and lowland terrestrial habitats would occur, as well as surfacing and fence installation along the new setback levees. Tidal channels would be excavated within the diked basin and the excavated materials would be sidecast to create high marsh or used to create the monitoring well access berms. Tidal channels would also be excavated between the existing levee and Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creeks, to connect the new tidal channels within the diked basin to the creek. Excavating the connector channels would require work in existing high and low marsh and within the creek channel. A temporary access road would be constructed along the alignment of the tidal connector channels to facilitate access for construction equipment. The final means and methods of access would be determined by the construction contractor, but would likely involve either the temporary placement of fill from material excavated elsewhere on site or the use of wooden or PVC mats. The access road materials would be removed as the tidal channels are constructed. Construction of each tidal connector channel would be isolated from Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creek using a silt curtain with a floating boom installed at the confluence of the new tidal channel and Lower Walnut Creek. Installation of the silt curtains would contain turbidity and sediment resulting from construction activity, exclude fish from access the active construction area, and allow water to pass between the connector channels and creeks with the tides. Each curtain would span the width of the connector channel and would be at least 6 feet tall to maintain a fish barrier at high tide. The curtain would consist of permeable filter fabric support be a line of floats on the water surface and a line of weights on the channel bottom. Once excavation of the tidal connector channels and the breaches in the levees are complete, the silt curtain would be removed. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-56 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Simultaneously with the excavation of the internal and connector tidal channels, the existing levees along Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creeks would be lowered. Material excavated from the existing levee would be used to and improve the perimeter landfill access road. Material would be transported from the existing levee to the perimeter access road, where it would be placed, treated as needed for moisture content, and compacted. Material excavated from the levee that is determined to not meet road material requirements would be hauled to the North Reach for use as upland fill. Levee removal would be phased as discussed above to provide continuous flood protection. On the upslope side of the access road, a new drainage swale would be constructed to collect surface water runoff from the landfill and deliver it to the Acme landfill buffer basins to the north and south of the Middle Reach restoration area. Following completion of the earthwork, surfacing of the new setback levees and access road, installation of fencing and revegetation of the terrestrial lowland and upland habitats would begin. Revegetation would be accomplished using a combination of hydroseeding, drill seeding, plug planting, and transplanting of dormant sod fragments and/or discing of sod fragments into the finished grades. Phase 3 North Reach Public Access Amenities and Interpretive Center Construction of the North Reach public access amenities would include the trail network, bridges, boardwalks, water access points, parking area, and limited bioretention landscaping. As previously discussed, the JMLT is leading efforts to design and install public access amenities on the North Reach as part of the project. The timing of the installation of these amenities would be determined by JMLT in coordination with the District. Other public access improvements, including the proposed EBRPD trail network and staging area facilities, would be installed by others after Phase 1 restoration earthwork has been completed. Construction Equipment Equipment anticipated for construction includes: mowers, long and short reach excavators, bulldozers/graders, rotary ditchers, wheel dump trucks, low ground pressure track dump trucks, track pulled scrapers, conventional big wheel scrapers, water trucks, pumps, rollers, sheepsfoot compactor, pile drivers, cranes, and concrete mixers. Table 9 below provides a summary of equipment to be used for construction of the project elements of each reach. Earthwork Volumes Earthwork volumes for the project are provided in Table 10, below. Assumed losses are based on a geotechnical assessment for the project.16 The upland fill volume for the North Reach includes both import from the South Reach and the Middle Reach and excavation within the North Reach. 16 Hultgren – Tillis Engineers. 2019. Draft Geotechnical Investigation Lower Walnut Creek Project. Letter memorandum to ESA. March 2019. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-57 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 9 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Project Element Equipment Description Site Preparation Mower Clear vegetation Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Bulldozer Clear and grub excavation and fill placement areas Dump Truck LGP Track Dump truck South Reach: Haul clear and grub material to South Reach staging area and to North Reach for stockpile and storage (wheel dump truck only) Middle Reach: Haul clear and grub material to Middle Reach staging area and North Reach for stockpile and storage (wheel dump truck only) Hand tools Remove vegetation in sensitive habitats, install exclusion fencing Levee Removal Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Excavate levee material, haul and place material to setback levee alignment Excavator Bulldozer Excavate "check berm" portion of levee, load into dump truck for transfer to setback levee alignment or North Reach Dump Truck LGP Track Dump truck Haul levee material to setback levee alignment or North Reach (wheel dump truck only) Setback Levee Bulldozer/Grader Place levee fill material, finished grading Compactor Compact Material Water Truck Moisture condition levee fill material Drill seeder Hydroseeder Revegetation Interior Tidal Channel Excavator Excavate channels and side cast materials LGP Track Dump truck Haul material to staging area stockpile for transfer to wheel dump trucks Connector Tidal Channel Excavator Place and remove temporary marsh access road material (earth or mats), excavate channels, place and remove temporary silt curtain Rotary Ditcher Excavate channels Small watercraft Install temporary silt curtain LGP Track Dump truck Haul material to staging area for transfer to wheel dump trucks Excess Material Excavator Front Loader Transfer material from stockpile to wheel dump truck for haul to North Reach Dump Truck Haul material to North Reach Tidal Marsh and Interior Channels Excavator Excavate channels and marsh benches LGP Track Dump truck Haul material to upland fill placement Playas Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Create microtopography, gently sloping swales, pools, and sills Portable Pumps and Hoses Finish grades hydraulically by washing over graded surfaces with high-volume, high velocity jets of bay water to re-establish stratified, sorted sediment Seasonal Wetland Flats Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Scrape the surface of the flats as needed to remove weeds and their seed bank High Marsh Pond Excavator Excavate pond LGP Track Dump truck Haul material to upland fill placement 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-58 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 9 (CONTINUED) CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Project Element Equipment Description Lowland Grasslands Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Excavate and grade Haul material to upland fill placement area for placement Sod fragment dispersion Tractor and Discer Sod fragment dispersion Drill seeder Revegetation Upland Fill Track Pulled Scraper Conventional Scraper Bulldozer/Grader Place fill material, finished grading Compactor Compact Material Water Truck Moisture condition fill material Drill Seeder Hydroseeder Revegetation Trail Building Rubber Tired Dozer Grading trail materials Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Earthmoving Water Trucks Control dust Boardwalk, Bridge, Restroom, Interpretive Facility Construction Forklifts Moving construction materials to locations Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Earthmoving Concrete Truck Laying building foundation Crane Construction of building Road, Parking Lot, Interpretive Signage, Bench Construction Paver Asphalt paving of parking lot Paving Equipment Pave roads and building footprints Roller Grading and leveling cement and other materials 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-59 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 10 EARTHWORK VOLUMES Reach Item Quantity Unit Losses (%) Available for Fill Unit South Existing Levee Cut 35,000 CY 20 28,000 CY Interior Channel Cut 14,900 CY 45 8,200 CY Connector Channel Cut 2,300 CY 65 800 CY New Levee Foundation Cut 34,600 CY 20 27,700 CY New Levee and Transition Fill 94,100 CY Source - Import from North 34,200 CY Source - South Excavation 59,800 CY Export to North Reach 6,400 CY Middle Existing Levee Cut 40,800 CY 25 30,600 CY Interior Channel Cut 6,300 CY 45 3,465 CY Connector Channel Cut 2,100 CY 65 735 CY Levee Fill 13,300 CY Export to North Reach 25,700 CY North NW Cut 228,100 CY 15 193,900 CY NE Cut 29,400 CY 15 25,000 CY Interior Channel Cut 39,600 CY 35 25,800 CY Connector Channel Cut 5,100 CY 65 1,800 CY Upland Fill 266,700 CY Road/Trail Fill 8,800 CY 2.2.6 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring and Management The District is the current site manager and would manage the restoration and flood protection levees. The District may partner with the JMLT to manage the public access facilities on Pacheco Marsh (North Reach) and with the EBRPD to manage future public access facilities in the South Reach. Operations and Maintenance The project has been designed to minimize the need for active operations and ongoing maintenance of the restoration area. The District would perform routine observation and maintenance to maintain flood protection facilities along the project reaches, including the new setback levees as part of the District’s regular levee monitoring program. Typical levee monitoring activities include inspection for erosion or rodent damage along the levee tops and slopes. Monitoring of levees would be conducted annually after construction and after major storm events. Typical levee maintenance activities would include mowing and weed control and repair of erosion sites. The District would continue to observe geomorphic changes along Walnut Creek in order to monitor the flood conveyance capacity of the creek channel. 2. Project Description Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-60 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Similarly, the public access facilities will also require periodic inspection and maintenance. Because those areas will be open to the public, JMLT would perform appropriate and necessary operations and maintenance to minimize trash accumulation, vandalism and illegal site access. CCWD and USBR would also use the trails and roadways for access to and from their respective water pipelines and the operation, maintenance and repair thereof. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Monitoring and adaptive management activities would be used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration strategies and to achieve restoration benefits. Pre-construction monitoring would be used to establish pre-project (existing) conditions for vegetation and channel planform. After construction, the following monitoring data would be collected periodically to assess restoration success and inform any potential remedial action. Monitoring and adaptive management reports would be produced following each monitoring event/year.  Hydrology – Water levels and salinity, to evaluate restoration of hydrologic functions of the Project (Years 1, 2, 4, and 10)  Geomorphology – Channel development in planform and cross-section (Years 1, 2, 4, and 10)  Vegetation – Photo-documentation, limited ground-truthing and weed-survey, to monitor vegetation succession (Years 1, 2, 4, and 10, with photo-documentation and invasive plant surveys also in Years 6 and 8)  Wetlands – Re-delineation of jurisdictional wetlands to verify that the target wetland acreage has been attained (Year 5) The actual schedule and sampling design (location and number of sampling sites and event) would be tailored to the project needs prior to construction, and in coordination with the Invasive Spartina Project and other regional monitoring programs. The effectiveness of the monitoring program would be periodically evaluated during the first few years and adjustments would be made as necessary, based on interim findings and feedback on methods from the federal and state permitting agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision CHAPTER 3 Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Development and Conservation 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Paul Detjens, (925) 313-2394 4. Project Location: Lower Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County (see Project Description for more details) 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 6. General Plan Designation(s): Open Space (OS) and Heavy Industry (HI) 7. Zoning: Heavy Industry (HI) 8. Description of Project: This project would enhance and restore 1.5 miles of coastal marsh habitat along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, 0.5 miles north of the City of Concord. Portions of Walnut Creek and its floodplain are artificially confined by earthen levees, built by the Army Corps of Engineers and other groups in the 1960’s and 1970’s.17 The project would set back those levees in key locations, extend tidal marsh channels under earthen berms and through culverts, and grade existing seasonal wetlands in order to expand tidal marsh habitat in the project area. In addition, the project would maintain an appropriate level of flood protection for the area, while also creating opportunities for the future expansion of public access in the project area. See Chapter 1, Project Description for details. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. Surrounding land uses include industrial land uses and open space. The site is composed of Lower Walnut Creek, its tributary Pacheco Creek, and adjacent lands. Adjacent lands that are part 17 Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2015. “Walnut Creek – Asset Profile Sheet”. http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Walnut-Creek_PS_120315.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-2 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision of the project include closed and currently operating landfills, levees, pipeline Rights-of-way, tidal and seasonal marsh, seasonal wetlands, and upland and scrub habitat. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required US Army Corps of Engineers – 404 and 401D permits; US Fish and Wildlife Service – Biological Opinion; National Marine Fisheries Service – Biological Opinion; California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement 1602; California State Lands Commission – Lease Agreement; San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit; BCDC – Major Permit and Bay Plan Amendment; United States Bureau of Reclamation – MP620 facility relocation agreement; Contra Costa Water District – Utility Relocation Agreement and Construction Permit(s); Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District – Discharge Permit. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? According to the requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), one tribe, the Wilton Rancheria, requested consultation regarding projects in Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) sent a letter to Wilton Rancheria with information about the proposed project that was confirmed delivered on June 15, 2018. No responses have been received to date. 3.Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-3 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐Aesthetics ☐Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☒ Air Quality ☒Biological Resources ☒Cultural Resources ☐Energy ☐Geology/Soils ☒Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☒Hydrology/Water Quality ☐Land Use/Planning ☐Mineral Resources ☒Noise ☐Population/Housing ☐Public Services ☐Recreation ☒Transportation ☒Tribal Cultural Resources ☒Utilities/Service Systems ☐Wildfire ☐Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial study: ☐I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Telma B. Moreira Date Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-4 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2 Environmental Checklist 3.2.1 Aesthetics Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Environmental Setting The study area for aesthetic resource impacts analysis includes the project site and adjacent staging and laydown areas, Martinez Gun Club, State Lands Commission lands, and public areas along Waterfront Road from which proposed project activities would be visible. Photographs depicting representative views of site vegetation, infrastructure, and other important features are presented in Figures 15 through 24. As shown, the project site is a non-urbanized area, generally characterized by flat topography with varying degrees of vegetation and exposed soil, marshes and adjacent creeks, lowland grasslands, earthen levees, and adjacent industrial infrastructure. The primary waterways through the site are Walnut Creek, which ranges in width from 30 feet at the southern end of the site to around 90 feet at the northern end connection to Suisun Bay, and its tributary Pacheco Creek, which is approximately 20-feet wide. The project site is divided into four areas – the North Reach, the Middle Reach, the South Reach, and the Pacheco Reach. The North Reach is a flat, nearly treeless expanse of marsh and grasslands and includes the least disturbed marsh vegetation (Figures 15 and 17). Vegetation at the site includes tidal marsh on the western shore of Walnut Creek, transitioning westward and uphill to lowland grassland and scrub vegetation (Figure 16). There are several white oil pipelines that runs parallel to Waterfront Road traversing the North Reach, which are highly visible in the foreground of views because they are approximately 3 feet above the ground and bundled in a protective tubular framework that is about 10 to 20 feet wide (Figure 15). Additionally, the Contra Costa County Sanitation District outfall pipe, which runs in a north- south direction through the site, is underground, but is covered by a gravel road approximately 30-feet wide, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378.00 Figures 15 and 16Representative Photos of the North Reach SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D70378.00 Figures 17 and 18Representative Photos of the North Reach SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-7 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision visible in Figure 14. Suisun Bay can be viewed in the distance from certain vantage points (Figure 18), as can the hills to the northeast of Benicia across Suisun Bay (Figure 18). The Middle, South, and Pacheco Reaches are more disturbed, in part due to the active Acme landfill (adjacent to the Middle Reach), the closed IT Baker landfill (adjacent to the South and Pacheco Reaches), and the closed Acme landfill (adjacent to the Pacheco Reach) that are the primary topographic features of the area. These areas are characterized by tall earthen mounds, rising 50 to 60 feet above and 300 to 400 feet from the creek, and extending for nearly one mile adjacent to Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek (Figures 19 through 22). Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek are the primary waterways in these areas, which have slow slack flows and marsh on their fringes (Figure 23). Seasonal wetlands exist behind the levees, and are different in character and vegetation from the tule marshes immediately adjacent to the Creeks (Figures 19 and 20). Public views of the project site are primarily from Waterfront Road and Interstate-680, as well as from Suisun Bay. Figure 24 shows the pipeline adjacent to Waterfront Road, while Figure 16 shows a representative view from Waterfront Road. Motorists and boaters are the primary groups that can currently view the site. The project is not within a County Scenic corridor and the nearest designated scenic road is Highway 4, approximately one mile from the southern edge of the project site.18 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than Significant) The project site and surrounding areas do not offer notable views of a scenic vista and are not the primary focus of any designated scenic vista. Distant views across Suisun Bay to the hills beyond Benicia include industrial infrastructure immediately east of the site on the east bank of Walnut Creek, as shown in Figure 21. Additional industrial infrastructure exists west of the site at the Acme landfills, and northeast of the site at the TransMontaigne refinery. The marsh, bay, and creek views are scenic resources that beneficially contribute to the area’s visual quality, despite the nearby industrial elements. These are defining features of the study area’s visual character. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project would include: equipment and materials staging and laydown; site preparation, consisting of vegetation management, excavation, and grading; construction of new levees; and, landscape improvements by fine grading and revegetation. These activities would be visible at times to motorists traveling along Waterfront Road, as well as visitors to adjacent public lands and people in vessels on Suisun Bay. Some residents in the neighborhood along Blum Road may be able to see construction work along Pacheco Creek, but this would be limited to no more than two construction seasons and would proceed linearly, with only a short section of Pacheco Creek visible to residential areas 1,600 feet from the project site. The work in this area would also be limited to plantings as described in the Chapter 1, Project Description, and would be less intense than the other construction along the main channel of Walnut Creek. 18 Contra Costa County, 2004. County General Plan – Chapter 5 – Transportation and Circulation Element – Scenic Routes Plan. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation-and-Circulation- Element?bidId= Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378.00 Figures 19 and 20Representative Photos of the Middle Reach SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378.00 Figures 21 and 22Representative Photos of the South Reach SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D70378Figures 23Industry in Distance, Representative Wetlands and Uplands SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figures 24Pipeline Adjacent to Waterfront Road SOURCE: ESA, 2019 rESA � 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-12 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Due to the isolated location of the project site, few people would see the construction activities. However, construction work would be visible to motorists along Waterfront Road, I-680, and from portions of the Vine Hill community of single-family homes to the southwest edge of the project site. These activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on views of scenic landscape features; most of the existing tidal wetlands would not be impacted by construction, leaving the primary scenic resources intact during construction. Furthermore, views of the work would be temporary, short-term, and indirect, as motorists would be traveling through the area with no established viewing locations along the road. The construction equipment would be similar in character to equipment used at other industrial facilities in the vicinity. Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over the course of three and a half years, though construction would be limited by permit conditions for protected species and sensitive habitats, as well as by the potential for flooding during seasonal storms. Thus, construction aesthetic impacts would be limited to the seasonal permitted work windows, and would likely not occur during the months of February through April. As discussed previously in the Project Description, staging areas will be on District-owned property at upland elevations at the south end of the South Reach area. For the reasons above, project construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, scenic resources, or the visual character of the project area or its surroundings as viewed from existing residential areas, public lands, water bodies, or roads. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts The project would enhance and expand coastal wetlands. All of the areas behind levees in the Middle and South Reaches within the project boundaries are currently seasonal wetlands that are disconnected from tidal action and have a different plant community; dominant species include creeping wildrye, sedges, rushes, and forbs, which are mostly non-native plants. The project would set back the levee that currently disconnects these seasonal wetlands from tidal action, creating tidal conditions where there currently are none. Thus, the primary aesthetic impact of the project would be a change in vegetation at the site, as well as the creation of new tidal channels where there currently are none. In addition, new plantings in these and other areas would create new vegetation communities, representative of tidal wetlands. While these proposed changes would not be noticeable to motorists along Waterfront Road and I-680, nor from vessels on Suisun Bay due to the distance at which they would be viewed, the new tidal plant communities would be of a similar height and ground cover as nearby existing seasonal wetland communities. The proposed new levee would be in a new position approximately 350 to 400 feet westward and would remain a levee of similar design. Thus, the overall character of the site would remain similar, though with levees and plant communities in new locations. Further, the expansion of tidal wetlands would be a beneficial aesthetic change to the area and more representative of areas that have remained in a more native and natural state. The visitor center would be set back from the Waterfront Road and would be at most 30 feet in height and cover approximately 3,000 square feet. The visitor center encompasses a very small portion of the overall site and would not obscure view of most of the areas to the project site, Bay 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-13 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision or surrounding areas. Further, the visitor center would not result in a substantial change to the surrounding aesthetic resources. Upon completion of construction, laydown and staging areas would be returned to their approximate pre-construction condition or better with native plantings, resulting in less-than- significant impact on aesthetic resources. For the reasons above, project operations would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, scenic resources, or the visual character of the project area or its surroundings as viewed from existing residential areas, public lands, water bodies, or roads. The project would likely be viewed as a benefit to aesthetic resources in the area. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less than Significant) For the same reasons explained in the analysis of impacts on visual resources above under checklist item ‘a’, and because the project is not within a County Scenic corridor and the nearest designated scenic road is Highway 4, approximately one mile from the southern edge of the project site,19 impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than Significant) For the same reasons explained in the analysis of impacts on visual resources above under checklist item ‘a’, the project would not substantially degrade the visual character of public views and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant Impact) The proposed project would not include nighttime construction, and there would be no lighting required during the construction phase. The proposed interpretive center is expected to have low- intensity outdoor lights that would be downturned to prevent light emanating directly outward . The low-intensity nighttime lighting would not substantially increase the amount of nighttime lighting that exists in the areas surrounding the project site from industrial operations and from residential development. The required project materials for construction and operation would not be reflective, and therefore would not result in new sources of substantial glare. For these reasons, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts relative to light or glare. 19 Contra Costa County, 2004. County General Plan – Chapter 5 – Transportation and Circulation Element – Scenic Routes Plan. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30915/Ch5-Transportation-and-Circulation- Element?bidId= 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-14 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion The California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Maps indicate that the project area is designated as Other Land and Urban and Built Up Land.20 None of the project area includes land covered by a Williamson Act contract. The project area would be accessed from existing roads – Waterfront Road, Arthur Road, and Conco Road from I-680 (Figures 13 and 14). None of these roads cross or are adjacent to Agricultural Land. The nearest farmland includes Unique and Prime Farmland along Morello Avenue in Martinez, approximately one mile away from the project area. 20 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2016. Contra Costa County Important Farmland. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/ 2016/con16.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-15 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project would not involve conversion of any farmland, or any other type of land conversion, because all work would take place on land not designated Farmland. For these reasons, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, existing Open Space Easement, or a Williamson Act contract and there would be no impact. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact) d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (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? (No Impact) The project would involve restoration and enhancement of tidal wetlands. The project site does not include any existing forest land, timberland, or farmland.21 For this reason there would be no conflicts with existing zoning or the need for rezoning, and the project would result in no impacts to forest land, timberland, or farmland. 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. Forests and Timberlands – Region 3. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=111191&inline. Accessed September 17, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-16 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.3 Air Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), and is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state respirable and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and the federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard.22 a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant) The most recently adopted air quality plan to address nonattainment issues for the Bay Area is the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP).23 The 2017 CAP provides a regional strategy to protect public health by continuing progress toward attaining all state and federal air quality standards. Additionally the CAP is focused on eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of 85 control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, including particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants.24 The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that a project’s consistency with the current CAP be evaluated using the following three criteria: a) The project supports the goals of the Air Quality Plan, b) The project includes applicable control measures from the CAP, and 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status, last updated January 1, 2017. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate – Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19. 24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate – Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-17 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision c) The project does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the CAP. If it can be concluded with substantial evidence that a project would be consistent with the above three criteria, then the BAAQMD would consider it to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area.25 The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to make progress towards achieving attainment for all air quality standards, reduce population exposure to air pollution and protect public health in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD-recommended guidance for determining if a project supports the goals in the current CAP is to compare project-estimated emissions with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If project emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 CAP. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact question b) in this checklist, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to construction emissions and would not result in long-term adverse air quality impacts. Operational emissions are negligible. Therefore, the project would meet the requirements in criteria a) above and support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP. As noted above, the 2017 CAP contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the SFBAAB. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP does not contain any measures specific to recreational park land uses and, therefore, no inconsistency with the 2017 CAP is identified. With no specific control measures from the 2017 CAP applicable, the project would not hinder implementation of CAP control measures and would meet the requirements in criteria b) above. Additionally the project will not disrupt or hinder implementation of any CAP measure and therefore meet the requirements of criteria c) above. In summary, the project would be consistent with all three criteria listed above to evaluate consistency with the 2017 CAP and, therefore, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP. This impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act both require the establishment of standards for ambient concentrations of air pollutants, called Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). The federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), established by the USEPA, are typically less stringent, or the same as the state AAQS, which are established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and enforced by the BAAQMD based on the project’s location and jurisdiction. 25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act – Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-18 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The Bay Area experiences occasional violations of ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. As discussed above, the project area currently is designated as a non‐attainment area for violation of the state 1‐hour and 8‐hour ozone standards, the federal ozone 8‐hour standard, the state PM10 24‐hour and annual average standards, the state PM2.5 annual average standard, and the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard. The project area is designated as attainment for all other state and federal standards.26 Project Construction Construction activities associated with the project would involve use of equipment that would emit exhaust containing ozone precursors, which are reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These ROG and NOx emissions can impact ground level ozone concentrations. Ground level ozone is a secondary photochemical pollutant that is generated through the combination of ROG, NOx and ultraviolet solar radiation. On-site and off-site vehicle activity associated with material transport and construction worker commuting would also generate emissions. Emission levels for these activities would vary depending on the number and types of equipment used, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. Air pollutant emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 that would be generated by off-road construction equipment (e.g., excavators, graders, loaders) were estimated using the CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) model along with the project-specific construction schedule and equipment requirements that would be used during the following construction seasons of the project as presented in Table 11. TABLE 11 CONSTRUCTION SEASONS AND DURATION Emissions Start End North and South Reach Restoration May 2020 January 2021 Middle Reach Restoration May 2021 January 2022 Middle Reach Restoration May 2022 January 2023 Public Access Construction June 2023 August 2023 Interpretive Center Building and Foundation September 2023 November 2023 Project-related construction emissions were modeled under the assumption that construction would begin in May 2020 and would only occur between the months of May through January of the following year for all years of restoration construction. The public access construction would occur in the following two season after the final restoration component is completed (i.e. June 2023 to August 2023 and September 2023 to November 2023 for the Interpretive Center Building and Foundation). The seasonal construction period of May through January is a period of 275 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status, last updated January 1, 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-19 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision days; the public access component from June 2023 to November 2023 is a period of 182 days. The BAAQMD recommends that for construction projects that are less than one-year duration, impacts should be annualized over the scope of actual days that peak impacts are to occur, rather than a full year.27 Although the project would require more than one year of construction, because the construction periods are seasonal and do not include three months of the year (six months of the year for the public access construction), average daily construction emissions were estimated by dividing the total construction emissions for each construction season by the 275 and 182 days available, respectively. All assumptions and calculations used to estimate the project‐related construction emissions are provided in Appendix A. Estimated average daily emissions are shown in Table 12 and are compared to the BAAQMD thresholds. TABLE 12 AVERAGE DAILY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Emissions ROG NOx Exhaust PM101 Exhaust PM2.51 North and South Reach Restoration, total 2.84 49.0 1.02 0.96 North and South Reach Restoration 2.37 40.6 0.86 0.81 Sand Pile Removal/Relocation 0.47 8.40 0.16 0.15 Middle Reach Restoration First Season 0.36 7.78 0.10 0.09 Middle Reach Restoration Second Season 0.25 6.27 0.06 0.06 Public Access/Facility Building2 2.43 19.9 0.89 0.82 Maximum Average Daily Emissions 2.84 49.0 1.02 0.96 BAAQMD Construction Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No NOTES: 1 BAAQMD’s construction-related significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 apply to exhaust emissions only and not to fugitive dust. 2 NOX Public Access phase is lower than N&S Phase because emission factor from NOX has greatly reduced between years 2021 and 2023. PM emission factors are almost the same between the years, only slightly reduced. The ROG is from architectural coating of building. As indicated in Table 12, the average daily construction exhaust emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts associated with the potential for construction‐related exhaust emissions to result in or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard would be less than significant. In addition to exhaust emissions, emissions of fugitive dust would also be generated by construction activities associated with grading and earth disturbance, travel on paved and unpaved roads, etc. Such emissions could result in a significant impact. With regard to fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD Guidelines focus on implementation of recommended dust control measures rather than a quantitative comparison of estimated emissions to a significance threshold. 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act – Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-20 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision For all projects, the BAAQMD recommends the implementation of its Basic Control Mitigation Measures.28 The implementation of the BAAQMD’s fugitive dust Basic Control Mitigation Measures, which are listed in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, would reduce potential impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions to a less-than-significant level. Project Operation Once construction is complete, the source of operational emissions are mobile sources from transportation to the Pacheco marsh and its interpretive facility building(s). The public access in the North Reach includes a parking/staging area with a restroom, a trail network with interpretive signage, and overlooks at the north end of the site. Of the restored tidal marshes, only 11.7 acres are to be designated as developed. Daily emissions that would be associated public park operation were calculated and are shown in Table 13 and are compared to the BAAQMD thresholds. The annual operational emissions are shown in Table 14 and are compared to the BAAQMD thresholds. The emissions would be under the significance thresholds; therefore, the operational emissions of the project would be less than significant. TABLE 13 AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Emissions ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Public Access Park Operations 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.05 BAAQMD Construction Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No TABLE 14 ANNUAL OPERATIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR) Emissions ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Public Access Park Operations 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 BAAQMD Construction Threshold 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? No No No No In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, if a project would result in an increase in ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions more than its respective average daily emissions significance thresholds, then it would also contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. If a project would not exceed the significance thresholds, its emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. As presented above, the project’s short‐term construction exhaust emissions would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds and, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1, the project’s fugitive dust emission-related impacts would also be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. In addition, operational emissions associated with the public access to the North Reach would not exceed the 28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act – Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-21 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision applicable significance thresholds and would not cause or contribute substantially to a significant cumulative impact. In summary, the project’s operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and construction-related cumulative impacts would be mitigated to a less‐than‐ significant level. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant) The BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies assess the incremental toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure risk to all sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) within a 1,000‐foot radius of a project’s fence line.29 Long‐term TAC emissions that would be associated with the project would be from the routine testing of proposed potential diesel-powered emergency backup generator, which would emit emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The generator would be required to comply with the BAAQMD’s permit requirements for a stationary source. The BAAQMD would not approve an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate any new or modified source of a TAC, such as DPM, that exceeds a cancer risk of 10 in one million or a chronic or acute hazard index of 1.0. Therefore, the health risk impact of the backup generator would be less than significant. Short‐term project construction activities would also generate DPM. The majority of DPM exhaust emissions that would be generated during construction would be from the use of diesel off‐road equipment with a smaller amount generated by the use of heavy duty trucks to deliver building material and equipment to the site. The closest sensitive receptor is a single family residence located approximately 1,010 feet south of the proposed onsite construction areas of the Pacheco Reach, across Explorer Way. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor affecting health risk from exposure to TACs. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments should be based on a 9, 30, and/or 70-year exposure periods to determine the health risk to sensitive receptors from cancer or chronic non- cancer health effects of TAC emissions (such as DPM). However, OEHHA also states that such health risk assessments should be limited to the duration of the emission‐producing activities associated with the project, unless the activities occur for less than six months. Activities that would last more than two months, but less than six months, are recommended to be evaluated as if they would last for six months.30 DPM emissions would be generated at the project site over a period of three and a half years. Table 12 shows that the average daily PM10 exhaust emissions (PM10 is considered the surrogate for DPM to ensure conservative modeling assumptions) from construction at the project site would be anywhere from 0.06 pounds per day to approximately 1.03 pounds per day. At this 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act – Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 30 Office of Environmental Health Hazard assessment, 2015. Air Toxics Hotspot Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-22 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision emission rate, exposure of a receptor located more than 1,000 feet from the project over a period of 3.5 years (i.e. the duration of construction activities for the project) would not be considered substantial and would not result in a significant incremental cancer risk.31 Additionally, even though the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to incremental cancer risk and the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 would further limit receptors’ exposure to DPM emissions because it would require the contractor for the project to implement idling restrictions when operating construction equipment reducing DPM emissions further. Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant) The project does not include any long-term sources of odor. Diesel equipment used to construct the project may emit objectionable odors associated with combustion of diesel fuel. However, as the nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by this would be located approximately 1,010 feet south from the site of construction, odor emissions during the construction period would result in impacts that would be less than significant. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact AQ-1: The project would result in vehicle emissions and fugitive dust during construction. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to air quality to less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures The following applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented by construction contractors to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-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.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph within the project area. 31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act – Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-23 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  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.  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.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the District (or its designee) regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-24 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.4 Biological Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — 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 Game 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted reconnaissance-level field surveys on August 6 and 27, 2015, September 15, 2015, January 5 and 6, 2017, March 29, 2017, April 28, 2017, and November 6 and 7, 2017 to document existing biological conditions, assess vegetation and wildlife habitats, and identify potential for special-status species to occur on the project area. Rare plant surveys were conducted on May 16, 17, 24, June 8, October 30 and November 1, 2018 in accordance with CDFW’s 2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.32 Rare plant surveys did not include portions of the North, Middle and South reaches due to access limitations; this limitation is addressed in the analysis, below. All biological resource field surveys were informed by a desktop review of historic and current aerial imagery, subscription-based biological resource databases, publicly-available citizen science data, biological resources reports for Lower Walnut Creek, and restoration plans for Pacheco Marsh. In addition, ESA utilized information and analysis of current and potential salt marsh harvest mouse habitat and trapping results 32 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, November 24, 2009. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-25 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision summarized in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum.33 The Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Habitat Assessment,34 which describes the existing biological resources in the project area and the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities and state- and federally-regulated waters and wetlands to occur in the project area, is included in Appendix B. The Habitat Assessment includes the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report and the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum as attachments. The project area for biological resources is referred to in this analysis as the “project area”, in which biological resources were inventoried and analyzed to determine potential direct and indirect project impacts to these resources. The “project area” is defined as the work limit (i.e., project site), which includes areas of ground disturbance (e.g., channel excavation and grading); areas in the vicinity of, and directly affected by, ground disturbance activities; and, an approximately 50-foot buffer. The project’s potential impacts on biological resources are analyzed below. All potential impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Official Species List,35 and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) document 83 special- status plant36 and wildlife37 species within a 10-mile buffer of the project area. Habitats at the project area were assessed for their potential to support special-status species using information about local species occurrences and species’ habitat requirements, in combination with the site visits described above. Terrestrial Species The project area does not include suitable habitat, or is outside of the known geographic or elevation range, for many of the terrestrial species documented within 10 miles; therefore, the analysis is limited to the following terrestrial wildlife species, which have a moderate to high potential to occur due to the project area including suitable habitat and being within the species’ known range: Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), saltmarsh common 33 H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2018. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum. October 25, 2018. 34 Environmental Science Associates, 2019. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project – Habitat Assessment (District Lands) and Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project – Habitat Assessment (Expanded North Reach). 35 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Official Species List for project location. Accessed May 7, 2018. 36 California Native Plant Society, 2018. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed May 2018. 37 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed May 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-26 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuousa), Suisun song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), Suisun shrew (Sorex ornatus sinuosus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Three special-status plant species were identified in the project area during botanical surveys: Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii), Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), and Suisun Marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum). Aquatic Species Multiple special-status fish species have the potential to occur within the project area, primarily in the context of migrating through Suisun Bay and occasionally straying into Lower Walnut Creek. Those species with potential to occur, and/or with critical habitat in the project footprint, include: the southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (O. tshawytscha), Steelhead – central California coast DPS (O. mykiss), Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), and Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha).38 Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon are likely the only listed fish species to spawn successfully, albeit in low densities, in Lower Walnut Creek upstream of the project area.39 As such, special-status fish species are most likely to occur within the vicinity on the project area during migration periods from the Pacific Ocean to freshwater spawning habitat, primarily rivers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins. All of the fish species described above are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), with the exception of Longfin smelt, which is candidate for listing under FESA, and Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon, which is a California species of special concern. The two common marine mammals within San Francisco Bay, the resident harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), are not expected to occur within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, marine mammals are not discussed further. Potential impacts to species with a moderate to high potential to occur in the project area are analyzed below. Western Pond Turtle A California species of special concern, the western pond turtle inhabits relatively calm water such as lakes, natural and artificial ponds, irrigation ditches, and marshes with basking sites such as logs and mud banks. Although generally found in freshwater habitats, it may briefly visit brackish or saltwater habitats.40 Adjacent terrestrial habitat is also critical for egg-laying, winter refuge, and dispersal. Suitable aquatic habitat is present within Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco 38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Critical Habitat Mapper. Available: http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/ Accessed May 2018. 39 Jones & Stokes, 2007. Data Summary Report for Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement and Fry Emergence in Lower Walnut Creek. Final Report. Prepared for USACE. September 2007. 40 Stebbins and McGinnis, 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 538 pages. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-27 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Creek within the project area, but basking sites are limited. CNDDB occurrences exist in Pacheco Creek at the upstream end of the project area, as well as a mile from the upstream extent of the project area in tributaries to Walnut Creek. This species has a moderate potential to occur in project area. Construction Impacts Restoration Project Restoration-related construction activities in the North, Middle and South Reaches that could impact western pond turtles using channel banks or crossing roads and levees include the following: clearing and grubbing vegetation from excavation areas using mower, scraper and bulldozer; lowering the existing levee along Walnut Creek using scraper, excavator and bulldozer; constructing new connector tidal channels to Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek causing increased sediment in the creeks; placement and removal of temporary marsh access road material (earth or mats) to facilitate channel construction; and, hauling the clear and grub, levee, and excavation materials by dump truck. Restoration-related construction activities could result in potentially significant impacts on western pond turtles. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Construction activities associated with public access and recreational facilities will occur following excavation of tidal channels, but prior to a full conversion of habitat, meaning that the majority of trails, bridge footings, overlook points, and wildlife viewing points will be built in habitat that is in the process of converting from upland grassland to transitional habitat. The trail alignment includes a section of “limited access trail” and one wildlife viewing platform constructed in the vicinity of the new north-south tidal channel, habitat that will be in the process of converting from upland grassland to tidal wetland. Construction activities associated with public access and recreational facilities that could impact western pond turtles using channel banks or crossing roads and levees include clearing and grubbing excavation areas, grading, and placing fill associated with constructing recreational earthen trails and bridge supports, and installing piles into channel mud to support a floating dock or constructing a concrete boat ramp at grade. Construction of proposed public access and recreational facilities could result in potentially significant impacts on western pond turtles. Invasive Vegetation Management Prior to initiation of ground disturbing construction activities, vegetation management activities, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, would be implemented to remove/restrict the spread of a number of invasive species, and to collect propagules of native plant species needed for restoration of target habitats. Treatment of the invasive species would include mechanical methods (e.g., hard mowing, manually pulling, mechanically scraping) and use of herbicides approved for wetland applications to treat regrowth and new seedlings of invasive plants. In addition, the project would collect and propagate on-site native perennial plants by hand using spades or with a small-tracked vehicle equipped with a bucket (e.g., smallest available bobcat), using marsh mats as needed. Propagules/sod fragments would be transported by truck using existing access roads, and would be stockpiled in the southwestern section of the Suisun 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-28 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Properties parcel in the North Reach. Direct impacts on western pond turtles could occur due to vehicle use associated with excavation and transportation of propagules. Overall, use of heavy equipment and vehicles within 150 feet of Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek would have the potential to impact the western pond turtle either through direct injury or mortality, or by exposure to accidental release of construction-related pollutants. If construction personnel, vehicles or heavy equipment were working within 150 feet of channel areas, western pond turtle could potentially be directly impacted through injury or mortality, or indirectly impacted by disturbance that interrupts basking, an important behavior required for thermoregulation in western pond turtles; this would be a significant impact. In addition, equipment staging and project construction could render the site temporarily unsuitable for western pond turtle due to the noise, vibration, and increased activity levels associated with grubbing, earth moving, heavy equipment operation, and increased human presence. These construction-related impacts would be temporary and would cease upon completion of invasive vegetation management and native plant growing operations. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing Maintenance The project has been designed to minimize the need for active operations and ongoing maintenance. Typical levee monitoring activities include inspection for erosion or rodent damage along the levee tops and slopes. Typical levee maintenance activities include mowing and weed control and repair of erosion sites. Western pond turtles basking on the inboard sides of levees could be directly impacted by ongoing monitoring and maintenance activities along the levee tops and slopes. In addition, repair of erosion sites could cause short-term discharge of soil into channels during repair activities, which could negatively affect water quality and directly impact western pond turtle; however, this temporary impact would be alleviated by the long term benefit of slope stabilization following repairs. Western pond turtles could also be indirectly impacted by disturbance that interrupts basking, an important behavior required for thermoregulation in this species. However, impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance are expected to be of short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and are a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. In addition, maintenance activities will follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the District’s Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA) with CDFW; examples include, but are not limited to, performing Habitat Assessments, establishment of sensitive area buffers, and biological monitoring if applicable. In both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas, standard BMPs to avoid erosion and accidental releases into adjacent waterways will be implemented; examples include, but are not limited to, use of wattles or silt fencing and covering stockpiles. The impacts to western pond turtle associated with ongoing operations and maintenance are less than significant because activities will be limited in duration and frequency, are a continuation of comparable current operations and maintenance activities, and are mitigated under the District’s RMA with CDFW. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-29 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Public Access and Recreational Facilities The restoration site is projected to receive approximately 13,000 visitors annually, and visitation is expected to be fairly evenly spread across all seasons. Recreational activities are expected to primarily occur on weekends and during daytime hours, with occasional evening hour events. Low-intensity lighting is anticipated on paths around the education center building and in the parking lot. Trails and viewing platforms are planned to minimize the disturbance associated with people walking near special-status species habitat. Viewing platforms will have taller guardrails, solid fencing, and educational signage to reduce disturbance to special-status species. The trail leading to the viewing platform near a tidal channel will be “limited access,” meaning it will only be open during the non-breeding season for special-status birds, such as California black rail and Ridgway’s rail. A small watercraft launch will be located near the water access point at the end of the CCCSD service road. The anticipated number of boaters to use the area is not known; however, use of this drop-off point will be limited by removable bollards along the service road, and reservations will be required for use, thereby limiting the level of access and unauthorized use of the area. Because the interpretive/education center and associated infrastructure would avoid sensitive habitat such as wetlands and channels which could support special-status species, either currently or post-restoration, the use of this area is not expected to significantly impact western pond turtles. Public use of trails and viewing platforms are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on western pond turtle, due to: 1) the very limited section of trail and wildlife viewing areas located near sensitive habitat such as wetlands and channels, which could support special- status species, either currently or post-restoration; 2) the closure of the “limited access” trail during much of the year to avoid the breeding season for special-status birds, but which will benefit other species in the immediate area; 3) the design of viewing platforms and a bird blind adjacent to post-restoration sensitive habitats that will limit interactions between the public and wildlife; 4) public education at the interpretive/education center and wildlife viewing points about the restoration project and special-status species present; 5) the ability of native wildlife to habituate to low levels of disturbance, such as pedestrians, and the ability for wildlife to disperse into suitable high quality adjacent habitat, which will increase substantially post-restoration; and 6) the presence of existing ongoing industrial disturbance adjacent to the restoration site to which current wildlife is already habituated. Due to the restricted use associated with the boat launch, which will serve small, non-motorized craft such as kayaks and canoes, and the relatively saline waters at the north end of the project area, impacts to western pond turtle associated with the use of the boat launch would not be significant. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Habitat restoration elements would consist of creating and enhancing tidal marsh, as well as adjacent terrestrial lowlands and uplands, to support a diversity of plant communities and wildlife species. Existing habitats in the project boundaries are shown in Figure 3. The post-restoration habitats are shown in Figure 4. Table 1 in Chapter 1, Project Description, shows the estimated restored habitat areas (acres) by project reach. Restoration will have a less-than-significant impact on western pond turtle. Because this species is primarily associated with fresh and brackish water, the net increase of tidal waters and non- 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-30 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision tidal waters may create habitat for this species, or may be too saline, depending on location relative to freshwater drainages. Breaches in the Middle and South reaches to create connector channels would remove a small portion of potential basking habitat on the banks of Lower Walnut Creek; however, channels created in these reaches would increase potential western pond turtle habitat overall. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-1: The project would result in potential impacts on western pond turtle. In summary, construction-related impacts on western pond turtle would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce construction-related impacts on western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive aquatic sites; environmental training to construction personnel; general protection measures, including speed limits on all levees and roads during construction; and, specific survey and relocation measures for western pond turtles, if encountered. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, construction- related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project on western pond turtle would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures  A qualified biologist will provide Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAT) to field management and construction personnel. Communication efforts and training will take place during preconstruction meetings so that construction personnel are aware of their responsibilities and the importance of compliance. WEAT will identify the types of sensitive resources located in the project area and the measures required to avoid impacts on these resources. Materials covered in the training program will include environmental rules and regulations for the specific project and requirements for limiting activities to the construction right-of-way and avoiding demarcated sensitive resource areas.  If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor will ensure the new personnel receive WEAT before starting work. A sign-in sheet of those contractor individuals who have received the training will be maintained by the project proponent. A representative will be appointed during the WEAT to be the contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a listed species or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped individual. The representative's name and telephone number will be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) before the initiation of ground disturbance.  If individuals of listed wildlife species may be present and subject to potential injury or mortality from construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys. If a listed wildlife species is discovered, construction activities will not begin in the immediate vicinity of the individual until USFWS and/or CDFW is contacted and the individual has been allowed to leave the construction area.  Minimum qualifications for a qualified biologist will be a four-year college degree in biology or related field and demonstrated experience with the species of concern. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-31 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  Any special-status species observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW so the observations can be added to the CNDDB.  All vehicle operators will limit speed to 15 mph within the project area.  Because the work area is larger than 1 acre, the project proponent would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements (State Water Resources Control Board Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The objectives of the SWPPP will be to (1) identify pollutant sources associated with construction activity and project operations that may affect the quality of stormwater and (2) identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction. The project proponents and/or their contractor(s) will develop and implement a spill prevention and control plan as part of the SWPPP to minimize effects of spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction of the project. Implementation of this measure will comply with state and federal water quality regulations. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and during operation of the project and will be made available upon request to representatives of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). The SWPPP will include but is not limited to: a) A description of potential pollutants to stormwater from erosion. b) Management of dredged sediments and hazardous materials present on site during construction (including vehicle and equipment fuels). c) Details of how the sediment and erosion control practices comply with state and federal water quality regulations. d) A description of potential pollutants to stormwater resulting from operation of the project.  The SWPPP will include a hazardous materials management plan (HMMP). The plan will describe the actions that will be taken in the event of a spill. The plan also will incorporate preventive measures to be implemented (such as vehicle and equipment staging, cleaning, maintenance, and refueling) and contaminant (including fuel) management and storage. In the event of a contaminant spill, work at the site immediately will cease until the contractor has contained and mitigated the spill. The contractor will immediately prevent further contamination, notify appropriate authorities, and mitigate damage as appropriate. Adequate spill containment materials, such as oil diapers and hydrocarbon cleanup kits, will be available on site at all times. Containers for storage, transportation, and disposal of contaminated absorbent materials will be provided on the project site.  Do not use any hazardous material in excess of reportable quantities, as specified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 355, Subpart J, Section 355.50, unless approved in advance by the Office of Emergency Services (OES), and will provide to the OES in the annual compliance report a list of hazardous materials contained at a project site in reportable quantities. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-32 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Pond Turtle  Preconstruction surveys for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to clearing and grubbing, equipment staging, excavation or other construction-related activity or vegetation management activities requiring the use of heavy equipment (e.g., bobcat), within 150 feet of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, as specified below:  Prior to conducting preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for western pond turtle and identify nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities. The animal shall be relocated to equivalent or better western pond turtle habitat relative to where it was found.  Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 5 days prior to, and again immediately prior to activities described in the first bullet, above, to identify any presence of western pond turtle.  The qualified biologist shall monitor areas described in the first bullet above, to identify and relocate western pond turtle as necessary. If western pond turtle is observed within the construction area, the qualified biologist shall relocate the individual according to the relocation plan above. Tricolored Blackbird, Short-eared Owl, Northern Harrier, Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat, Suisun Song Sparrow, and Nesting Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Tricolored blackbird is listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened and is under review by the USFWS in response to a petition filed in February 2015 to list the tricolored blackbird as an endangered species under the FESA. Marsh cattails and reeds provide suitable breeding habitat for tricolored blackbird colonies in the project area, and the species was recently documented north of Suisun Bay, 4.3 miles from the project area. Short-eared owl, northern harrier, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and Suisun song sparrow are California Species of Special Concern. The project area provides suitable foraging habitat for short-eared owl and northern harrier in the tidal and non-tidal marsh, and nesting habitat for both of these ground-nesting species in non-tidal marsh and upland areas. The project area provides suitable nesting habitat in emergent marsh vegetation and tall, dense ruderal vegetation for salt marsh common yellowthroat and Suisun song sparrow. It is likely that common species, also subject to provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), such as house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and California towhee (Melozone crissalis) nest in the project area. Bird species listed under FESA and CESA, as well as non-ESA-listed birds, are afforded conservation protections. Breeding birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5. In addition, Section 3513 of the Code and the Federal MBTA (16 USC, Sec. 703 Supp. I, 1989) prohibits the killing, possession, or trading of migratory birds. Finally, Section 3800 of the 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-33 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Code prohibits the taking of non-game birds, which are defined as birds occurring naturally in California that are not game birds or fully protected species. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under Impact BIO-1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Because special-status bird species and birds protected by the MBTA could nest in trees, shrubs, grasses, emergent vegetation, marsh vegetation or even on bare ground, all parts of the project area are considered potential nesting habitat. Therefore, restoration-related construction activities in the North, Middle, and South Reaches that could impact nesting birds include clearing and grubbing vegetation from excavation areas using mower, scraper and bulldozer; excavating tidal channels; use of heavy equipment and dump trucks; and presence of workers and vehicles associated with all aspects of construction. Construction activities associated with public access and recreational facilities proposed in the North Reach that could impact special-status bird species include clearing and grubbing excavation areas, grading, and placing fill associated with constructing recreational earthen trails and bridge supports; and installing piles into channel mud to support the floating dock or constructing a concrete boat ramp at grade. Construction of the interpretive center and associated infrastructure will be built in what is currently a barren area of hard-packed dirt and gravel; however, killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) are known to nest on such substrates. Clearing and grubbing is not anticipated; however, ground disturbance such as grading is assumed to be required prior to construction of asphalt parking and access areas, and concrete structural foundations for the interpretive/education center and stand-alone restroom. Impacts could occur to resident and migratory species during construction during breeding and non-breeding seasons. Impacts during the non-breeding season are not considered significant, primarily due to the birds’ mobility and ability to access other high-quality foraging habitat in the region. However, equipment staging and project construction could render the site temporarily unsuitable for breeding birds due to the noise, vibration, and increased activity levels associated with grubbing, earth moving, heavy equipment operation, and increased human presence even when the nest itself is unaffected. These activities could cause birds that have established a nest prior to the start of construction to change their behavior or even abandon an active nest, putting eggs and nestlings at risk for mortality. This would be considered a significant impact. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under Impact a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Breeding birds could be directly or indirectly impacted by ongoing maintenance activities including inspection for erosion or rodent damage along the levee tops and slopes, and levee maintenance activities such as mowing and weed control and repair of erosion sites. However, 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-34 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance are expected to be of short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and are a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. The impacts to special-status birds associated with ongoing operations and maintenance are considered less than significant because activities would be limited in duration and frequency, are a continuation of comparable current operations and maintenance activities, and are mitigated under the District’s RMA with CDFW. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Because the interpretive/education center and associated infrastructure would avoid sensitive wildlife habitats and will be in an area with very limited nesting and foraging habitat for birds, and because a significant area of higher quality habitat will be present in the project area, the use of the interpretive center complex is not expected to have a significant impact on special-status birds. Public use of trails and viewing platforms are not expected to have a significant impact on special-status birds, due to: (1) the very limited section of trail and wildlife viewing areas located near sensitive habitat such as wetlands and channels, which could support special-status species, either currently or post-restoration; (2) the closure of the “limited access” trail during much of the year to avoid the breeding season for special-status birds, but which will benefit other species in the immediate area; (3) the design of viewing platforms and a bird blind adjacent to post- restoration sensitive habitats that will limit interactions between the public and wildlife; (4) public education at the interpretive/education center and wildlife viewing points about the restoration project and special-status species present; (5) the ability of native wildlife to habituate to low levels of disturbance, such as pedestrians, and the ability for wildlife to disperse into suitable high quality adjacent habitat, which will increase substantially post-restoration; and (6) the presence of existing ongoing industrial disturbance adjacent to the restoration site to which current wildlife is already habituated. Due to the restricted use associated with the boat launch and due to the overall increase in suitable high quality adjacent habitat post-restoration, impacts to special-status birds associated with the use of the boat launch would be less than significant. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Restoration of tidal marshes is expected to have a less-than-significant impact on special-status bird species that forage and/or nest in marsh habitat, including short-eared owl, northern harrier, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, and Suisun song sparrow. Although these species use non-tidal marsh habitat, the existing non-tidal marsh habitat in the Middle and South reaches is primarily low, sparse pickleweed interspersed with grasses and barren, seasonally-ponded area. This habitat provides less cover for nesting and small mammal prey relative to the tidal wetland habitat expected to develop post-restoration. The increase in fully tidal marsh habitat could also benefit tricolored blackbird due to an increase in tidal marsh-associated emergent vegetation. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-2: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status birds. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-35 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision In summary, construction-related impacts on tricolored blackbird, short-eared owl, Northern harrier, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, Suisun song sparrow, and nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 would reduce potential construction-related impacts to nesting special-status birds to a less-than-significant level by providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, and requiring avoidance of construction-related work during the nesting bird season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, then pre-construction nesting bird surveys and establishment of no-construction buffer zones around active bird nests would avoid or minimize the potential for this impact to occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project on tricolored blackbird, short-eared owl, Northern harrier, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, Suisun song sparrow, and nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds, Except Rails (see Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for rails) Project staging, project construction, vegetation removal (e.g., clearing and grubbing), vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, or tree trimming shall be performed outside of the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; if these activities must be performed during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-construction survey in the project construction and staging areas for nesting birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds no more than 14 calendar days prior to construction activities or after any construction breaks of 14 calendar days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the project construction and staging areas and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the project construction and staging areas in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 500 feet of the project construction and staging areas to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nest. If nesting birds and raptors do not occur within 250 and 500 feet of the Project area, respectively, then no further action is required if construction begins within 14 calendar days. If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, no- disturbance buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist. Typically, these buffer distances are between 50 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity and if an obstruction, such as a building or structure, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. Reduced buffers may be allowed if a full-time qualified biologist is present to monitor the nest and has authority to halt construction if bird behavior indicates continued activities could lead to nest failure. Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction-related activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail California black rail. California black rail is listed as threatened under CESA and is a state fully-protected species. More than 90 percent of California black rails are located in the marshes of northern San Francisco Bay, primarily San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay. Black rails prefer 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-36 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision marshes that are close to water, are large (interior more than 50 meters from edge), away from urban areas, and brackish to fresh with a high proportion of pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), maritime bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), and marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta var. angustifolia), rush (Juncus spp.) and cattails (Typha spp.).41 This species nests and forages in tidal emergent wetland. Suitable marsh habitat is present within the project area, and documented occurrences are known from within and adjacent to the project area. Black rail has a high potential to occur in the project area. Ridgway’s rail. Ridgway’s rail is listed as endangered under both FESA and CESA, and is a state fully-protected species. Ridgway’s rails are found in tidal and brackish marshes where they typically construct nests in or under dense marsh vegetation, such as marsh gumplant and pickleweed at an elevation high enough to avoid inundation during high tides. Ridgway’s rail forages on a variety of marsh crabs, mussels, clams, and amphipods in channel mudflats.42 Suitable marsh habitat is present within the project area and multiple occurrences are known from marshes adjacent to or nearby the project area. Ridgway’s rail has a high potential to occur in the project area. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under Impact BIO-1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for California black rail and Ridgway’s rail is found throughout all three reaches of the project area. Construction activities in the North, Middle and South reaches that could impact nesting and foraging rails includes clearing and grubbing vegetation from excavation areas using mower, scraper and bulldozer, and use of heavy equipment and dump trucks, as well as presence of workers and vehicles, near suitable rail habitat. Construction activities associated with public access and recreational facilities in the North Reach that could impact California black rail and Ridgway’s rail include clearing and grubbing excavation areas, grading, and placing fill associated with constructing recreational earthen trails and bridge supports; and installing piles into channel mud to support the floating dock or constructing a concrete boat ramp at grade. Impacts could occur to rails during construction during breeding and non-breeding seasons. Impacts during the non-breeding season are not considered significant, primarily due to the birds’ mobility and ability to access other high-quality foraging habitat in the region. However, equipment staging and project construction could render the site temporarily unsuitable for breeding rails due to the noise, vibration, and increased activity levels associated with grubbing, earth moving, heavy equipment operation, and increased human presence even when the nest 41 Spautz, H., Nur, N., Stralberg, D., 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturnuculus) Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, 2005. 42 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Recovery Plan for the Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Region 8, Sacramento, California. August 2013. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-37 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision itself is unaffected. These activities could cause birds that have established a nest prior to the start of construction, to change their behavior or even abandon an active nest, putting eggs and nestlings at risk for mortality. This would be considered a significant impact. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under Impact a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Breeding birds could be directly or indirectly impacted by ongoing maintenance activities including inspection for erosion or rodent damage along the levee tops and slopes, and levee maintenance activities such as mowing and weed control and repair of erosion sites. However, impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance are expected to be of short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and are a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. The impacts to California black rail and Ridgway’s rail associated with ongoing operations and maintenance are considered less than significant because activities would be limited in duration and frequency, are a continuation of comparable current operations and maintenance activities, and are mitigated under the District’s RMA with CDFW. Public Access and Recreational Facilities The interpretive/education center and associated infrastructure would be located away from breeding and foraging habitat for California black rail and Ridgway’s rail and an increasing area of high quality habitat would be present in the project area post-restoration; therefore, the use of the interpretive center complex is not expected to have a significant impact on California black rail and Ridgway’s rail. Public use of trails and viewing platforms are not expected to have a significant impact on California black rail or Ridgway’s rail, due to: (1) the very limited section of trail and wildlife viewing areas located near sensitive habitat such as wetlands and channels, which could support special-status species, either currently or post-restoration; (2) the closure of the “limited access” trail during much of the year to avoid the breeding season for Californ ia black rail and Ridgway’s rail; (3) the design of viewing platforms and a bird blind adjacent to post-restoration sensitive habitats that will limit interactions between the public and wildlife; (4) public education at the interpretive/education center and wildlife viewing points about the restoration project and special- status species present; (5) the ability of native wildlife to habituate to low levels of disturbance, such as pedestrians, and the ability for wildlife to disperse into suitable high quality adjacent habitat, which will increase substantially post-restoration; and (6) the presence of existing ongoing industrial disturbance adjacent to the restoration site to which current wildlife is already habituated. Due to the restricted use associated with the boat launch, which will serve small, non-motorized craft such as kayaks and canoes, and due to the overall increase in suitable high quality adjacent habitat post-restoration, impacts to special-status birds associated with the use of the boat launch would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-38 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Habitat Restoration and Conversion Restoration of tidal marshes would have a less-than-significant impact on black rail and Ridgway’s rail and, in fact, would benefit these species due to the increase in tidal marsh and associated vegetation, such as tall, continuous stands of pickleweed and emergent vegetation for nesting. In addition, tidal restoration would result in the development of a higher density of channels, which has been identified as the most important feature favoring high Ridgway’s rail density.43 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-3: The project would result in potential impacts on California black rail and Ridgway’s rail. In summary, temporary construction-related impacts would result in significant impacts on California black rail and Ridgway’s rail. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4 would reduce potential construction-related impacts to Ridgway’s rail and black rail to less-than-significant by providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, avoiding disturbance to rail nesting habitat, conducting pre-construction protocol surveys to identify any active nests, and stopping work if project activities disturb nesting rails. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project on California black rail and Ridgway’s rail would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail  To minimize or avoid the loss of individual California black rail and Ridgway’s rail, construction activities, including vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, adjacent to tidal marsh areas (within 500 feet [150 meters] or a distance determined in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shall be avoided during the breeding season from February 1 through August 31.  If areas within or adjacent to rail habitat cannot be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), protocol-level surveys shall be conducted to determine rail nesting locations. The surveys will focus on potential habitat that could be disturbed by construction activities during the breeding season to ensure that rails are not breeding in these locations. Survey methods for rails will follow the Site-Specific Protocol for Monitoring Marsh Birds, which was developed for use by USFWS and partners to improve bay-wide monitoring accuracy by standardizing surveys and increasing the ability to share data (Wood et al. 2017). Surveys are concentrated during the approximate period of peak detectability, January 15 to March 25 and are structured to efficiently sample an area in three rounds of surveys by broadcasting calls of target species during specific periods of each survey round. Call broadcast increase the probability of detection compared to passive surveys when no call broadcasting is employed. This protocol 43 Liu, et al., 2012. California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Population Monitoring: 2005-2011. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Technical Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-39 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision has since been adopted by Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) and Point Blue Conservation Science to survey Ridgway’s rails at sites throughout San Francisco Bay Estuary. The survey protocol for Ridgway’s rail is summarized below.  Previously used survey locations (points) should be used when available to maintain consistency with past survey results. Adjacent points should be at least 200 meters apart along transects in or adjacent to areas representative of the marsh. Points should be located to minimize disturbances to marsh vegetation. Up to 8 points can be located on a transect.  At each transect, three surveys (rounds) are to be conducted, with the first round of surveys initiated between January 15 and February 6, the second round performed February 7 to February 28, and the third round March 1 to March 25. Surveys should be spaced at least one week apart and the period between March 25 to April 15 can be used to complete surveys delayed by logistical or weather issues. A Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required to conduct active surveys.  Each point on a transect will be surveyed for 10 minutes each round. A recording of calls available from USFWS is broadcast at each point. The recording consists of 5 minutes of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of Ridgway’s rail vocalizations, followed by 30 seconds of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of California black rail, followed by 3.5 minutes of silence.  If no breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are detected during surveys, or if their breeding territories can be avoided by 500 feet (150 meters), then project activities may proceed at that location.  If protocol surveys determine that breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are present in the project area, the following measures would apply to project activities conducted during their breeding season (February 1- August 31):  A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with experience recognizing Ridgway’s rail and black rail vocalizations will be on site during construction activities occurring within 500 feet (150 meters) of suitable rail breeding habitat.  All biologists accessing the tidal marsh will be trained in Ridgway’s rail and black rail biology and vocalizations, and will be familiar with both species of rail and their nests.  If a Ridgway’s rail or black rail vocalizes or flushes within 10 meters, it is possible that a nest or young are nearby. If an alarmed bird or nest is detected, work will be stopped, and workers will leave the immediate area carefully and quickly. An alternate route will be selected that avoids this area, and the location of the sighting will be recorded to inform future activities in the area.  All crews working in the marsh during rail breeding season will be trained and supervised by a USFWS- and CDFW-approved rail biologist.  If any activities will be conducted during the rail breeding season in Ridgway’s rail- or black rail-occupied marshes, biologists will have maps or GPS locations 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-40 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision of the most current occurrences on the site and will proceed cautiously and minimize time spent in areas where rails were detected.  All personnel walking in the marsh will be required to limit time spent within 50 meters of an identified Ridgway’s rail or black rail calling center to half an hour or less.  For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rail or black rail, the following measures will be implemented:  Only herbicides to be used will be EPA-certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments.  Vegetation management activities will be limited to areas outside of tidal marsh and non-tidal pickleweed marsh habitats. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun Shrew Salt marsh harvest mouse is listed as endangered under both FESA and CESA, and is a state fully-protected species. Preferred mouse habitat includes the middle and upper portions of dense, perennial salt marshes; they will move into adjacent grasslands in spring and summer when the grasslands provide maximum cover.44 They will also use similar habitat in diked wetlands adjacent to the Bay. Recent research has identified salt marsh harvest mouse in marshes dominated by alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus)45 and in mixed vegetation not dominated by pickleweed, including Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and sow thistle (Sonchus asper). During high tides, salt marsh harvest mouse will use upland habitats for high tide refugia, and they also cross levees.46 Suitable habitat for this species is present in the project area in the brackish tidal marshes, and tidal and non-tidal pickleweed habitats. In addition, CNDDB records exist from trapping efforts within the project area in the locality of Shell Marsh, Peyton Slough, and Pacheco Creek. Salt marsh harvest mice were also trapped in Pt. Edith Wildlife Area, adjacent to project area, throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; as well as in Avon-Port Chicago Marsh in 1997.47 In 2008 four salt marsh harvest mice were captured during trapping efforts in the north part of the South Reach in pickleweed dominated vegetation.48 There is a high potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to occur in the project area and it is assumed salt marsh harvest mouse occupies suitable pickleweed and marsh habitats within the project area. The Suisun shrew is a California species of special concern that lives in the tidal marshes of Suisun and San Pablo Bays. The species requires dense low cover above the median tide line for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat for this species is present in the project area. The Suisun 44 Goals Project. 2000. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of key plants, fish and wildlife. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. P.R. Olofson, editor. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif. 45 Shellhammer, H., R. Duke, and M. Orland. 2010. Use of Brackish Marshes in the South San Francisco Bay by Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. California Fish and Game 96(4): 256-259. 46 Bias, M.A. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Movements and Home Range of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. The Southwestern Naturalist 44(3):348-353. 47 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed May 2018. 48 Monk & Associates, Inc. 2008. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Presence/Absence Trapping Survey Report, Shell Pipeline Corporation – Pipeline Repair Site, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-41 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision shrew is not well-studied and less is known about its life history than salt marsh harvest mouse; however, the nearest known occurrences are restricted to north Suisun Bay. There is a moderate potential for Suisun shrew to occur in the project area. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under Impact BIO-1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Although habitat quality varies substantially throughout the project area, suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew is found throughout all reaches of the project area. Restoration-related construction activities in the North, Middle and South reaches that could impact salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew include clearing and grubbing vegetation from excavation areas using mower, scraper and bulldozer, use of heavy equipment and dump trucks, and presence of workers and vehicles associated with all aspects of construction in suitable salt marsh harvest mouse/Suisun shrew habitat. Construction activities associated with public access and recreational facilities in the North Reach that could impact salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew include clearing and grubbing excavation areas, earthwork associated with constructing recreational trails and bridge supports, and equipment staging on land to install piles into channel mud to support the floating dock or constructing a concrete boat ramp at grade. Other than the in-water work associated with the floating dock option, all public access infrastructure would be built in upland or transitional habitat. These habitats are used by salt marsh harvest mouse, and possibly Suisun shrew, especially as refugia during high tides. Direct impacts that could occur to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew include mortality due to crushing by vehicles, materials staging, heavy equipment or human activity in suitable salt marsh harvest mouse/Suisun shrew habitat, or mutilation by mowers or other motorized equipment used for vegetation removal. Indirect impacts could occur if equipment staging, project construction or human activity render otherwise suitable habitat temporarily unsuitable due to the lack of accessibility, noise, vibration, and increased activity levels associated with grubbing, earth moving, and heavy equipment operation. Any of these would be considered a significant impact. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under Impact a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance are expected to be of short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and are a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-42 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision However, salt marsh harvest mice are known to cross levees,49 probably when accessing high tide refugia on the other side of the levee or during dispersal events; therefore, levee inspections and maintenance could impact salt marsh harvest mouse, and possibly Suisun shrew, during high tides. The potential impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew associated with ongoing operations and maintenance during high tide events include unintentional flushing of these species back into tidal areas, thus preventing them from accessing refugia, and mortality due to crushing by vehicles, materials staging, heavy equipment or human activity; these would be significant impacts. Public Access and Recreational Facilities The interpretive/education center and associated infrastructure would be located away from breeding and foraging habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, and an increasing area of high quality habitat would be present in the project area post-restoration; therefore, the use of the interpretive center complex would have less-than-significant impact on these species. While the majority of the trail alignment would be built away from high quality breeding and foraging habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, approximately 1,800 linear feet of trail and two wildlife viewing points will be adjacent to existing or post-restoration tidal marsh. During very high tides, marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew will likely use the elevated trail to access high tide refugia. Because of the lack of cover on the new trail, salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would not be expected to remain on the trail, but use it relatively briefly to move to high tide refugia with vegetative cover, such as transitional habitat on the other side of the trail. In addition, an approximately 500-foot section of “limited access” trail is aligned to travel through post-restoration tidal marsh to a wildlife viewing point near a new tidal channel. The trail leading to the viewing platform would be “limited access” and the closure of the trail during the bird breeding season will benefit other marsh-dwelling species such as salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew. The presence of hikers and bicyclists on these trails could have a negative impact on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew during very high tides as presented in the maintenance discussion above. However, these trails will be built in transitional habitat that will convert over time to tidal marsh following excavation of new channels. This would allow dispersing individuals that result from a growing population of salt marsh harvest mice and Suisun shrew the opportunity to establish territories in areas less disturbed by public use and avoid areas more impacted by public use. A small watercraft launch will be located near the water access point at the end of the CCCSD service road. The anticipated number of boaters to use the area is not known; however, use of this drop-off point will be limited by bollards along the service road, and reservations will be required for use, thereby limiting the level of access and unauthorized use of the area. Although a short walk (~0.1 mile) through or adjacent to tidal marsh habitat may be required post-restoration to carry boats to the water, the restricted use associated with the boat launch and overall increase in suitable high quality adjacent habitat post-restoration would offset adverse effects of recreational activities in suitable habitat. Overall, use of recreational facilities would result in a less-than-significant impact to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew 49 Bias, M.A. and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Movements and Home Range of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. The Southwestern Naturalist 44(3):348-353. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-43 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision because the number of individuals potentially impacted by trail use during very high tides would be small, and would be offset by expected population increases resulting from the overall increase in quantity and quality of salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew habitat post-restoration. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Restoration of tidal marshes is expected to have a less-than-significant impact on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew due to the beneficial restoration and enhancement of tidal wetland and non-tidal wetlands (see Table 1 in Chapter 1, Project Description). Although diked marsh in Suisun Bay has been found to provide comparably high quality habitat to tidal marsh for salt marsh harvest mouse,50 the diked tidal marsh currently present within the Middle and South reaches is of low habitat value due to sparse vegetation.51 Restoring tidal action to the currently diked marshes will replace sparsely vegetated marginal habitat with densely vegetated tidal marshes in the Middle and South Reaches. Good quality salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew habitat currently present in the North Reach would be maintained and enhanced. In addition, the project would create an increase in transitional and upland habitat by creating lowland grassland transition zones, which would provide upland refugia to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew immediately post-restoration and would accommodate up to 5 feet of sea level rise as lowland grassland converts to tidal wetland. This would compensate for future sea level rise-induced conversion of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (i.e., tidal wetland) into permanently inundated wetlands providing a long-term habitat benefit to these species resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-4: The project would result in potential impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew. In summary, construction-related impacts and ongoing Operation and Maintenance (O&M)- related impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-5 would reduce potential construction and ongoing O&M vegetation management impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew to a less-than–significant level by providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, conducting pre-construction surveys, identification and avoidance of suitable habitat for the species, and where avoidance is not possible, using hand tools to clear vegetation. Further, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, suitable marsh habitat will be protected during work activities, silt fencing will separate suitable habitat from adjacent work areas, a biomonitor will be in place to stop work if the species is detected, and work during high tide periods will be avoided. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-5, construction- and ongoing O&M-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be less than significant. 50 Sustaita, et al., 2011. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Demography and Habitat Use in the Suisun Marsh, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(6):1498-1507;2011; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.187. 51 H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2018. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum. October 25, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-44 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun shrew  A USFWS and CDFW-approved biologist, with knowledge and experience with salt marsh harvest mouse habitat requirements, will conduct pre-construction surveys for the species and identify and mark suitable salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat prior to project initiation.  Ground disturbance to suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (including, but not limited to pickleweed, and emergent salt marsh vegetation including bulrush and cattails) will be avoided to the extent feasible. Where salt marsh harvest mouse habitat cannot be avoided - such as for channel excavation, access routes and grading, or anywhere else that vegetation could be trampled or crushed by work activities - vegetation will be removed from the ground disturbance work area plus a 10-foot buffer around the area, as well as any access routes within salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, utilizing mechanized hand tools or by another method approved by the USFWS and CDFW. Vegetation height shall be maintained at or below 5 inches above ground. Vegetation removal in salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be conducted under the supervision of the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist.  To protect salt marsh harvest mouse from construction-related traffic, access roads, haul routes, and staging areas within 200 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be bordered by temporary exclusion fencing. The fence should be made of a smooth material that does not allow salt marsh harvest mouse to climb or pass through, of a minimum above-ground height of 30 inches, and the bottom should be buried to a depth of at least 6 inches so that mice cannot crawl under the fence. Any supports for the salt marsh harvest mouse exclusion fencing (e.g., t-posts) will be placed on the inside of the project area. The last 5 feet of the fence shall be angled away from the road to direct wildlife away from the road. A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse experience will be on site during fence installation and will check the fence alignment prior to vegetation clearing and fence installation to ensure no salt marsh harvest mice are present.  Salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat that must be accessed by mini-excavators or other vehicles to complete project construction (e.g., excavating connector channels to Lower Walnut Creek) will be protected through use of low ground pressure (LGP) equipment, wooden or PVC marsh mats, or other method approved by USFWS and CDFW following vegetation removal (see 3rd bullet, above).  Construction activities related to restoration and recreational infrastructure, as well as ongoing Operations and Maintenance activities will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Extreme high tides would be in excess of six feet as predicted for the nearest tide gauge, Point Chicago tide gauge.  All construction equipment and materials will be staged on existing roadways and away from suitable wetland habitats when not in use.  Vegetation shall be removed from all non-marsh areas of disturbance (driving roads, grading and stockpiling areas) to discourage presence of salt marsh harvest mouse. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-45 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience will be on site during construction activities occurring in suitable habitat. The biologist will document compliance with the project permit conditions and avoidance and conservation measures. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has the authority to stop project activities if any of the requirements associated with these measures is not being fulfilled. If salt marsh harvest mouse is observed in the work area, construction activities will cease in the immediate vicinity of the salt marsh harvest mouse. The individual will be allowed to leave the area before work is resumed. If the individual does not move on its own volition, the USFWS-approved biologist would contact USFWS (and CDFW if appropriate) for further guidance on how to proceed.  If the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has requested work stoppage because of take of any of the listed species, or if a dead or injured salt marsh harvest mouse is observed, the USFWS and CDFW will be notified within one day by email or telephone.  For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, the following measures shall be implemented:  Only herbicides to be used will be EPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments.  Work in upland habitat within 100 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew habitat will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Extreme high tides would be in excess of six feet as predicted for the nearest tide gauge, Port Chicago tide gauge. Special-status Bats Several special-status bat species have the potential to occur in the project area, including pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat. Suitable roosting habitat for these bats includes the undersides of bridges over Lower Walnut Creek. Observations of these species are recorded at least 5.2 miles from the project area. These species have a moderate potential to occur in the project area. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Within the project area, potential roosting habitat for special-status bats is limited to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) bridges that cross Lower Walnut Creek. Excavation of connector channels could indirectly impact roosting bats if excavation occurred within 100 feet of an active roost, such as the underside of a bridge; however, no connector channels are planned within 100 feet of bridges, and impact on special- status bats would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-46 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under Impact a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance activities are not expected to affect roosting bats since there are no suitable roosting sites within 100 feet of levees. Therefore, ongoing operations and maintenance on roosting bats would be less than significant. Public Access and Recreational Facilities The proposed recreational infrastructure, including the interpretive/education center, trails, viewing platforms and a small watercraft launch are located in areas where there is no bat roosting habitat. Therefore, impacts from public access and recreational facilities on special- status bats would be less than significant. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Habitat restoration and conversion would not convert or destroy potential bat roosting sites and there would be no impact. In summary, project construction and implementation would not result in significant impacts on special-status bats; there would be less-than-significant impacts on special-status bats. Special-Status Plants Delta tule pea, Suisun marsh aster and Mason’s lilaeopsis are known to be present within the project area based on special-status plant surveys conducted in 2018.52 Delta tule pea has a CNPS Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B.2, Suisun marsh aster has a CRPR of 1B.2, and Mason’s lilaeopsis is a CRPR 1B.1 species and is listed as rare under the CESA. The California Native Plant Protection Act directs the California Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare and endangered and generally prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. All of the plants with a CRPR of 1B meet the criteria of CESA. Although no other special-status plants were detected during special-status plant surveys in 2018, suitable habitat for a number of special-status plants is potentially present in the un-surveyed portions of the North, Middle, and South reaches, and presence of these species cannot be ruled out. Special-status plants that could be present in the unsurveyed portions of the project area include Suisun marsh aster, delta tule pea, soft bird’s beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle; federally-listed as endangered/CRPR 1B.2), Mason’s lilaeopsis, Bolander’s water hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi; CRPR 2B.1), delta mudwort (Limosella australis; CRPR 2B.1), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR 1B.1), pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryii; CRPR 1B.2), Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense; 52 Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report. February 2019. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-47 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision CRPR 3.1), San Joaquin spearscale (Exriplex joaquiniana; CRPR 1B.2), Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia; federally-listed as threatened/CRPR 1B.1), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens; federally-listed as endangered/CRPR 1B.1) and long-styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla; CRPR 1B.2). Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Implementation of the project, specifically components that require excavation of new tidal channels to connect the creek channel with currently non-tidal parts of the flood plain, could result in direct impacts to existing populations of Delta tule pea and Suisun marsh aster. Potentially suitable habitat for Mason’s lilaeopsis is fairly specific with regard to tidal range, soil exposure, and reduced density of tall marsh vegetation, so not all areas bordering channels are presently suitable. The Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report53 describes how small-scale disturbances along channel banks (i.e., bank slumping from either natural processes or from wake-generated waves) may play a role in creating new sites for establishment of this species. Therefore, special-status plant locations previously identified should be considered temporary, particularly if project implementation does not occur for several years. Implementation of the project components that require excavation of new tidal channels could result in significant impacts to new populations of Mason’s lilaeopsis that may establish prior to construction. Further, Preliminary designs of the public access and recreational facilities include a trail extending east-west to a wildlife viewing area near a new channel that will be excavated west of Lower Walnut Creek. This trail would be in the vicinity of several known occurrences of Suisun marsh aster and delta tule pea. Earthwork associated with building the trail could result in direct removal or trampling of special-status plants. Therefore, construction could result in potentially significant impacts to special-status plant species. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance are not expected to impact special-status plants since there is no suitable habitat for special-status plants on the levees and there would be no impact. 53 Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report. February, 2019. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-48 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Public Access and Recreational Facilities The proposed trail west of Lower Walnut Creek would be in the vicinity of several known occurrences of Suisun marsh aster and delta tule pea. Because the trail would be 8 feet wide and 10 to 30 feet above sea level in elevation, and because there are no trails or other features north or south that would encourage short-cutting through creation of “bootleg trails,” there is a low probability that hikers will trample or otherwise disturb special-status plants, resulting in a less- than-significant impact. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Restoration of tidal marshes is expected to be beneficial for special-status plant species due to the overall increase in wetland habitat, which provides habitat for tidal marsh special-status plants Suisun marsh aster, Delta tule pea, soft bird’s beak, and increased tidal channels which provide habitat for Mason’s lilaeopsis. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-5: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status plants. In summary, temporary construction-related impacts would result in significant impacts on special-status plants, and if special-status plants are present in the areas that have not yet been surveyed, these have potential to be impacted indirectly through changes in site hydrology. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce potential construction- related impacts to special-status plants and potential indirect impacts to special-status plants due to changes in hydrology to a less-than-significant level. This would be achieved by: conducting pre-construction special-status plant surveys; delineating and avoiding special-status plants within the project work limits by establishing a no-disturbance buffer, including fencing and signage, around the plant to protect it from construction-related activity; compensating for special-status plant impacts that cannot be avoided; and, reporting special-status plant occurrence to the CNDDB. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Special-Status Plant Protection To ensure protection of special-status plants, the following measures will be implemented.  Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a properly-timed special-status plant survey for Suisun marsh aster, delta tule pea, soft bird’s beak, Mason’s lilaeopsis, Bolander’s water hemlock, delta mudwort, Congdon’s tarplant, pappose tarplant, Marin knotweed, San Joaquin spearscale, Santa Cruz tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields and long-styled sand spurrey within the species’ suitable habitat within the un-surveyed portions within the project work limits. This includes portions of the State Lands Commission parcel and the Suisun Properties parcel in the North Reach, the Acme landfill parcel in the Middle Reach, and the Conco parcel in the South Reach. The survey will follow the CDFW Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018b). If special-status plant species occur within the project work limits, then the biologist will establish an adequate buffer area for 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-49 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision each plant population to exclude activities that directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the special-status plant species. A qualified biologist will oversee installation of a temporary, plastic mesh-type construction fence (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent) at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall around any established buffer areas to prevent encroachment by construction vehicles and personnel. The qualified biologist will determine the exact location of the fencing. The fencing will be strung tightly on posts set at maximum intervals of 10 feet (3 meters) and will be checked and maintained weekly until all construction is complete. The buffer zone established by the fencing will be marked by a sign stating:  “This is habitat of [list rare plant(s)], and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by [the ESA of 1973, as amended/CESA/California Native Plant Protection Act].”  No construction activity, including grading, shall be allowed until condition number 3 is satisfied.  If direct impacts cannot be avoided, the District shall prepare a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) salvage and replant plants at the same location following construction; 2) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable off-site location with long-term assurance of site protection; 3) collect seeds or other propagules for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere.  If indirect impacts to special-status plants due to restoration-related introduction of tidal hydrology to non-tidal areas cannot be avoided, the District shall prepare a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) if the special-status plant population is likely to survive the hydrologic modification (based on an assessment by the District’s biologist), monitor the at-risk special-status plant population over 5 years after the hydrologic modification, along with a reference population, to verify that there have been no adverse indirect impacts to the population. If at any point within the 5-years of monitoring, the population is determined to be at risk from project impacts based on monitoring results, then implement (2); 2) if the special-status plant population is not likely to survive the hydrologic modification, then: 1) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable location on-site; or 2) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable off-site location with long- term assurance of site protection; or 3) collect seeds or other propagules for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or, 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere.  The success criterion for any seeded, planted, and/or relocated plants shall be full replacement at a 1:1 ratio after five years. Monitoring surveys of the seeded, planted, or transplanted individuals shall be conducted for a minimum of five years, to ensure that the success criterion can be achieved at year 5. If it appears the success criterion would not be met after five years, contingency measures may be applied. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to: additional seeding and planting; altering or implementing weed management activities; or, introducing or altering other management activities. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-50 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  Any special-status plant species observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW and submitted to the CNDDB. Special-status Fish Species Impacts to fish species from project construction and/or project operation are not expected to occur or would be very small and would fall within less than significant levels. Because all listed fish species considered in this document share the same aquatic habitat, potential impacts discussed below should be considered equally relevant for all fish species. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. The Project will require a limited amount of in-water, and water-adjacent, construction work to facilitate the connection of the tidal channel network to the lower Walnut Channel. While work will be conducted at a low tide, and utilizing a silt curtain, construction activities may result in the short-term, temporary disturbance and resuspension of benthic sediments. Increases in suspended sediments can impact aquatic organisms by reducing dissolved oxygen levels and light transmission. Additionally, when sediments resettle there is the potential to smother aquatic habitats and organisms. Changes in light transmission have the potential to limit photosynthesis and reduce foraging abilities for organisms that rely on visual signals for feeding (e.g., salmonids and several species of birds; Anchor 2003). Substantially depressed oxygen levels (i.e., below 5.0 mg/l) may cause respiratory stress to aquatic life, and levels below 3.0 mg/l may cause mortality. The suspension of sediment during construction has the potential to release constituents of concern within the water column. Once released, these constituents have the potential to degrade water quality and present a potential exposure pathway to aquatic organisms. Organic contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs are often bound to the finer silt and clay fractions of sediments. Metals, such as lead, are often more closely associated with the heavier and larger sediment fraction, but depending on the metal, can be associated with the fines as well. While the particulates are in suspension, the contaminants become more available to biota and can become dissolved into the water itself. Increased turbidity levels associated with in-water construction activities (e.g., breach construction) would be minor, relatively short-lived, and generally localized to the immediate area of construction. Following construction, sediments would disperse and background levels would be restored within hours of disturbance. In addition, normal circulation and strong currents within Lower Walnut Creek would rapidly circulate and disperse water temporarily affected by construction activities. Turbidity plumes would disperse within a matter of hours, a nd the particulate concentrations would be diluted to levels that would pose a less-than-significant threat to water quality or aquatic wildlife. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-51 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The project will also result in the net creation of tidal channel habitat (see Table 1 in Chapter 1, Project Description). In order to provide access to this habitat, breaches will need to be excavated to connect the interior tidal channel network to lower Walnut Creek, and the Delta as whole. Breach construction will result in temporary and permanent alterations to the existing benthic habitat. This could temporarily reduce the diversity and productivity of benthic habitat in the immediate vicinity. Recovery of benthic infaunal and epifaunal communities following disturbance is controlled by many physical and ecological factors, including: the areal extent of disturbance; construction methods; the temporal occurrence of the disturbance relative to natural recruitment; the species composition of adjacent undisturbed sediments; the sediment composition after disturbance; and other factors. A review indicates that benthic communities living in fine mobile deposits, such as occur in most estuaries, are characterized by large populations of a diversity of species that are well adapted to rapid recolonization of deposits that are subject to frequent disturbance.54 Recolonization of disturbed areas usually by opportunistic species characterized by the early stages of secondary succession, and is followed by an increased diversity of species that are longer-lived and slower growing as the succession progresses. Removal of sediment and resulting disturbed habitat effects are considered temporary as the benthic community is expected to recover or re-colonize over a short period of time. Breaching would occur during the LTMS in-water work window, and during low tide, to avoid and minimize temporary adverse effects on delta and longfin smelt. The negative effect on aquatic life from these project components is likely to be minimal and offset by the significant net increase in benthic habitat through the enhancement of the existing tidal channel network. This impact is considered less than significant. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under Impact a.1 Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance are not expected to impact special-status fish since this work will occur on the levees and not directly within the aquatic environment. Implementation of the District’s standard RMA BMPs will ensure no runoff, siltation, or accidental discharge occurs during routine levee maintenance. Thus, the proposed levee inspection and maintenance would not have the potential to significantly impact aquatic habitats. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Public access and recreational facility construction will not occur within aquatic habitat with the exception of installation of piles and a floating dock, if that option is selected. Additionally, increases in kayaking and other modes of aquatic recreation is not expected to cause additional impacts to aquatic species. These activities are likely to occur at low densities and, as no increase 54 Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J., and Hitchcock, D.R., 1998. The impact of dredging work in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 36:127–178. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-52 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision in motorized vessel traffic is expected to occur, cause only limited disturbance to the aquatic environment. Thus, no impact to aquatic species is expected occur. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Recent documentation on the populations of pelagic fish within the Delta and Suisun Marsh continue to show a significant decline in abundance, placing the continued viability of many populations in serious jeopardy.55 As such, restoration or enhancement projects with the potential to benefit either species are of paramount importance. Implementation of the project will immediately create tidal channel habitat for all listed aquatic species. Additionally, the construction of marsh ponds and sandy alkaline wetlands will facilitate conditions in which aquatic productivity and export to the surrounding area increases. Both of these benefits may aid with the recovery of both native delta fish populations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-6: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status fish. In summary, construction-related impacts on special-status fish would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Construction Work Window, Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat and Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Fish and Marine Mammal Protection During Pile Driving would reduce the impact of project construction on special-status fish to less-than-significant by restricting the timing of in-water work to periods in which special-status aquatic species are unlikely to be present, and by ensuring the water quality effects of in-water work are no threat to aquatic species and occur at less than significant levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Construction Work Window for Special-Status Fish To minimize or avoid the loss of individual special-status fish species, in water work shall be limited to September 1 – November 30. If in water work cannot be avoided during this period, measures outlined in Mitigation Measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 shall also be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat Prior to the start of construction of the tidal connector channels, the District shall isolate the work area from Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creeks using a silt curtain with a floating boom installed at the confluence of the new tidal channels and the creeks. Installation of the silt curtain shall contain turbidity and sediment resulting from construction activity, exclude fish from access to the active construction area, and allow water to pass between the connector channels and the creeks with the tides. The curtain shall span the width of the connector channel and shall be at least 6 feet tall to maintain a fish barrier at high tide. The curtain will consist of permeable filter fabric supported by a line of floats on the 55 La Luz, F. and R. Baxter, 2015. 2014 Status and Trends Report for Pelagic Fishes of the Upper San Francisco Estuary. Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary, IEP Newsletter, volume 28, number 2. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-53 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision water surface and a line of weights on the channel bottom. The curtain shall be monitored and maintained regularly. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Fish and Marine Mammal Protection During Pile Driving Prior to the start of any in-water construction that would require pile driving, the project sponsor shall prepare a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-approved sound attenuation monitoring plan to protect fish and marine mammals, and the approved plan shall be implemented during construction. This plan shall provide detail on the sound attenuation system, detail methods used to monitor and verify sound levels during pile driving activities (if required based on projected in-water noise levels), and describe best management practices to reduce impact pile-driving in the aquatic environment to an intensity level less than 183 dB (sound exposure level, SEL) impulse noise level for fish at a distance of 33 feet, and 160 dB (root mean square pressure level, RMS) impulse noise level or 120 dB (RMS) continuous noise level for marine mammals at a distance of 1,640 feet. The plan shall incorporate, but not be limited to, the following best management practices:  All in-water construction shall be conducted within the established environmental work window between June 1 and November 30, designed to avoid potential impacts to fish species.  To the extent feasible vibratory pile drivers shall be used for the installation of all support piles. Vibratory pile driving shall be conducted following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “Proposed Procedures for Permitting Projects that will Not Adversely Affect Selected Listed Species in California.” USFWS and NMFS completed Section 7 consultation on this document, which establishes general procedures for minimizing impacts to natural resources associated with projects in or adjacent to jurisdictional waters.  A soft start technique to impact hammer pile driving shall be implemented, at the start of each work day or after a break in impact hammer driving of 30 minutes or more, to give fish and marine mammals an opportunity to vacate the area.  If during the use of an impact hammer, established NMFS pile driving thresholds are exceeded, a bubble curtain or other sound attenuation method as described in the NMFS-approved sound attenuation monitoring plan shall be utilized to reduce sound levels below the criteria described above. If NMFS sound level criteria are still exceeded with the use of attenuation methods, a NMFS-approved biological monitor shall be available to conduct surveys before and during pile driving to inspect the work zone and adjacent waters for marine mammals. The monitor shall be present as specified by the NMFS during impact pile driving and ensure that:  The safety zones established in the sound monitoring plan for the protection of marine mammals are maintained.  Work activities are halted when a marine mammal enters a safety zone and resumed only after the animal has been gone from the area for a minimum of 15 minutes. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-54 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Sensitive natural communities are designated by various resource agencies, such as CDFW, or in local policies and regulations, and are generally considered to have important functions or values for wildlife and/or are recognized as declining in extent or distribution, and are considered threatened enough to warrant some level of protection. CDFW tracks communities it believes to be of conservation concern through its California Sensitive Natural Community List.56 These communities are typically considered special-status for the purposes of CEQA analysis.57 Sensitive plant communities identified by CDFW on their California Sensitive Natural Community List are summarized in Table 15 relative to the natural communities described and mapped in the Habitat Assessment. Only those Natural Communities with a rarity ranking of 1 to 3, as well as communities considered sensitive as marked with a ‘Y’ on the California Sensitive Natural Community List, are considered sensitive and are listed here. In addition to the communities listed in Table 15, two other communities were considered for potential impacts. First, sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) was observed during botanical surveys near the mouth of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek. Although this plant has no status as a rare or listed species, “submerged aquatic vegetation” is considered a sensitive natural community with a global and state 3 ranking. Additionally, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) is a “special aquatic site” covered under the Clean Water Act Section 404 guidelines, which also are spelled out in the CFR Part 230, Subpart E, Subsection 230.43.58 Patches of SAV are somewhat ephemeral, and can change location from year to year. Secondly, eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a native marine vascular plant indigenous to the soft- bottom bays and estuaries of the Northern Hemisphere. It has been afforded special management considerations by CDFW, USFWS, NMFS, USEPA, and BCDC and for the purposes of this analysis is considered a sensitive natural community. The species is found from middle Baja California and the Sea of Cortez to northern Alaska along the west coast of North America, and is common in healthy, shallow bays and estuaries. The depth to which this species can grow is a function of light penetration. At greater depths, light is reduced to a level below which photosynthesis is unable to meet the metabolic demands of the plant to sustain net growth. 56 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. List of Sensitive Natural Communities. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed December 20, 2018. 57 California Department of Fish and Game, 2009. Natural Communities. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed June 5, 2019. 58 Legal Information Institute, 2018. 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E – Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites, Section 230.43 Vegetated Shallows. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-230/subpart-E. Accessed December 20, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-55 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 15 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA RELATIVE TO NATURAL COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE HABITAT ASSESSMENT Natural Communities Identified in Habitat Assessment Vegetation Types Present CDFW California Natural Community Natural Community Alliance(s)a State Rarity Rankingb Tidal brackish marsh – low-marsh zone California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), common bulrush (S. acutus), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and non-native species common reed (Phragmites australis) Hardstem and California bulrush marshes Schoenoplectus californicus - Schoenoplectus acutus Schoenoplectus californicus – Typha latifolia GU, S3S4 Tidal brackish marsh – mid-marsh zone bulrush (Bolboschoenus spp.) and common reed, pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica),and non- native species perennial pepperweed and fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata) Salt marsh bulrush marshes Bolboschoenus maritimus Bolboschoenus maritimus - Sarcocornia pacifica G4, S3 Tidal brackish marsh – high-marsh zone Dominated by pickleweed and invasive perennial pepperweed. Also salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and gumplant (Grindelia stricta). Pickleweed mats Sarcocornia pacifica – Distichlis spicata G4, S3 Muted tidal marsh pickleweed, fat-hen, and bulrush Pickleweed mats Sarcocornia pacifica – Atriplex prostrata G4, S3 Pickleweed marsh Dominated by pickleweed. Also alkali heath, and non-natives fat- hen, perennial pepperweed, brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Pickleweed mats Sarcocornia pacifica - Frankenia salina G4, S3 Creeping wildrye Dominated by creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides) N/A Leymus triticoides Unranked, but noted as ‘Y’ for Sensitive SOURCES: a Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Available: http://vegetation.cnps.org/. b California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Sensitive Natural Communities. Last Updated October 15, 2018. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Comprehensive eelgrass surveys of the San Francisco Bay-Delta have been conducted in 1987, 2003, 2009, and 2014. The 1987 survey reported a total of 316 acres of eelgrass beds in San Francisco Bay-Delta.59 The 2009 and 2014 surveys, which employed both high resolution acoustic mapping and helicopter aerial imagery, reported 3,707 and 2,790 acres of eelgrass beds, respectively present in San Francisco Bay-Delta. 59 Merkel & Associates. 2014. San Francisco Eelgrass Inventory; October-November 2014. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. November 2014. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-56 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision During the 2014 survey effort a series of small (< 0.1 acres), disjointed patches of eelgrass were observed along the Suisun Bay shoreline adjacent to Lower Walnut Creek.60 No eelgrass was observed in this location during previous survey years, and its current status is unknown. Eelgrass presence within Suisun Bay likely fluctuates annually based on water salinity. No impact on eelgrass communities are expected to result from project implementation, as any eelgrass within the vicinity would occur outside of the project area. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. The project would include the implementation of construction activities within sensitive natural communities in the project area. Construction activities to support restoration would include mass grading using heavy equipment within sensitive natural communities such as pickleweed marsh, tidal marsh, and creeping wildrye within the North, Middle, and South Reaches. Construction associated with public access and recreational infrastructure would occur in existing upland habitat. Recreational infrastructure-related construction activities that could impact sensitive natural communities include clearing and grubbing, and grading and fill used to construct trails and wildlife viewing platforms in the North Reach. However, these facilities would be constructed to avoid sensitive natural communities such as creeping wildrye. Vegetation management would include removal of creeping wildrye for the purpose of collection, propagation and re-vegetation post-restoration and would result in no net loss of creeping wildrye. As described in the Chapter 1, Project Description, graded areas will be planted as soon as possible after construction to stabilize the newly graded soil while also being timed with late fall/early winter rain events. This would minimize adverse impacts from erosion on sensitive natural communities within the construction areas. Additionally, the project would comply with SWPPP and erosion control requirements to reduce or eliminate the offsite migration of pollutants and sediment to sensitive natural communities. Indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities could also occur if invasive species are introduced or spread throughout the site by equipment or if construction activities extend into sensitive natural communities outside of the work area and disturb those areas with construction equipment. The project would implement vegetation management, which would reduce the concentration of invasive non-native plant species, and propagate native upland species. The net creation of sensitive natural communities (i.e., non-tidal pickleweed, tidal brackish marsh and tidal pickleweed marsh) is summarized under the Habitat Restoration and Conversion section below. No construction activities would occur within the current locations of Sago pondweed (i.e., near the mouths of Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek); however, submerged aquatic vegetation can be somewhat ephemeral, changing locations over time. Direct impacts could result if a floating dock and pile supports are installed in a location where Sago pondweed is located. 60 Merkel & Associates. 2014. San Francisco Eelgrass Inventory; October-November 2014. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. November 2014. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-57 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Breeching levees along Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek upstream of Sago pondweed may indirectly impact this community by temporarily increasing suspended sediments that may cover the pondweed. Therefore, construction would result in a potentially significant impact. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance would occur on the levees, which do not occur in sensitive natural communities, but may occur adjacent to submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., sago pondweed); therefore, bank repairs may have potential to cause soils to enter adjacent waters. However, this would be offset by the long-term benefit of stabilizing the banks and preventing future sedimentation. Maintenance activities in jurisdictional areas will follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. In both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas, standard BMPs to avoid erosion and accidental releases into adjacent waterways will be implemented including, but not limited to, use of wattles or silt fencing and covering stockpiles. Ongoing maintenance activities are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on sensitive natural communities. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Preliminary designs of the public access and recreational facilities indicate that hiking trails and wildlife viewing points would be constructed in what are currently upland habitats. Post- restoration, as tidal action is restored to the project area, an estimated 0.35 miles of the trails would be in the vicinity of sensitive natural communities, such as tidal wetland and channels. However, the project would include elevated trails, 8 feet wide and 10 to 30 feet above sea level, and bridges that span tidal channels, allowing hikers to avoid sensitive natural habitats, and wildlife viewing points in the vicinity of tidal marsh would have taller guardrails, solid fencing and educational signage to discourage the public from straying off of trails. A proposed trail running east-west to a wildlife viewing area would be near a new channel that would be excavated west of Lower Walnut Creek as part of the restoration project. This trail would be in the vicinity of tidal marsh once post-restoration tidal action converts upland grassland into tidal marsh. Because the trail would be 8-feet wide and 10- to 30-feet above sea level, and because there are no trails or other features north or south of the trail that would encourage short-cutting through creation of “bootleg trails”, there is a low probability that hikers would trample or disturb sensitive natural communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Habitat Restoration and Conversion Vegetation management activities would include collection, propagation and re-vegetation of creeping wildrye, resulting in no net loss of creeping wildrye habitat. Seasonal wetlands and lowland grasslands would be restored as a mosaic on the landscape, and would contain target vegetation (e.g. creeping wildrye, sedges, rushes, and forbs). The net creation of sensitive natural communities (i.e., non-tidal pickleweed, tidal brackish marsh and tidal pickleweed marsh) would 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-58 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision result from the project (see Table 1). Short-term loss and disturbance to sensitive natural communities would be offset by long-term increases in sensitive natural communities. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-7: The project would result in potential impacts on sensitive natural communities. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures, described under Impact a) above, Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat, and the following Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters, BIO-11: Develop and Implement a Restoration Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program and Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Protection of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Fish Habitat would reduce construction-related impacts to less than significant by ensuring that sensitive natural communities are delineated and, to the extent feasible, avoided; minimizing impacts by developing and implementing an erosion control plan and SWPPP; using a silt curtains to protect submerged aquatic vegetation; avoiding the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species; using only pesticides certified by the USEPA for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments, and monitoring the vegetation and geomorphology for adaptive management to meet the goals of the project. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational and long-term effects of the project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters The District’s construction contractor(s) shall implement the following general avoidance and minimization measures to protect sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and waters during construction:  Work areas shall be delineated with stakes and flagging prior to construction to avoid sensitive natural resources outside of the project area. Any construction-related disturbance outside of these boundaries, including driving, parking, temporary access, sampling or testing, or storage of materials, shall be prohibited without explicit approval of the District and biologist.  The introduction of exotic plant species shall be avoided through physical or chemical removal and prevention. Measures to prevent the introduction of exotic plants into the project site via vehicular sources shall include vehicle cleaning for vehicles coming to the site and leaving the site. Earthmoving equipment shall be cleaned prior to transport to the project area. Weed-free rice straw or other certified weed-free straw shall be used for erosion control.  Construction equipment shall not be stored in sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or waters.  Only herbicides to be used will be USEPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-59 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Develop and Implement a Restoration Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program The District will develop and submit a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan to be implemented during the monitoring period to assure desired outcomes. The plan will be submitted to the CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and BCDC prior to the start of construction. Elements of this plan shall be based upon final project design and construction documents. The plan shall include description of protocols for monitoring vegetation and geomorphology to evaluate project performance, monitoring schedule, performance criteria and thresholds that would trigger adaptive management actions, and reporting. An annual report shall be prepared and provided to the above-listed regulatory agencies in each year that post-construction monitoring is conducted. Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Protection of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Fish Habitat Prior to the start of construction or other habitat restoration and conversion activities, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (e.g., sago pondweed) at the shoreline of the North Reach. Locations of SAV shall be mapped in GIS, and the biologist shall establish an adequate buffer area to exclude activities that would directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the SAV. Buffers shall be shown on maps and construction drawings to ensure avoidance. If construction work cannot avoid the SAV buffers, a biologist will be on-site during in-water work to ensure that the SAV is avoided. No construction activity, including grading, will be allowed until the above steps are completed. If direct impacts cannot be avoided, the District shall consult with the CDFW to devise a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) salvage and replant native SAV at the same location following construction; 2) salvage and relocate the native SAV to a suitable off-site location with long-term assurance of site protection; 3) collect seeds or other propagules of native SAV for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual native SAV plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere. In the event that non-native species of SAV are impacted during construction, impacts would be offset using native species such as sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata). Any native SAV observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW. 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? (Less than Significant) “Waters of the United States,” are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) as rivers, streams, mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters. These waters fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, the Corp regulates navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Navigable waters are defined as those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide or that are presently used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-60 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Control Board (RWQCB) regulates CWA Section 404 waters and RHA Section 10 waters under Section 401 of the CWA. The RWQCB also regulates waters of the state under the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the state are broadly defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” A wetland delineation was conducted by ESA on January 5 and 6, and on April 28, 2017 within the majority of the project area. The delineation used the “Routine Determination Method” as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.61 The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).62 For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed. Wetlands and waters were classified using commonly accepted habitat types. In areas outside the 2017 wetland delineation study area, but within the project area, past delineations completed for other projects that have been verified by USACE were used to map wetlands and waters. Wetland delineations completed by others includes the south section of the north reach and west section of the south reach.63,64 All wetlands and waters within the project area are shown in Table 16. TABLE 16 POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. AND OF THE STATE IN THE PROJECT AREA Feature Type Area (acres) Section 404 Waters Wetlands Tidal marsh 196.30 Pickleweed marsh 134.06 Seasonal wetland 1.33 Total Wetlands 331.69 Other Waters Tidal Channel 71.41 Pond 3.09 Scald 17.94 Total Other Waters 92.44 Total Area of Wetland and Other Waters Features 424.13 61 Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 62 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 63 LSA, 2012. Tesoro Waterfront Road Pipelines, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California, Waters of the United States. 64 Salix Consulting, Inc. 2015. Conco Development Martinez Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination February 5, 2016. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-61 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The wetlands and waters within the project area include 424.13 acres of potentially state and federally jurisdictional wetlands and other waters. Potentially jurisdictional features are provided in Table 16. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. The project would include the implementation of construction activities and vegetation management activities within potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters in the project area. Graded areas would be planted as soon as possible after construction to stabilize the newly graded soil to minimize adverse impacts from erosion on potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Additionally, adherence with the project’s SWPPP would reduce or eliminate the migration of pollutants into adjacent wetlands and waters. Construction associated with public access and recreational infrastructure would occur in existing upland habitat. Recreational infrastructure- related construction activities that could impact sensitive natural communities include clearing and grubbing, and grading and fill used to construct trails and wildlife viewing platforms in the North Reach. However, these facilities would be constructed to avoid wetlands. Breeching of the tidal channels along the Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek could indirectly impact waters within these creeks by increasing suspended sediments. Additionally, construction impacts to wetlands could occur if invasive species are spread by equipment or if construction activities extend into wetlands or waters outside of the work area and disturb those areas with construction equipment. These impacts would be potentially significant. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance would occur on the levees, which do not occur in wetlands, but activities may occur adjacent to wetlands and bank repairs may have potential to cause soils to enter adjacent waters. Maintenance activities in jurisdictional areas would follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. In both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas, standard BMPs to avoid erosion and accidental releases into adjacent waterways would be implemented including, but not limited to, use of wattles or silt fencing and covering stockpiles. Ongoing maintenance activities are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on wetlands. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Preliminary designs of the public access and recreational facilities indicate that hiking trails and wildlife viewing points would be constructed in what are currently upland habitats. A proposed a trail running east-west to a wildlife viewing area near a new channel that would be excavated west of Lower Walnut Creek as part of the restoration project. This trail would be in 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-62 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision the vicinity of tidal marsh once post-restoration tidal action converts upland grassland into tidal marsh. Because the trail would be 8 feet wide and 10 to 30 feet above sea level, and because there are no trails or other features north or south of the trial that would encourage short-cutting through creation of “bootleg trails,” there is a low probability that hikers would trample or disturb wetlands. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Habitat Restoration, Public Access Features, and Conversion Restoration would result in the conversion of existing non-tidal wetlands and waters to tidal wetlands and waters. A portion of this increase would be from the creation of these features from existing non-jurisdictional features, while the remainder would be from the change of non-tidal wetlands and waters to these tidal features from the restoration of wetland hydrology to the Project area. Overall, the project would directly restore and enhance approximately 130 acres of tidal wetland, 21 acres of non-tidal wetlands, 14 acres of tidal waters, and 4 acres of non-tidal waters. In addition, long-term habitat evolution due to sea-level rise and future benefits to existing adjacent habitats due to increased ecological connectivity and improved tidal hydrology within the next 50 years would benefit and enhance wetlands, waters, and upland areas adjacent to the project site, resulting in an estimated 100 acres of additionally enhanced habitat. Although there would be some conversion of non-tidal wetlands and waters to tidal and wetlands and waters, the project would result in an overall net increase in wetlands and waters and would increase the ecological function of the wetlands and waters on-site. Therefore, the project would have long- term benefits to the extent and function wetlands and waters and would result in less-than- significant impacts to wetlands and waters. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-8: The project would result in potential impacts on wetlands and other waters. Based on the analysis presented above, construction-related activities would significantly impact wetlands and other waters. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters, described under Impact a) and Impact b) above, would reduce impacts to less than significant by isolating the in-water work area to isolate suspended sediments to the work area, restricting work activities to within the construction footprint, and by avoiding the introduction and spread of weeds. Although the project would include grading and vegetation management activities within potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters, and temporal loss of wetlands and waters during construction, these activities would support the goals of habitat restoration and would result in a net increase in wetlands and waters. The project would result in long-term benefits, and therefore the potential operational/long-term impact on wetlands and waters is less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-63 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 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? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The project area is located within the Pacific Flyway, which includes the entire San Francisco Estuary. While exact migratory corridors through the area are unknown and vary by species, birds typically follow coastlines, rivers, and mountain ranges in their migratory passages from wintering to breeding grounds and back again. In addition, special-status fish species may temporarily utilize the lower Walnut Creek channel as a movement corridor. However, their presence within the project area would only be temporary and would likely occur outside the window in which in- water construction is proposed. Native wildlife nursery sites primarily refer to individual nesting birds as well as colonial nesting birds; the former are known to be present within the project area. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Native wildlife nursery sites include individual nesting birds, as well as heron, egret and cormorant rookeries. The project site has no known heron or egret rookeries, and no stands of vegetation (i.e., tall trees or shrubs) that would provide potential rookery sites; therefore, no direct impacts to rookeries are expected. Individual nesting birds could potentially nest on the project site and could be directly or indirectly impacted by the project construction, as described under Impact a), above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce these impacts to less than significant, as described under Impact a). Therefore, impacts to terrestrial wildlife corridors resulting from project construction would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation. No impacts from aquatic construction activities on fish migration corridors are expected as a result of project implementation. All construction work that is expected to take place within the aquatic environment would occur within NMFS-approved work windows, when migratory fish presence is unlikely. However, construction-related water quality impacts could be potentially significant on migratory fish, if present during construction work. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact BIO-9: The project would result in potential construction-related impacts on movement of native resident or migratory fish species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Construction-related impacts are not expected to significantly impact wildlife movement or wildlife corridors, but would result in potentially significant water quality impacts on migratory fish. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO7: Construction Work Window, Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat, described under Impact a), would ensure that construction would occur when migratory fish presence is unlikely and water 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-64 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision quality impacts associated with in-water construction would be confined to the immediate area of the activity and would reduce potential impacts on migratory fish corridors to less than significant. Individual nesting birds could potentially nest on the project site and could be directly or indirectly impacted by the project construction, as described under Impact a), above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds, Except Rails, and Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail would reduce these impacts to less than significant, as described under Impact a). Therefore, impacts to terrestrial wildlife corridors resulting from project construction would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Maintenance Levee inspections and maintenance are not expected to impact wildlife corridors since this work would not interfere with the movement of terrestrial, avian, or aquatic species and would not impact nursery sites. Bank repairs may have potential to cause soils to enter adjacent waters; however, this would be offset by the long-term benefit of stabilizing the banks and preventing future sedimentation. Maintenance activities in jurisdictional areas would follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. In both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas, standard BMPs to avoid erosion and accidental releases into adjacent waterways would be implemented including, but not limited to, use of wattles or silt fencing and covering stockpiles. Therefore, ongoing maintenance activities would result in less-than-significant impact on wildlife corridors and nursery sites. Public Access and Recreational Facilities The project site is located within the Pacific Flyway along the southern shoreline of Suisun Bay. The waters of the Bay, including the wetland around Suisun Bay, provide valuable stopover habitat for migratory birds. Restoration would result in the creation of seasonal wetlands and tidal marsh ponds, which can provide resting and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. The North Reach public access plan includes a 3,600 square foot interpretive/ education center that would be available on a limited basis for some nighttime events, for which it is assumed there would be internal lighting, and there would be low-level lighting in the parking lot and access paths immediately adjacent to the parking lot. The proposed structures, by providing a new nighttime light source, was evaluated for the risk of increasing nighttime bird collisions compared to existing conditions. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-65 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Many bird collisions are induced by artificial night lighting, particularly from large buildings, which can be especially problematic for migrating songbirds since many are nocturnal migrants.65 Direct effects on migratory as well as resident birds moving through an area could include death or injury as the birds collide with lighted structures and other birds that are attracted to the light, as well as collisions with glass during the daytime, while indirect effects for migratory birds include delayed arrival at breeding or wintering grounds, and reduced energy stores necessary for migration, winter survival, or subsequent reproduction.66 The project site is located in a generally industrial and urban setting and surrounded by many other light sources that raise ambient light levels at night. Development facilitated under the proposed project is expected to result in a minor increase in the amount of light and glare generated at the project site. Although the proposed project is located in proximity to San Francisco Bay, given the small size of the proposed building compared to the adjacent significant light sources, the proposed project does not provide a significant new source of light that would act as an attractant for nocturnal migrating birds, resulting in collisions and avian mortality. Therefore, based on the above analysis, impacts would be less than significant. Habitat Restoration and Conversion As described under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.3. California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail, the project would restore and enhance tidal channels and tidal wetland habitats and improve the ecological function of these habitat types in Lower Walnut Creek. These ecological improvements would benefit fish migratory species. In particular, recent documentation on the populations of pelagic fish within the Delta and Suisun Marsh continue to show a significant decline in abundance, placing the continued viability of many populations in serious jeopardy. As such, restoration or enhancement projects with the potential to benefit native and migratory species are of paramount importance. In addition, the increase in tidal marsh habitat would benefit nursery (i.e., nesting) sites for individual nesting marsh species, such as Ridgway’s rail and black rail. The project would result in potential operational/long-term impacts on movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As presented in the previous operation/long-term impact discussions, upon completion, the project would benefit native and migratory wildlife species. Therefore, operation/long-term impacts on movement of native and migratory wildlife and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. 65 Ogden, L.E., 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds, Special Report for the World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness Program, September 1996. Available: www.flap.org. Accessed February 2, 2015. 66 Gauthreaux, S.A., Belser, C.G., 2006. Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Migrating Birds, In: Rich, C. and Longcore, T., Ecological Consequences of Night Lighting. Covelo, CA: Island Press, 2006. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-66 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than Significant) Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance The project area is within unincorporated Contra Costa County, which has a Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 816-6) that protects trees that are adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area, or part of a stand of four or more trees, measures twenty inches or larger in circumference, and is included in a list of indigenous trees in section 816-6.6004. In addition, Chapter 816-4.402 of the Ordinance Code protects heritage trees, defined as any tree or group of trees that meets any of the following criteria: seventy-two inches or more in circumference, having historical or ecological interest or significance, being dependent upon each other for health or survival, or being considered an outstanding specimen of its species as to such factors as location, size, age, rarity, shape, or health. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 - 202067 Chapter 8, Conservation Element, and Chapter 7, Public Facilities/Services Element, of the Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) outlines goals and policies developed for resource protection and flood control in the unincorporated County. One of the County’s Overall Conservation Policies states that watersheds, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations shall be preserved and enhanced. The General Plan also includes the following specific goals: the preservation and restoration of the natural characteristics of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and adjacent lands; the protection of rare, threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants, and significant plant communities; a significant net increase in wetland values and functions; maintain the ecology and hydrology of creeks and streams and provide an amenity to the public, while at the same time preventing flooding, erosion and danger to life and property; enhance opportunities for public accessibility and recreational use of creeks; and protect and enhance the natural resources associated with creeks and the Delta, and their riparian zones, without jeopardizing the public health, safety, and welfare. The General Plan also specifically recognizes the value of wetland areas, especially the salt marshes and tidelands of the bay and delta. Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the restoration project, public access and recreational facilities, and vegetation management are summarized under Construction Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. As described in the previously in this section, field surveys have been conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biotic resources on the project area. The project requires removal of one species of shrub/tree in the project area as part of vegetation management, a non-native saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), which the California Invasive Plant Council rates as a “high” threat to California’s natural ecology.68 This species does not meet the 67 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 2005. County of Contra Costa General Plan 2005 – 2020. 68 California Invasive Plant Council. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/. Accessed December 10, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-67 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision definitions of a protected or heritage tree under the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance.69 Construction activities would result in tidal marsh habitat restoration that would provide long- term benefits to several special-status species as described under Impacts a), above, and mitigation measures described under Impacts a), b) and c) would protect special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and protected wetlands and waters during construction. The project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. All construction activities would be consistent with the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operational/Long-term Impacts Ongoing maintenance activities, public access and recreational facilities, and habitat restoration and conversions are summarized under Operational/Long-term Impacts under a.1. Western Pond Turtle analysis, above. Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance Activities Impacts associated with ongoing monitoring and maintenance would be short duration (i.e., on the order of hours to days) and infrequent, and would be a continuation of comparable operations and maintenance activities currently implemented by the District on existing levees. Mitigation measures described under Impacts a), b) and c) would protect special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and protected wetlands and waters. In addition, maintenance activities in jurisdictional areas would follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. In both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional areas, standard BMPs to avoid erosion and accidental releases into adjacent waterways would be implemented including, but not limited to, use of wattles or silt fencing and covering stockpiles. These practices are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Levee inspections and maintenance would not conflict with local policies or ordinance since this work would not occur in biologically rich areas or require removal of trees; furthermore, the work does not have the potential for impacting adjacent aquatic habitats. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance activities are expected to have a less-than- significant impact. Public Access and Recreational Facilities Chapter 9: Open Space Element of the General Plan acknowledge the value of the County providing major parks to serve the urbanized areas because they are essential to the physical and mental well-being of all segments of their populations, and because preservation of lands for outdoor recreation also assists in conservation of the county's unique natural, scenic, or cultural resources. The development of public access and recreation infrastructure would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and there would be no impact. 69 Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 816-6). 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-68 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Habitat Restoration and Conversion The project would restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats and improve the ecological function and quantity, quality, and connectivity of these habitat types in Lower Walnut Creek, while improving flood control protection; these outcomes would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and there would be no impact. 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? (No Impact) Within Contra Costa County, there is an approved East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan,70 however, the project area is not within the Plan inventory area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted or approved local or regional conservation plan and there would be no impact. 70 Jones and Stokes, 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/archive/final-hcp-rev/final_hcp_ nccp.html. Accessed December 10, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-69 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.5 Cultural Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — 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) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Discussion Background ESA staff completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on September 15, 2015.71 The purpose of the background research was to (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the vicinity of the proposed project; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary ev aluation of cultural resources. Records at the NWIC indicate that 12 cultural resources studies have been completed within a ½-mile radius of the proposed project site. These studies include background research, pedestrian surveys, and a subsurface investigation. Three studies have been completed within the proposed project site, including subsurface archaeological testing along Walnut, Pacheco, and Grayson creeks.72 The subsurface testing included observation of 13 core samples (five within the proposed project site), each excavated to approximately 40 feet below ground surface. None of the samples contained evidence of cultural resources including midden soil, shell, bone, or other artifacts. Results of the background research indicate that there are no previously identified cultural resources within the proposed project site. Six cultural resources, including four historic -era archaeological resources, a historic-era railroad segment, and one prehistoric site have been identified in the project vicinity (Table 17). University of California, Berkeley archaeologist, N.C. Nelson, originally recorded the nearest prehistoric resource, shell midden CA-CCO-249, during his survey of the San Francisco Bay Area in 1907–1908.73 This site is on the east side of Walnut Creek, outside of the project area. Subsequent survey efforts in more recent years have 71 Northwest Information Center, File No. 15-0448 California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. On file at ESA, September 15, 2015. 72 Tremaine and Associates, Cultural Resources Subsurface Testing of Proposed Levee Improvements along Walnut, Grayson, and Pacheco Creeks, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared for Hultgren and Tillus. On file (S-67002), Northwest Information Center, 2009. 73 Nelson, N.C., Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 7, No. 4, University of California Publications, Berkeley, CA, 1909. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-70 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision not relocated the site and no additional data is available. The site may have been destroyed during the course of earlier agricultural activities, and cultural constituents may have either been capped by later placement of fill or have been paved/built over. Additionally, the re-alignment of Pacheco Creek and subsequent maintenance activities may have contributed to obscuring or eliminating the site. TABLE 17 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDED WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Trinomial Primary # Site Type Distance from Project CA-CCO-249 P-07-000130 Prehistoric habitation site 250 feet east CA-CCO-697H P-07-000438 Historic-era farmstead 1,300 feet west CA-CCO-732H P-07-000806 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Adjacent to the south --- P-07-002674 Historic-era refuse concentration and foundation 1,300 feet south --- P-07-002675 Historic-era refuse concentration 150 feet southwest --- P-07-002921 Historic-era refuse concentration 3,000 feet east SOURCE: NWIC, 2015 The nearest historic-era archaeological site is an artifact concentration designated as P-07- 002675. The site was recorded during monitoring for installation of a pipeline and consists of fragments of at least 45 bottles and jars. The objects are common components of other deposits associated with mid-twentieth century rural residences and because of the relatively late date of manufacture, as well as the nature of the objects themselves, the assemblage was recommended not historically significant.74 Most of the project area was historically tidal marsh and is underlain by weak compressible clays and silts commonly referred to as bay mud. In general, areas within the historic marsh footprint that are now above natural marsh elevations have been subject to fill placement. In the late 1960s, the lowest four miles of Walnut and Pacheco creeks became part of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project. Levees were constructed along the creek banks and the Walnut Creek channel was dredged to provide flood conveyance. On November 14, 2017, an ESA archaeologist monitored a geotechnical boring in the South Reach portion of the proposed project site. The first 5 feet of the boring consisted of loose, dry, brown dirt. Below this, bay mud was encountered. This dark, wet, dense mud continued well below 18 feet. No cultural material was identified in the samples, bore hole, or in the area surrounding the sampling location. ESA completed a cursory survey (walking transects no greater than 10 meters wide where feasible, observing from vantage points where access was limited) at both the South and North Reach of the proposed project site. No cultural resources were encountered during the survey. At the South Reach, ground visibility was very low, 5 to 10 percent, due to dense vegetation throughout the area. Vegetation included grasses, thistles, and pickleweed. All of the vegetation 74 Price, Heather, Site Record for P-07-002675. Prepared by William Self Associates. On file, NWIC, 2004. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-71 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision was low-lying, with only a few shrubs in the South Reach that were more than 2 feet high. Where visible, the soil was dry, light brown, and loose, similar to that in the first 5 feet of the bore. At various locations in the South Reach, boot scrapes were used to reveal the ground surface. During the survey, a few fragments of modern brick and concrete were identified, but no historic -era or Native American cultural material was encountered in the survey of the South Reach. Tremaine and Associates75 observed three core samples in the Middle Reach, each excavated to approximately 40 feet below ground surface. None of the samples contained evidence of cultural resources including midden soil, shell, bone, or other artifacts, and no cultural resources were observed on the surface in the Middle Reach proposed project site. At the North Reach, including Option B, a cursory survey was conducted focusing in the northwestern section and the areas adjacent to the access route in the central area. During this survey, areas of greater ground visibility were more carefully inspected for cultural material. The vegetation of the North Reach is similar to that of the South Reach, with grasses, thistles, and pickleweed. The North Reach had a greater variety of the vegetation, than the South, with more low shrubs and ice plants. The soils, where visible, were composed mostly of sand with varying amounts of small pebbles. Ground visibility was overall greater than that of th e South Reach, with 20 to 30 percent visibility. While some modern trash and concrete were identified, no historic-era or Native American cultural material was encountered in the survey of the North Reach. There are no existing buildings or structures on the proposed project site. Most of the project site was historically tidal marsh and is underlain by weak compressible clays and silts commonly referred to as bay mud. In general, areas within the historic marsh footprint that are now above natural marsh elevations have been subject to fill placement. The proposed project site is underlain by marsh deposits of varying thicknesses. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Less than Significant) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, site, or object listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California. The following discussion focuses on architectural and structural resources. Archaeological resources, including those that are potentially historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are addressed below under impact b). The project vicinity has been greatly altered over past 50 years through the construction of the engineered Walnut Creek/Pacheco Creek channel, an extensive network of flood control levees, and several large landfills. Historic maps indicate the proposed project area was within marshland 75 Tremaine and Associates, Cultural Resources Subsurface Testing of Proposed Levee Improvements along Walnut, Grayson, and Pacheco Creeks, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared for Hultgren and Tillus. On file (S-67002), NWIC, 2009. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-72 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision until the mid-1960s when the creeks were channelized and the marsh filled in. The existing levees and other structures were constructed in the mid- to late-1960s. In general, standard utilitarian features such as small earthen levees do not meet the criteria for consideration of eligibility in the California or National Registers unless it is demonstrated that the features are significant as a prime example of their type or constructed by a significant engineer in California history. Research has not indicated that the levees were integral to the history and development of the area and they are not recommended eligible under California Register criterion 1. Research has also not indicated that the levees were constructed by a significant group or engineer, nor are they a prime example of their type; they are not recommended eligible under California Register criteria 2 or 3. In addition, the levees would not provide information that is important to history and they are not recommended eligible under criterion 4. Therefore, the existing levees are not recommended as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA and no further consideration is necessary for the proposed project. As a result of a records search, background research, and a site survey it was confirmed that no historical resources are present on the proposed project site.76 As such, there are no architectural or structural resources on the proposed project site that qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on archaeological resources. A significant impact would occur if a project would cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource. As a result of a records search, background research, and a site survey, it was determined that no archaeological resources are present on the proposed project site. Based on the survey results and environmental context, there is a low potential that unknown archaeological resources could be discovered during project implementation.77 In the unlikely event that a previously unrecorded archaeological resource is identified during project ground disturbing activities and were found to qualify as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, any impacts to the resource resulting from the project could be potentially significant. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact CUL-1: The project would result in potential impacts on archaeological resources. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources would 76 ESA, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project North, Middle, and South Reach Contra Costa County, Cultural Resources Survey Report. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, August 2018. 77 ESA, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project North, Middle, and South Reach Contra Costa County, Cultural Resources Survey Report. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, August 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-73 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This mitigation would ensure that work halt in the vicinity of a find until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment and provide additional recommendations if necessary, including contacting Native American tribes. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Training and Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources Prior to authorization to proceed, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist will conduct a training program for all construction and field workers involved in site disturbance. On-site personnel shall attend a mandatory pre-project training that will outline the general archaeological sensitivity of the area and the procedures to follow in the event an archaeological resource and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered. If prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the contractor shall notify the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District). Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Should any cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the proposed Project, the District shall consult with the Commission. The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on state lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the California State Lands Commission. The District shall retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource as defined by CEQA, construction shall cease in an area determined by the archaeologist until a mitigation plan has been prepared, approved by the District, and implemented to the satisfaction of the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resource is prehistoric). In consultation with the District, the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resources is prehistoric) shall determine when construction can commence. The mitigation plan shall recommend preservation in place, as a preference, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, which shall be reviewed and approved by the District (and Native American representative) prior to any excavation at the resource. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-74 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The records search and background research determined that no human remains are known to exist in the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. While unlikely, if any previously unknown human remains were encountered during ground disturbing activities, any impacts to the human remains resulting from the proposed project could be potentially significant. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact CUL-2: The project would result in potential impacts on human remains. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This measure shall comply with applicable State laws, including Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. This would require work to halt in the vicinity of a find and immediate notification of the County coroner. If the coroner determines the human remains are Native American, they would notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98). Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the contractor shall notify the District. The District shall contact the Contra Costa County Coroner. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted within 24 hours if the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American. The NAHC will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn would make recommendations to the District for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated funerary objects. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-75 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.6 Energy Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. Energy — Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3), this impact analysis evaluates the potential for the project to result in a substantial increase in energy demand and wasteful use of energy during project construction and operation and maintenance. The impact analysis is informed by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The potential impacts are analyzed based on an evaluation of whether construction energy use estimates for the project would be considered excessive, wasteful, or inefficient. Operational energy use would be negligible once the project is complete because of the limited use of energy for the public access and recreation facilities and maintenance activities. a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than Significant) The analysis in this section utilizes the energy input assumptions used to complete the analyses in Section 2.2.3, Air Quality, and Section 2.2.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program, used for those analyses, does not quantify the fuel volume or type for construction-related sources, additional calculations were completed and are summarized below. Project Construction Construction of the project would result in fuel consumption from the use of construction tools and equipment, truck trips to haul material, and vehicle trips generated from construction workers commuting to and from the site. Project construction is expected to consume a total of approximately 125,657 gallons of diesel fuel and 7,534 gallons of gasoline fuel from construction equipment and vendors, hauling, water truck trips, and commuting construction workers. Construction activities and corresponding fuel energy consumption would be temporary and localized, as the use of diesel fuel and heavy-duty equipment would not be a long-term condition of the project. In addition, there are no unusual project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment or haul vehicles that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. In conclusion, construction-related fuel consumption by the project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region. The impact on energy resources during the construction phase of the project would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-76 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Project Operation Once construction is complete, the source of operational emissions are the mobile source emissions from transportation to the Pacheco marsh and its interpretive facility building(s) and energy consumption from operations of the interpretive center. Fuel consumption from visitor travel would be approximately 3,724 gallons of gasoline and 33 gallons of diesel, annually. Energy consumption for the interpretive/educational building would be approximately 33,040 kWh of electricity and 105,520 thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) of natural gas, annually. Public fuel usage due to visiting the Pacheco marsh would not vary from comparable facilities in other parts of the State and would have fuel efficiency measures implemented as required by state law and discussed in impact b) below. The majority of operational activity occurs on weekends as weekday activity is anticipated to be minimal. Public visits to the Pacheco marsh are the majority of energy impacts and are derived from the consumption of transportation fuels. Because the project’s operational impacts on energy resources are primarily driven by limited transportation activity, energy impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less than Significant) The transportation sector is a major end-user of energy in California, accounting for approximately 39 percent of total statewide energy consumption in 2014.78 In addition, energy is consumed in connection with construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure, such as streets, highways, freeways, rail lines, and airport runways. California’s 30 million vehicles consume more than 16 billion gallons of gasoline and more than 3 billion gallons of diesel each year, making California the second largest consumer of gasoline in the world.79 With respect to transportation energy, existing energy standards are promulgated through the regulation of fuel refineries and products, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which mandates a 10-percent reduction in the non-biogenic carbon content of vehicle fuels by 2020. Additionally, there are other regulatory program with emissions and fuel efficiency standards established by USEPA and CARB such as Pavley II/LEV III from California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program and the Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation. CARB has set a goal of 4.2 million Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) on the road by the year 2030.80 Further, construction sites will need to comply with State requirements designed to minimize idling and associated emissions, which also minimizes use of fuel. Specifically, idling of commercial vehicles and off- road equipment would be limited to five minutes in accordance with the Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling Regulation and the Off-Road Regulation.81 In conclusion, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. 78 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. California State Profile and Energy Estimates: Consumption by Sector. Available: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed March 2019. 79 California Energy Commission. 2016. Summary of California Vehicle and Transportation Energy. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/summary.html#vehicles. Accessed March 2019. 80 California Air Resources Board, 2016, Mobile Source Strategy, May 2016. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.htm. Accessed March 2019. 81 California Code of Regulations, 2005. Title 13, Chapter 10, 2485, updated through 2014. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-77 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.7 Geology and Soils Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion The greater San Francisco Bay Area is located in an area of high seismic activity due to its tectonic setting. Surface rupture can occur when the ground surface is displaced due to fault movement at the earth’s surface during seismic events. Such hazards are generally assumed to occur in the vicinity of an active fault trace as they represent an existing plane of weakness. Active faults in the region include the Concord-Green Valley Fault, which runs along the eastern side of the project site, and the Hayward Fault, 13 miles west of the site. While fault rupture has not occurred in the project vicinity, the above-noted Concord-Green Valley Fault Zone poses a risk of surface rupturing.82 The Concord-Green Valley Fault has an estimated slip rate of two to 82 California Geological Survey, 2001. Official Map of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/ website/Hazards/?hlyr=apZones. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-78 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision eight millimeters/year,83 and the USGS estimates a 16% probability that the Concord-Green Valley Fault will experience an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater by the year 2043.84 The State of California, through the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across active fault traces without an adequate geotechnical study to demonstrate the hazard is not present.85 Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) establishes zones on either side of an active fault that delineates areas considered most susceptible to surface fault rupture. These zones are referred to as fault rupture hazard zones and are shown on official maps published by the CGS. The closest active fault to the project area mapped under the Alquist-Priolo Act is the Concord-Green Valley fault which is oriented northwest-southeast and runs along the eastern side of the project site.86 In addition, the project is located approximately 13 miles east of the Hayward Fault, well outside of the respective fault rupture hazard zone for the Hayward Fault. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated subsurface soils lose strength because of increased pore pressure and exhibit properties of a liquid rather than those of a solid. In general, the soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated and fine-grained, and occur close to the ground surface, usually at depths of less than 50 feet. Liquefaction risk maps for Contra Costa County show that soils in the project site have a moderate risk for liquefaction, with a stretch of very high susceptibility soil south of Waterfront Road .87 a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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.) (Less than Significant) Due to the location of an active fault zone along the eastern side of the project, the project has the potential to expose people to property loss or injury/loss of life as a result of fault rupture. The proposed interpretive center may be located in the southwest corner of the North Reach next to 83 U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco bay region: 2000 to 2030²a summary of findings. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-517. Available: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/ of99-517/. 84 Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S. 2016. Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014±2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016±3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020. 85 The Alquist-Priolo Act designates zones that are most likely to experience fault rupture, although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas. The zones are defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS). An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches. A structure for human occupancy is one that is intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy, which is expected to have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person hours per year (Hart, 1997). 86 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1992. The Concord fault, Contra Costa County, California. Released September 30, 1992. 87 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2005. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Source: USGS Open-File Reports 00-444 and 2006-1037. Available: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/#LIQUEFACTION. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-79 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Waterfront Road (see Figure 13). However, this location is just west and outside of the Alquist- Priolo fault zone for the Concord-Green Valley fault. Risks due to seismic shaking and seismic- induced ground failures are discussed in Impacts a.ii) and a.iii) further below. The project would increase visitation to the site due to an expanded recreational trail, some of which would be within the fault zone. However, the use of trails would not expose people to significant risk associated with fault rupture because the project would not include structures on the trail that could increase risk or injury. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, a portion of USBR’s Shortcut Pipeline and a portion of CCWD’s Recycled Water Pipeline would be re-routed, including vertically, to go up and over the levee core. The re-routed pipelines will be constructed in similar geologic conditions and will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse impacts due to fault rupture. Although project construction would include the short-term presence of construction workers in a fault rupture zone, the temporary nature of construction, as well as the lack of structures within the fault zone, would not result in a significant risk to workers. In addition, the project does not include the injection or extraction of groundwater or oil and therefore would not exacerbate the occurrence of fault rupture. Additionally, the construction equipment and associated activities are unlikely to be at risk of damage or to cause injury from the fault rupture. Therefore, the risk of damage to property or injury/loss of life to people as a result of fault rupture is considered less than significant. a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant) Seismic activity in the project area is dominated by the Concord-Green Valley Fault. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) developed Earthquake Shaking Hazard Maps, which predict the potential for ground shaking during major earthquakes on the active faults in the Bay Area. The proposed project is located in an area with high earthquake shaking potential, rated as ‘Violent’ shaking severity on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale for a Magnitude 6.8 earthquake on the Concord-Green Valley fault.88 Predicting seismic events is not possible, nor is providing mitigation that can entirely reduce the potential for injury and damage that can occur during a seismic event. The restoration and enhancement of marsh habitats would not require protection from seismic shaking because no structures would be constructed, other than the interpretive center described further below. As discussed in Chapter 1, Project Description, the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline would be re-routed vertically to go up and over the levee core. This re-routing to a surface crossing would occur along the same alignment and would not change the pipelines exposure to seismic shaking from existing conditions. The re-routed pipelines would be designed and constructed in a manner to withstand seismic shaking. The interpretive center is the only structure proposed for the project that would place people inside a structure. Strong seismic shaking could damage the structure, resulting in risks to people. 88 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. Shaking Scenarios Map. Based on US Geological Survey. Available: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=haywardSouthNorth. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-80 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Because the interpretive center would have people for up to 8 or more hours a day, the design of the structure would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC and local building ordinances would require that the structural elements of the interpretive center would undergo appropriate design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction. The geotechnical investigation would include any necessary recommendations for soils remediation and/or foundation systems necessary to reduce seismic-related hazards to less than significant. Implementing the regulatory requirements in the CBC and local ordinances, and ensuring that buildings and structures are constructed in compliance with the law is the responsibility of the project engineers and building officials. The CBC describes required standards for the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California. The standards include earthquake design requirements that determine the seismic design category and then describe the structural design requirements. The geotechnical engineer, as a registered professional with the State of California, is required to comply with the CBC and local codes while applying standard engineering practice and the appropriate standard of care for the particular region in California. The California Professional Engineers Act (Building and Professions Code Sections 6700–6799), and the Codes of Professional Conduct, as administered by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, provides the basis for regulating and enforcing engineering practice in California. The local building officials are typically with the local jurisdiction and are responsible for inspections and ensuring CBC and local code compliance prior to approval of the building permit. As discussed above, the geotechnical investigations would include recommendations to address geotechnical issues, including seismic shaking and seismic-induced ground failures, such as liquefaction and lateral spreading. With compliance with the regulatory requirements and the implementation of geotechnical design recommendations, impacts relative to seismic shaking and seismically induced ground failure would be less than significant. a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant) Seismic shaking can also trigger seismic-induced ground-failures caused by liquefaction. While seismic-induced liquefaction may damage trails and restored habitat areas, the damage would not result in risks to people, and the damaged trails and habitat could be easily repaired. The re- routing of the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline to go vertically up and over the levee core would not change the exposure of either of the pipelines to liquefaction from existing conditions. The interpretive center would be the only proposed structure that would have people inside that could be injured if liquefaction caused structural damage of collapse. However, as discussed above in Impact a.ii), the interpretive center would be constructed in accordance with the current version of the CBC that includes designing the structure to resist damage from liquefaction. With compliance with the regulatory requirements and the implementation of geotechnical design recommendations, impacts relative to seismic-induced ground failure such as liquefaction be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-81 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? (Less than Significant) Landslides generally consist of any type of ground movement that occurs primarily due to gravity acting on an over-steepened slope and can occur due to excessive precipitation, man-made activities, or induced by seismic activity. Areas that are more prone to landslides include old landslides, the bases or tops of steep or filled slopes, and drainage hollows. The project site is in an alluvial plain, formed where Walnut Creek meets Suisun Bay. The relatively flat topography of this area makes landslides unlikely in the project area; landslide risk maps show no risk areas in the project sites. The closest area with landslide risk is just west of the edge of the Southern Reach near Pacheco Creek. The wetlands restoration would not create slopes susceptible to landsliding. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the exposure of people or associated structures to increased risk of loss, injury, or death at the project site due to seismically-induced landslides and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant) Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, trenching, and soil stockpiling. Because the overall footprint of construction activities would exceed one acre, the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit) and the local stormwater ordinances. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 includes a summary of the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. These state and local requirements were developed to ensure that stormwater is managed and erosion is controlled on construction sites. The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which requires applications of BMPs to control runon and runoff from construction work sites. The BMPs would include, but would not be limited to, physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. Compliance with existing regulations would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with soil erosion during construction. Checklist Item 2.2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, provides additional details. In addition, the overall result of project operation and maintenance would result in slowing Walnut Creek flows, which would reduce scour and erosion. Finally, the proposed project is a net zero import-export project; all topsoil would be reused onsite. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-82 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (Less than Significant) As discussed above in Impacts a.iii and a.iv, impacts relative to liquefaction, lateral spreading (a ground failure associated with liquefaction), and landslides would be less than significant. Subsidence and collapse are ground failures that can occur as a result of groundwater or oil extraction. The proposed project does not include the extraction of groundwater or oil and would not otherwise create soil that is unstable. Therefore, impacts would 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property? (No Impact) Soils on the site include Joice Muck and Omni Silty Clay soils,89 both of which are expansive soils. Expansive soils are susceptible to expansion and contraction if subjected to wetting and drying. The change in volume can damage structures. The presence of expansive soils would not prevent the restoration of tidal habitat. While expansive soils may cause cracks in trails, the cracks would be a minor nuisance that would be easily repaired with minor maintenance, assuming the cracks were large enough to become an issue. The re-routing of the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline would occur in similar geologic conditions and would not change the pipelines exposure to expansive soils from existing conditions. Finally, the interpretive center would be the only structure constructed for the project that could experience damage from expansive soils. However, as discussed above in Impact a.ii) the interpretive center would be constructed in accordance with the current version of the CBC that includes designing the structure to resist damage from expansive soils. With compliance with the regulatory requirements and the implementation of geotechnical design recommendations, impacts relative to expansive soils would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact) Septic or wastewater disposal systems are not part of the project; therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact) Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils—particularly vertebrate fossils—are considered to be nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide, fossils are highly significant records of ancient life. 89 Contra Costa County, General Soil Map, 1976. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-83 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Rock formations that are considered of paleontological sensitivity are those rock units that have yielded significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossil remains.90 This includes, but is not limited to, sedimentary rock units that contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within its geographic extent. The proposed project site is underlain by artificial fill over Late Holocene-age bay mud. These types of geologic deposits are too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to have fossilized the remains of organisms, or to have preserved vertebrate fossils. While the bay mud may contain a variety of marine invertebrate remains and organic matter (mollusks, clams, fomanifera, microorganisms, etc.), such remains would not have been buried long enough to become fossilized, are likely to commonly exist in other bay mud deposits around the Bay Area, and would not be considered significant or unique. For these reasons, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, the younger Holocene deposits that would be disturbed for this project would have no paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, the project would have no impact on unique paleontological resources. 90 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources: standard guidelines, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-84 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion The most recently adopted plan to address Greenhouse Gas (GHG) issues for the Bay Area is the 2017 CAP.91 The 2017 CAP provides a regional strategy to protect the climate by transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for 2030 and 2050; and providing a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve those GHG reduction targets. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs”92 that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.93 a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant) Construction activities that would be associated with the project would include site preparation; below ground work such as excavation, trenching, and pipe installation; revegetation and access road improvements; and building and trail construction. Construction activities would occur over a period of more than three years, between May 2020, and December 2023. The majority of the project‐related GHG emissions would be generated on‐site due to the use of heavy‐duty off‐road equipment and a smaller amount of emissions would be generated off-site from trucks transporting equipment and material to the site. The BAAQMD currently has no formal significance threshold for GHG emissions from construction activities as discussed below. The project public access, including an interpretive center with restrooms, a parking/staging area, a trail network, and overlooks, is considered an operational non-stationary source by the District. In the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend an operational significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e.94 BAAQMD has not adopted significance thresholds for 91 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate – Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19. 92 “Super-GHGs” are climate pollutants that have a powerful ability to contribute to global warming such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases. 93 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate – Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19. 94 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate – Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-85 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision construction‐related GHGs; however, it requires that the lead agency disclose those emissions and make a determination of impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 reduction goals. For construction- related GHGs, other air districts (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District) have recommended that total emissions from construction be amortized over 30 years, representing the lifetime of the project, and added to operational emissions and then compared to the operations significance threshold.95 GHG emissions from construction activities were estimated using the CalEEMod emissions model with the same assumptions as discussed in the Air Quality analysis. The results of the CalEEMod run indicate that the project would generate a total of approximately 1,527 metric tons of CO2e over the total construction period. Amortized over an estimated project life of 30 years, the annual GHG emissions from project construction would be 51 metric tons of CO2e. The indirect emissions associated from public access amenities and operations were calculated using CalEEMod with a city park sized at 11.7 acres and an operational year of 2023. The resulting operational emissions would be at 557 metric tons of CO2e per year for project. Refer to Appendix A for all assumptions used to estimate project-related GHG emissions. The sum of project construction and operational GHG emissions would be approximately 608 metric tons CO2e per year. The project would be well below the 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year significance threshold. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. This impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant) The project would be located within the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County (i.e., southern portion of the North Reach and all of the Middle Reach and South Reach) and City of Martinez (i.e., northern portion of the North Reach). The Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) addresses reduction of GHG emissions within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County through a series of 36 local programs and 23 recommended policy measures related to transportation, land use, building energy, water, waste, and green infrastructure. The General Plan, approved in December 2015, would enable the County to reduce its community-wide GHG emissions by 15 percent by the year 2020.96 The project’s emissions of CO2e represent a negligible amount when compared to the total annual GHG emissions generated for the entire County. Furthermore, the project GHG emissions from construction would be a one-time occurrence and would not continually contribute to the County’s annual emissions, nor would it hinder the County’s progress towards its reduction targets. GHG emissions from the operations of the public access amenities and public travel associated its usage and maintenance would be limited to approximately 557 metric tons CO2e emissions per year. Therefore, operational emissions would not result in the project conflicting 95 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, December 5, 2008. 96 Contra Costa County, Climate Action Plan, December 15, 2015. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-86 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant. With regard to consistency with the applicable air district plan, the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. The 2017 CAP does not contain any measures specific to public park buildings or facilities and, therefore, no inconsistency with the 2017 CAP is identified. This impact would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-87 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Environmental Setting Overview The study area for hazards and hazardous materials impacts analysis includes the project site, adjacent staging and laydown areas, and Waterfront Road from which equipment and workers would be transported to the work sites. The project area consists of the North Reach, Middle Reach, South Reach, and the Pacheco Reach, as shown on Figure 1. There are no existing buildings or structures on the proposed project site. Some earthen levees and berms are present along the east sides of the North Reach, Middle Reach, South Reach; along Waterfront Road, which passes between the North and Middle Reaches, and along some of Pacheco Creek. The levees along Walnut Creek were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control. Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek are the primary waterways in the project area, which have slow slack flows and marsh on their fringes. Most of the project site was historically tidal marsh and is underlain by weak compressible clays and silts commonly referred to as bay mud. In general, areas within the historic marsh footprint that are now above natural marsh elevations 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-88 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision have been subject to fill placement. The project site is generally characterized by flat marsh areas adjacent to the creeks, lowland grasslands, and earthen levees. Landfills, Utilities, and Soil The North Reach is a flat, nearly treeless expanse of marsh and grasslands and includes the least disturbed marsh vegetation. There are several east-west pipelines traversing the North Reach, including several aboveground oil pipelines that run parallel to Waterfront Road, crossing through the southern edge of the North Reach. Additionally, the Contra Costa County Sanitation District outfall pipe, which runs in a north-south direction through the site, is underground, but is covered by a gravel road approximately 30 feet wide. Figure 2 shows the locations of the various utilities in the North Reach area. The Middle and South Reaches are more disturbed, in part due to the former Acme Landfill, bounded by the North and Middle Reaches, the former Baker Landfill, bounded by the South Reach and Pacheco Creek, and the former IT-Vine Hill waste disposal ponds, located just west of the southern portion of the Middle Reach (see Figure 2). The former landfills and waste disposal ponds are listed hazardous materials sites as per Government Code Section 65962.5. These waste disposal facilities are closed and capped. The post-closure requirements include visually inspecting the land fill caps and monitoring groundwater quality by sampling wells around the perimeter of the landfill cells. No excavation is proposed or allowed into the landfill caps over the closed landfill cells, and access to all landfill monitoring wells must be maintained. The lowest portions of the Acme landfill cap could be inundated (but not eroded) for brief periods and would not require a new setback levee to provide flood protection. The existing private landfill perimeter access road would be improved to support landfill monitoring and access for District maintenance. New drainage swales would be constructed on the upslope side of the improved perimeter access route to direct stormwater runoff from the landfill into existing non-tidal basins to the north and south of the Middle Reach project area. The Martinez Gas Line (a 10-inch diameter carbon steel natural gas pipeline) owned and operated by Calpine and the Coalinga-Avon Pipeline (a 20-inch concrete coated carbon steel crude oil pipeline) and the Martinez-Shell Point Platformer Off-Gas Line (a 4-inch steel natural gas pipeline) owned and operated by Shell Chemical Company are located within the South Reach (see Figure 2). The Martinez Gas Line and the Martinez-Shell Point Platformer Off-Gas Line are located in a 10-foot wide easement identified as belonging to Shell Chemical Company and the Coalinga-Avon Pipeline and located in a 20-foot wide easement identified as belonging to Tidewater Oil Company. The Shortcut Pipeline, a 48-inch diameter cement-mortar-lined and coated steel water supply pipeline is owned by the USBR but is maintained and operated by CCWD, and it traverses the project site in a 40-foot wide easement running from southeast to northwest located roughly in the middle of the South Reach (see Figures 2 and 6). The Shortcut Pipeline crosses under Walnut Creek and the existing levees along the creek. The CCWD 20-inch Recycled Water Pipeline is located within the South Reach in a 10-foot wide easement running east-west located north of the Shortcut 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-89 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Pipeline. The Recycled Water Pipeline connects to a storage tank on Vine Hill and runs under Pacheco Creek and Walnut Creek towards the Marathon Refinery, but is not currently in use.97 As shown on Figure 2, several closed landfill cells and waste disposal ponds are located adjacent to the west sides of the proposed Middle and South Reach work areas. To research potential soil quality issues related to the former operation of landfills and waste disposal ponds, ESA consolidated available soil quality data from five soil testing investigations into the Soil Quality Assessment provided in Appendix C. The testing results indicated some sample locations that exceeded guidelines for a few chemical compounds. Most of the exceedances are for metals; wetland areas are known to accumulate metals. As shown on Soil Quality Assessment Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix C, the locations of samples with chemical concentrations that exceed guideline and background levels are located within proposed cut and fill areas in no particular pattern. Landfills, Utilities, and Groundwater Being located adjacent to Suisun Bay, Lower Walnut Creek, and Pacheco Creek, the depth to groundwater at the project site is shallow, with the lower elevation portions of the project area undergoing periodic inundation, especially during high tides and significant rain events. Consequently, the grading activities may encounter groundwater. Information on groundwater quality came from the Acme Landfill Monitoring Report.98 Groundwater monitoring wells are located around the Acme Landfill to monitor for any landfill leachate reaching the groundwater, but they monitor for other pollutants as well; pollutants that are being monitored which are of interest to the project are 1,2-dicholorethane, carbon disulfide, tert-butyl alcohol, and tetrahydrofuran. Monitoring data from 10 wells that are located within 50 feet of the project boundary was reviewed to determine if any of the existing groundwater was polluted. The report concludes that leachate is not migrating from the landfill cells to beyond the monitoring wells. In general, there are no pollutants of concern at levels that exceed thresholds in the surrounding groundwater. During pipeline location surveys, the District conducted groundwater sampling in two potholes used during the survey. The sample locations were within the backfill of the existing Shortcut and Recycled Water Pipelines. The results revealed the presence of TPH as diesel (1,900 and 5,700 ug/L) and TPH as motor oil (1,800 and 2,400 ug/L).99 TPH as gasoline and the fuel components of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) were not detected. The detected levels exceed the effluent limitations in the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002), which prohibits the untreated discharge of dewatering fluid with more than 50 ug/L of TPH as diesel and 100 ug/L TPH as motor oil. 97 Paul Detjens and Chris Hentz, personal communication, 2017. 98 RMC Geoscience, Inc., 2018. Acme Landfill East and South Parcels – 2018 Summer-Fall Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report. Prepared for Acme Fill Corporation. 99 Ninyo & Moore, 2019. Water Quality Assessment Report, Lower Walnut Creek, Vine Hill, California. Prepared for FirstCarbon Solutions for Contra Costa County. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-90 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Proximity to Airports and Schools The nearest airport is Buchannan Field; the northernmost portion of the airport is located about 2 miles south of the project area. There are no schools located within 0.25 miles. Proximity to Wildfire Hazards Zones Portions of the Middle, South, and Pacheco Reaches are located within moderate to high fire hazards severity zones.100,101 a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts During the construction phase, construction equipment would use fuels, oils, and lubricants, which are all commonly used in construction. The routine use or an accidental spill of hazardous materials could result in inadvertent releases, which could adversely affect construction workers and the environment. Construction activities would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. Contractors would be required to prepare and implement hazardous materials business plans (HMBPs) as per the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 that requires that hazardous materials used for construction would be used properly and stored in appropriate containers with secondary containment to contain a potential release. The California Fire Code would also require measures for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. Because the project work area is larger than 1 acre, the project proponent and its construction contractor(s) would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements (SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The SWPPP would list the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use during construction; describe spill prevention measures, equipment inspections, equipment and fuel storage; protocols for responding immediately to spills; and describe BM Ps for controlling site runoff. In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials would be regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Together, federal and state agencies determine driver- training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications designed to minimize the risk of accidental release. 100 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, September 19. 101 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, November 7. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-91 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Finally, in the event of a spill that releases hazardous materials at the project component sites, a coordinated response would occur at the federal, state, and local levels. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is the local hazardous materials response team. In the event of a hazardous materials spill, the police and fire departments would be simultaneously notified and sent to the scene to respond and assess the situation. The required compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Once constructed, the project area would function as restored natural habitat and would not require the use of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts During the construction phase, construction equipment would use fuels, oils, and lubricants, which are all commonly used in construction. The routine use or an accidental spill of hazardous materials could result in inadvertent releases, which could adversely affect construction workers and the environment. Construction activities would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. Contractors would be required to prepare and implement hazardous materials business plans (HMBPs) as per the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 that requires that hazardous materials used for construction would be used properly and stored in appropriate containers with secondary containment to contain a potential release. The California Fire Code would also require measures for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. Because the project work area is larger than 1 acre, the project proponent and its construction contractor(s) would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements (SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The SWPPP would list the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use during construction; describe spill prevention measures, equipment inspections, equipment and fuel storage; protocols for responding immediately to spills; and describe BMPs for controlling site runoff. In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials would be regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-92 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Together, federal and state agencies determine driver- training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications designed to minimize the risk of accidental release. Finally, in the event of a spill that releases hazardous materials at the project component sites, a coordinated response would occur at the federal, state, and local levels. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is the local hazardous materials response team. In the event of a hazardous materials spill, the police and fire departments would be simultaneously notified and sent to the scene to respond and assess the situation. The required compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Once constructed, the project area would function as restored natural habitat and would not require the use of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no impact. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project area. Therefore, there would be 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? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is located on and adjacent to hazardous materials sites that are listed on Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the Cortese List. As discussed above in the Setting, the soil testing results indicated some sample locations that exceeded guidelines and background levels for a few chemicals, including cadmium, cobalt, mercury, selenium, zinc, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Most of the exceedances are for metals; wetland areas are known to accumulate metals. The locations of samples with chemical concentrations that exceed guideline and background levels are located within both cut and fill areas in no particular pattern. However, the number of samples with concentrations that exceed background and guidance levels relative to the total number of samples collected and analyzed indicates a relatively low rate of exceedances, largely ten percent or less of the total number of samples. This indicates that while anthropomorphic (human) activities have likely slightly increased the concentrations of a few metals to above background or guidance levels in a few locations, the overall dataset shows the large majority of soil has metals concentrations that are below background and guidance levels. It is important to note that the proposed project is a net zero import-export project, meaning that soil will be moved around but not removed from the site. Thus, the reworking of onsite soil within the project area would result in reducing the concentrations of the smaller number of 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-93 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision samples with concentration exceedances to below guidance and background levels. More importantly, the soil excavated from the cut areas would be placed on fill areas increasing the elevation at those locations. This would result in relocating soil, including some soil with exceedances, to higher elevation locations outside of and above the areas to be periodically flooded by tidal action. By reducing the exposure of some soil to tidal action, the project would also result in reducing the potential for tidal water to mobilize metals, thereby leaving the metals onsite and reducing their ability to migrate offsite. The reworking of soil on this site in a manner that results in a net zero import-export of soil also avoids consuming the capacity of offsite landfills with material that, while slightly above some background and guidance levels for a few samples, is well below hazardous waste levels. For example, the hazardous waste level (Total Threshold Limit Concentration) for selenium is 100 mg/kg, well above the maximum reported onsite concentration of 3.1 mg/kg. In other words, the few soil samples with concentrations above background or guidance levels are not hazardous waste. Finally, given the relatively low number of and sporadic distribution of guidance level exceedances in soil, the risk to the visiting public would also be low. The proposed design of the trails would prevent exposure of the public to onsite soil because the trails are proposed to constructed of 4 inches of decomposed granite on top of 6 inches of aggregate base (sand/gravel mix). The 10-inch thick trails would isolate the few soil exceedances from the public. During the construction activities, construction workers could be in contact with the soil. However, the chemicals detected above guidance levels are relatively immobile. Unlike volatile compounds such as gasoline, the detected chemicals would not present a respiratory hazard. The exposure route, if any, would be dermal (touch) or ingestion (eat). During construction activities, construction workers that may directly or indirectly be exposed to onsite soil or groundwater would perform work in accordance with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) regulations. All site construction activities associated with exposure to onsite soil or groundwater would be required to be conducted in compliance with a site- specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prepared by the contractors to protect workers and the environment from site contaminants. The site-specific HASP would be prepared according to Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 5192 and Title 29 CFR 1910.120 and would include provisions for personal protective equipment to be worn by workers during site redevelopment activities. The District would be required to provide this Soil Quality Assessment report to the contractors to inform the preparation of their HASP. Consequently, the Soil Quality Assessment concluded that the onsite soils are suitable for reuse for the proposed project and the impact would be less than significant. As discussed above in the Setting, shallow groundwater at the northeast and southeast corners of the Conco property had petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range. The sample locations were within the backfill of the existing pipelines that cross east to west across the South Reach. Although these two locations are not specifically identified on the Cortese List, the locations are next to a closed landfill cell. In any case, excavation activities within this area 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-94 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision should anticipate potentially encountering groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons. This location will require dewatering to re-route the existing Shortcut pipeline. Depending on the chemical concentrations, the dewatering fluids may need to be disposed of at a licensed facility permitted to accept the waste. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact HAZ-1: The project would result in potential impacts exposure of public and workers to hazardous materials. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This mitigation measure would establish procedures analyzing the chemical concentrations in dewatering fluids and ensuring the dewatering fluids are disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan The project proponent or its contractor(s) shall develop and implement a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan establishing procedures to manage potentially contaminated fluids encountered as part of the construction of the project to minimize potential impacts to the public or environment from hazardous materials. The Plan shall identify proper protocols to test and handle potentially hazardous materials. The Plan shall identify potential licensed disposal facilities and their acceptance criteria; the chemicals to be analyzed to comply with those acceptance criteria, which shall include at a minimum TPH as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil, and BTEX compounds. The Plan shall identify the proper protocols for the following three dewatering fluid disposal options:  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be discharged to the CCCSD under their Special Discharge Permit, providing the contaminant concentrations are within the Special Discharge Permit acceptance criteria and coverage under this permit is acquired prior to the discharge. The detected levels of diesel and motor oil were within the acceptance criteria of 10,000 ug/L diesel or motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbons acceptance criteria of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Special Discharge Permit (Special Limitations for Groundwater Remediation Projects).  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be pumped into trucks or portable storage containers and transported to an offsite licensed disposal facility permitted to accept the waste.  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be treated onsite under the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002). The pumped groundwater would be pumped into a settling tank to drop the sediments out of solution, and pumped through a treatment system (e.g., granular activated carbon [GAC] to decrease the concentration of TPH as diesel to less than 50 ug/L and TPH as motor oil to less than 100 ug/L. The effluent would be 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-95 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision analytically tested to verify that treatment has achieved the effluent limitations. Upon successful treatment, the water could be discharged to the ground. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The proposed project is located approximately 2 miles north of the Buchannan Airport. However, no structures would be constructed that could interfere with height restrictions on structures near airports. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The majority of construction activities would occur within the habitat area to be restored and not on public roads. Waterfront Road would be used for access but would not require closure or restriction of any lanes. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Once constructed, the project area would not require the use of Waterfront Road. Therefore, there would be no impact. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts As discussed in the Environmental Setting, portions of the Middle, South, and Pacheco Reaches are located within moderate to high fire hazard severity zones. The use of mechanized equipment during construction could cause a wildfire if spark arresting equipment is not installed on hot surfaces such as mufflers. However, the California Vehicle Code, Section 38366, requires spark- arresting equipment on vehicles that travel off-road. This code applies to the program because the vehicles that work in off road areas would be required to have spark-arresting equipment to reduce the risk of wildfires. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Once constructed, the project area would not require the use of off-road mechanized equipment. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-96 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii) create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Discussion Environmental Setting Walnut Creek’s watershed is approximately 146 square miles and occupies 20% of Contra Costa County. 340,000 people live within the watershed and major cities entirely within the watershed include Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Lafayette, and Danville.102 The creek drains Mount Diablo to the east and the Briones Hills and Las Trampas Ridge to the west, joining Suisun Bay to the north. Pacheco Creek is a 3.4-mile-long creek, which flows into Walnut Creek about two miles north of Suisun Bay, and is a minor tributary, draining approximately 2 square miles. The watershed exhibits a Mediterranean climate of warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Mean annual precipitation ranges from approximately 28 inches in the Las Trampas Regional Wilderness to 15 inches near the project area.103 102 https://www.ccrcd.org/walnut-creek-watershed.html. 103 Contra Costa County, 1977. CCCo Mean Seasonal Isoyet Map. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ View/770/CCCo-Isohyet-Map-Low-Color?bidId=. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-97 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Walnut Creek flows at a rate of 82 cubic feet per second (CFS) on average, with slack flows104 in the project area, but during a 100-year flood event, Walnut Creek conveys approximately 25,600 CFS.105 The watershed is highly developed, with approximately 30% of the watershed made up of impervious surfaces such as roads, homes, and parking lots.106 This high level of development, combined with the size of the watershed, made flooding a chronic issue in the 1950’s. In 1965, to alleviate flooding problems, the lower 22 miles of Walnut Creek and the lower reaches of major tributaries were converted to flood control channels.107 Though this reduced the flooding problems, it removed much of the riparian habitat along Walnut Creek. A 2004 survey of Lower Walnut Creek identified two immature willows and one piece of large woody debris along four miles of channel between Highway 4 and Monument boulevard, indicative of severely degraded riparian habitat.108 Despite these changes, lower Walnut Creek still retains tidal and coastal habitats in varying degrees of quality. The project area includes over 400 acres of tidal marsh, tidal waters, non-tidal wetlands, as well as transitional and upland habitat. See Chapter 1, Project Description for more details on habitat and Figure 3, Existing Habitat Types. Surface Water Hydrology: Drainage and Flooding The levees along the west bank of Walnut Creek and along Pacheco Creek are owned and maintained by the District, with efforts targeted to protect the most sensitive infrastructure while minimizing impacts to existing habitats. The elevation of these levees varies. Hydraulic modeling performed by the District indicates that levees to the west of Walnut Creek overtop in an approximately 1-in-40 annual chance exceedance flood event.109 Lower Walnut Creek is exposed to elevated water levels from both tidal and fluvial sources. High tide waters in Suisun Bay can propagate upstream along the Walnut Creek Channel, while fluvial flooding occurs due to high flows conveyed by the Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek channels. The current effective FEMA Flood Hazard Zones for the Project area (September 29, 2015) consolidates previous mapping, and indicates the entire Project area from Walnut Creek westward, and the area east of the Walnut Creek channel downstream of Waterfront Road, including the Andeavor water treatment pond, is mapped within the 100-year floodplain. Most areas along the east bank of the creek between Waterfront Road and Highway 4 are mapped outside the 100-year floodplain. Recent hydraulic analysis conducted by the USACE and the District suggests that the FEMA map likely overestimates the extent of flooding in several areas. In particular, given the high elevation of the Acme and IT Baker landfills, it is unlikely that those areas would be inundated during a 100-year flood event. In addition, the FEMA map does not 104 Slack Flow: Tidally influenced flows with limited movement upstream or downstream. 105 https://www.ccrcd.org/walnut-creek-watershed.html. 106 https://www.ccrcd.org/uploads/9/5/9/2/95923390/walnutcr_watershed_inventory_web.pdf. 107 https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/Walnut%20Creek%20Vision%20SFEI%20112716%20medres.pdf. 108 https://www.ccrcd.org/uploads/9/5/9/2/95923390/walnutcr_watershed_inventory_web.pdf. 109 Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. 2010. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration 1% (100-year) Floodplain – Existing Conditions. Draft Poster, December 2010. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-98 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision appear to reflect recent improvements made to the flood control levees adjacent to the CCCSD parcels.110 Preliminary fluvial flood analysis conducted by the USACE and showed a more limited extent of the 100-year flood plain, however this analysis was never advanced beyond draft level. This analysis also did not consider coastal/tidal flooding, and consequently underestimates the extent of inundation near the mouth of Walnut Creek. The FEMA map indicates that the coastal/tidal flood elevation may exceed the fluvial flood elevation for the region from Suisun Bay to approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Waterfront Road. Maintaining a 100-year level of flood protection currently requires expensive and environmentally destructive large-scale dredging to protect relatively flood-tolerant land uses. For the proposed project, the District seeks to provide appropriate levels of flood protection that are suited to the existing land uses and are also in line with ongoing natural geomorphic processes. This includes protecting the services provided by existing infrastructure (e.g., power lines, railroads, water lines) and maintaining access to infrastructure and adjacent private property. Open space areas may not require maintenance or improvement of flood protection levels. Groundwater Quality Being located adjacent to Suisun Bay, Lower Walnut Creek, and Pacheco Creek, the depth to groundwater at the project site is shallow, with the lower elevation portions of the project area undergoing periodic inundation, especially during high tides and significant rain events. Consequently, the grading activities may encounter groundwater. Information on groundwater quality is described in more detail in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and came from the Acme Landfill Monitoring Report and groundwater sampling conducted by the District.111 The report concludes that leachate is not migrating from the landfill cells to beyond the monitoring wells. In general, there are no pollutants of concern at levels that exceed thresholds in the surrounding groundwater. As discussed above in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, groundwater sampling detected levels of diesel and motor oil in groundwater at concentration that exceed the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002), which prohibits the untreated discharge of dewatering fluid with more than 50 ug/L of TPH as diesel and 100 ug/L TPH as motor oil. Surface Water Quality The quality of surface water in Walnut and Pacheco Creeks is primarily a function of land uses in the project area and tidal influences. Urban development often results in the degradation of water quality due to the introduction of pollutants and erosion due to construction and development. 110 Paul Detjens, pers. communication with ESA June, 2015. 111 RMC Geoscience, Inc., 2018. Acme Landfill East and South Parcels – 2018 Summer-Fall Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report. Prepared for Acme Fill Corporation. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-99 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Development and pervious pavement can result in increased runoff and higher velocities in creeks and streams. These changes can, in turn, cause erosion. The pollutants of concern in Walnut and Pacheco Creeks are similar to those countywide.112 The most significant are pesticide toxicity, trash, bacteria from animal excrement and homeless encampments along the creeks, oil and grease from leaky automobiles, metals from paints, vehicles, and building materials, PCB’s, mercury from atmospheric deposition, sediment from construction sites and stream bank erosion, and nutrients.113 The CCCWP’s initial wet weather monitoring found pesticide toxicity in creeks primarily from diazinon. Toxicity from pesticides results from individual and commercial operations applying pesticides, even when applied exactly as instructed on the labeling. Stormwater program efforts led to legislation that phased out diazinon use. However, current monitoring is detecting toxicity from the next generation of pesticides (pyrethroids) in local waterways. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction Impacts Project construction would require excavation, grading, earthmoving, backfilling, and compaction, which could impact water quality. Construction and ground disturbance activities associated with the project would occur adjacent to and on the floodplain of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek; water quality impacts, including turbidity impacts, could be significant in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. In addition, construction activities would require use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils, which, if not managed appropriately, could become mobilized by runoff and contribute to non-point source pollution and degradation of water quality. Project construction would involve disturbance of more than one acre of land and is thus subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order 2009-0009- DWQ.) As a result, the project proponent would be required to implement a SWPPP to prevent discharge of sediment or pollutants from the construction site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 includes a summary of the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. Compliance with this permit, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 which would minimize potential for release of hazardous materials encountered in groundwater (described in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), would reduce this impact to a less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In addition, dewatering conducted for the construction to route pipelines over the levee is anticipated to pump groundwater with TPH as diesel and motor oil above effluent limitations promulgated in the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES 112 Restoration Design Group, 2013. Walnut Creek Watershed Inventory. Prepared for the Walnut Creek Watershed Council. Available: https://www.ccrcd.org/uploads/9/5/9/2/95923390/walnutcr_watershed_inventory_web.pdf. 113 Restoration Design Group, 2013. Walnut Creek Watershed Inventory. Prepared for the Walnut Creek Watershed Council. Available: https://www.ccrcd.org/uploads/9/5/9/2/95923390/walnutcr_watershed_inventory_web.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-100 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Permit No. CAG912002), as discussed above in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As a result, the project proponent would be required to properly manage the contaminated groundwater. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 describes three options for managing the contaminated groundwater that would comply with RWQCB effluent limitations. Operational Impacts Project operation would have no negative water quality impacts; the expanded and restored coastal habitat would have similar impacts on water quality to existing conditions. Under existing conditions, water quality impacts include natural erosion and siltation impacts which occur high precipitation events within the Walnut Creek watershed. Implementation of operations, maintenance, and adaptive management measures described in Chapter 1, Project Description would ensure minimization and repair of areas of potential erosion. Maintenance activities would also follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts Project construction would not use or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Though some minor dewatering may occur during excavation near the CCWD pipelines, this would be a limited volume only during the short-term and temporary construction period, and the amount of water which would be properly disposed of, either on or off-site. For impacts related to potentially contaminated groundwater, please see Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Impacts from construction would be less than significant. Operational Impacts No groundwater supplies would be used for the project and no element of the project would interfere with the process of groundwater recharge, except for the footprint of the recreational features that include the parking lot and interpretive center. This small footprint in comparison to the much larger watershed which replenished groundwater through percolation, would result in a minor area of imperviousness and would have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge. Minor dewatering activities would temporarily remove groundwater, but the water would be recharged if it meets water quality standards. Because the project wouldn’t substantially deplete groundwater or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, the project would have a less-than- significant impact on groundwater resources. c.i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area, both during construction and as part of the project’s operation. However, the implementation of the SWPPP would ensure that any construction-related erosion or siltation impacts would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-101 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Operational Impacts The project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area through altering levees and expanding tidal channel networks to connect the project area to natural hydrological processes (see Figure 4). Setting levees back, lowering them, and breaching them would allow land that is currently disconnected from the creek and tides to be reconnected to them hydrologically, both through the tidal channels that would be excavated as part of the project and through the exposure to potential flooding. These alterations would take place across the entire project area, but in particular in the Middle Reach (see Figures 8 and 9). Though the drainage pattern would be altered, the new regime would reduce impacts from erosion and siltation. Under current conditions, during flooding events, the levees constrain flows to the main channel of Walnut Creek, increasing erosion and siltation in the main channel. The project was designed to include adjusted channel sizes that would reflect a state of equilibrium. Setting back the levees would expand the floodplain, allowing waters to spread out across the floodplain, slowing the flow, which reduces erosion from scour, and spread silt across the floodplain and not in the channel, which is environmentally beneficial. In addition, maintenance activities would follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW, including controlling erosion. Hydraulic modeling114 demonstrated that the proposed project would have a negligible impact on peak water surface elevations for future conditions with approximately five feet of sea-level rise. Therefore, impacts resulting in erosion or siltation on- or off-site from increased flows would be less than significant. c.ii, iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts Project construction would result in the exposure of soil across large areas of the project sites. However, as described previously, a SWPPP would be implemented to prevent runoff of soils and volumes of surface runoff would not substantially increase. Construction activities would not be conducted during flood events and the project would not impede or redirects flood flows. Grading and changes in slopes in areas of the project site would be designed to improve the various habitats and flood flows through the project site. Further, in addition to implementing the SWPPP, vegetation would be planted as soon as possible to establish cover and reduce surface runoff from newly graded areas. Therefore, project construction would result in less-than- significant impacts. 114 ESA, 2018. Lower Walnut Creek Hydraulic Modeling – Final Memorandum. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-102 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Operational Impacts The original hydraulic model for Walnut Creek was developed by the USACE in collaboration with Contra Costa County.115,116,117 During the planning phase of this current Project, ESA evaluated existing conditions, conducted a geomorphic assessment and developed a collection of model scenarios to evaluate various flood and ecological flow conditions relevant for the proposed project design.118,119,120,121 ESA also conducted additional hydraulic modeling to support the Lower Walnut Creek Project, including an updated evaluation of the 100-year flood plain extent based on current site conditions, and an evaluation of the potential future flood plain extent with sea level rise and estimated geomorphic change in the channel and adjacent marsh. The modeling determined the inundation extents for the 100-year fluvial flood under existing conditions, and potential future conditions with +2 feet of sea level rise. Flood modeling shows that the project would contribute to a near-term small rise in water in Grayson Creek upstream of the project area during the 100-year flood.122 However, this increase would not lead to additional flooding impacts. Parts of the project area would experience flooding during the 100-year flood that would be less than 0.2 feet above the existing water levels. This raised level would be contained within the existing channels and would not inundate any new land. For nuisance flooding (e.g., king tide flooding, 2-year and 10-year flood events), the project would not result in any flooding above existing levels. The project would include tidal channels that drain through a newly constructed tidal channel into Suisun Marsh. Though flooding would continue to occur in certain areas, the modeling shows that this is currently occurring under existing conditions (see Figure 24). Therefore, operation and maintenance of the project would not substantially raise flood flows or redirect or impede flood flows and impacts would be less than significant. 115 US Army Corps of Engineers. “Lower Walnut Creek General Reevaluation Report Hydrology Appendix”. Report first published October 2006, revised June 2008. 116 US Army Corps of Engineers. “Lower Walnut Creek Hydrography Input for HEC-6T Hydrology Appendix”. Report, March 1, 2011. 117 US Army Corps of Engineers. “Draft Hydraulic Modeling Documentation”. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration – Lower Walnut Creek General Reevaluation Report. Draft Report. May 13, 2013. 118 Environmental Science Associates. “Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Feasibility Study”. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, March 10, 2017. 119 Environmental Science Associates. “Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Geomorphic Assessment”. Memorandum prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. March, 2017 120 Environmental Science Associates. “Lower Walnut Creek Hydraulic Modeling”. Memorandum prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. July 5, 2018. 121 Environmental Science Associates. “Lower Walnut Creek Hydraulic Modeling”. Memorandum prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. July 5, 2018. 122 Restoration Design Group, 2013. Walnut Creek Watershed Inventory. Prepared for the Walnut Creek Watershed Council. Available: https://www.ccrcd.org/uploads/9/5/9/2/95923390/walnutcr_watershed_inventory_web.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-103 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision c.iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The project would not contribute runoff water that would exceed a stormwater drainage system’s capacity during construction. Implementation of BMPs identified the SWPPP would reduce stormwater runoff and pollution from entering local drainages and waterways. Impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Operation of the project would not contribute runoff water to existing stormwater drainage systems. Runoff water would remain on the project site and drain to Walnut Creek, not to any stormwater drainage system. In addition, maintenance activities would follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW, including controlling erosion. The project would not be a significant source of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts Construction of the project would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. See Section 2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials for more detail on how the project would properly protect potential pollutants from flood hazards. Further, the project is not located in tsunami or seiche inundation zones and construction would not be done during flooding. Therefore, project construction impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Operation of the project would not involve any pollutants kept or used on-site; therefore, the project would have no impact related to risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation by flooding. Tsunami risks for the Bay Area were mapped by CalEMA and the project area is not at risk for tsunamis. In addition, the site is not in a seiche zone. Therefore, the project would have no impacts during operation. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Construction Impacts Project construction would require excavation, grading, earthmoving, backfilling, and compaction, which could impact water quality. Construction and ground disturbance activities 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-104 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision associated with the project would occur adjacent to and on the floodplain of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek; water quality impacts, including turbidity impacts, could be significant in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. In addition, construction activities would require use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils, which, if not managed appropriately, could become mobilized by runoff and contribute to non-point source pollution and degradation of water quality. Project construction would involve disturbance of more than one acre of land and is thus subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (SWRCB Order 2009-0009- DWQ.) As a result, the project proponent would be required to implement a SWPPP to prevent discharge of sediment or pollutants from the construction site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 includes a summary of the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. Compliance with this permit, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 which would minimize potential for release of hazardous materials encountered in groundwater (described in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), would reduce this impact to a less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In addition, dewatering conducted for the construction to route pipelines over the levee is anticipated to pump groundwater with TPH as diesel and motor oil above effluent limitations promulgated in the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002), as discussed above in Section 2.2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As a result, the project proponent would be required to properly manage the contaminated groundwater. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 describes three options for managing the contaminated groundwater that would comply with RWQCB effluent limitations. Operational Impacts Project operation would have no negative water quality impacts; the expanded and restored coastal habitat would have similar impacts on water quality to existing conditions. Under existing conditions, water quality impacts include natural erosion and siltation impacts which occur high precipitation events within the Walnut Creek watershed. Implementation of operations, maintenance, and adaptive management measures described in Chapter 1, Project Description would ensure minimization and repair of areas of potential erosion. Maintenance activities would also follow BMPs outlined in the District’s RMA with CDFW. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-105 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.11 Land Use and Planning Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion The project area’s land use is designated “Open Space” (OS) by the Contra Costa County 2020 General Plan and “Open Space/Conservation Use Land” by the Martinez General Plan, the project area and the vicinity to the south and west is currently zoned by Contra Costa County as Heavy Industrial (H-I).123,124 The areas of the North Reach within the city limits of Martinez are zoned “Open Space” (OS) in the northern parcel and “Environmental Conservation District/Heavy Industrial” (ECD-H-I) in the southwestern parcel of the North Reach.125 Permitted uses in H-I designated areas include heavy industrial manufacturing uses of all kinds. Permitted uses in OS designated areas include agricultural uses and park and recreational uses. Permitted uses in ECD-H-I designated areas include agricultural, residential (one single family dwelling on sites up to 20 acres), and recreational (parks and recreational facilities), as well as conditionally permitted uses that are comparable to those in industrial zones.126 Adjacent Contra Costa County land uses include OS, Parks and Recreation (PR), Water (WA), and some H-I, with adjacent City of Martinez land uses as OS, ECD-H-I, and H-I. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The proposed project would involve enhancements and restoration of tidal wetlands within unincorporated Contra Costa County. As shown on Figure 2, the land uses adjacent to and included in the project area include heavy industrial (Acme Landfill, Conco Incorporated) and Open Space (State Lands Commission). There are no adjacent residential land uses. While the proposed project would set back levees in order to restore and enhance wetlands, which would increase the amount of land within the floodplain of Walnut Creek, as shown on Figure 2, it would not divide any community – the creeks and marshes are existing physical divisions which keep nearby communities separate. Therefore, the project would not divide any established communities, nor would it occur within an established community. Project construction and 123 Contra Costa County, 2019. Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. Available: https://library.municode.com/ca/ contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT8ZO. Accessed July 1, 2019. 124 City of Martinez, 2010. Martinez General Plan. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/civicax/filebank/ blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17257. Accessed July 19, 2019. 125 City of Martinez, 2018. City of Martinez Zoning Map. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/civicax/filebank/ blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17160. Accessed July 19, 2019. 126 City of Martinez, 2018. Martinez, California – Code of Ordinances – Title 22 – Zoning. Available: https://library.municode.com/ca/martinez/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT22ZO. Accessed July 19, 2019. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-106 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision operation would, therefore, result in no impact related to physically dividing an established community. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The project would not be consistent with the current zoning described above. However, the project site is publicly owned and a future zoning change will occur to better match the General Plan 2020 and Martinez General Plan designations and to accommodate the proposed restoration project. Though the project conflicts with the existing zoning, this conflict would not cause a significant environmental impact with existing General Plan policies for land use or zoning code regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. However, even though the project is located mostly on open space areas and consistent with the intent with the land uses as designated by the General Plan, including the recreational part of the project (e.g., recreational, trails, viewing locations, boat launching, etc.) within the North Reach, the zoning designation for the North Reach is H-I. Section 84-58.404 of the County Code states that in H-I zones, recreational elements are conditionally permitted, and therefore, the project would require a land use permit application. A land use permit would be submitted for consideration at the time the project sponsor (EBRPD or JMLT) is ready to submit the plans for the recreational part of the proposed project. Additionally, the project would conflict with the 2012 San Francisco Bay Plan Maps (Bay Plan Maps). The North Reach is currently designated by the Bay Plan Maps as “Water-Related Industry.”127 In order for the BCDC to issue a permit for restoration of the project site to tidal marsh, the Bay Plan Map designation for the project area needs to be updated and designated as “Tidal Marsh” and “Waterfront Park.” In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 11000, the proposed land use change requires an amendment to the Bay Plan. However, the amendment would not result in a significant environment impact because the purpose of the project is to restore natural conditions in the project area. If water-related industrial use of the project site were to occur, significant environmental impacts could result by degrading existing and adjacent habitats at the site. Thus, implementing the project would result in beneficial environmental effects compared to the current land use map designation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 127 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Amended 2006. San Francisco Bay Plan – Plan Map 2. Available: https://bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/Plan_Map_2.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-107 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.12 Mineral Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. MINERAL RESOURCES — 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 of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion The Contra Costa County General Plan maps and identifies locally important mineral resources throughout the county.128 Important mineral resources include clay, diabase, and domengine sandstone. These resources are located primarily in three areas – clay near Port Costa, west of Martinez; diabase in the hills northwest of Mount Diablo; and domengine sandstone located on the western edge of Byron. No mineral resources are identified in or near the project site. 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? (No Impact) There are no mines, mineral plants or geothermal wells located at the project site.129,130 There are, however, several oil and gas wells in the vicinity of the project but not on the project site. These oil and gas wells are categorized as “Dry Wells” and, as such, the implementation of the project would not affect a known mineral resource. The proposed project is not located in an area known to contain minerals that would be of value to the region or residents of the state. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region; no impact would occur. 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? (No Impact) Though the Contra Costa County General Plan identifies locally important mineral resources throughout the county, none are delineated in any local land use plans for the project area, including the Contra Costa County General Plan. Sand that is found in the North Reach is not naturally-occurring but was brought to the site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site; no impact would occur. 128 Contra Costa County, 2004. Contra Costa County General Plan – Figure 8-4 Mineral Resource Areas. 129 U.S. Geological Survey, 2013. Active Mines and Mineral Plants in the U.S. 2003, mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral- resources/active-mines.html, accessed September 17, 2018. 130 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 2018. DOGGR Online Mapping System, accessed September 17, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-108 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.13 Noise Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Environmental Setting Noise Terminology Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 dB to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to th e frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. When a new noise is introduced to an environment, human reaction can be predicted by comparing the new noise to the ambient noise level, which is the existing noise level comprised of all sources of noise in a given location. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the ambient 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-109 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur.131  except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dB cannot be perceived;  outside of the laboratory, a 3-dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference;  a change in level of at least 5-dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and  a 10-dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response. The perceived increases in noise levels shown above are applicable to both mobile and stationary noise sources. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence, the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Ldn a 24-hour day and night A-weighted noise exposure level, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dB to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises. CNEL the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); similar to Ldn, the CNEL adds a 5-dB “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10-dB penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 131 California Department of Transportation, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-110 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Leq: the energy-equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level, which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). Lmax: the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. Vibration Terminology As described in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Manual, ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard.132 In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, buses and heavy trucks on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, sheet pile- driving and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, which is measured in inches per second. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to express RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration assessment include structures (especially older masonry structures), people who spend a lot of time indoors (especially residents, students, the elderly and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment such as hospital analytical equipment and equipment used in computer chip manufacturing. The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction, which would not occur under the proposed project. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. Sensitive Receptors Human response to noise varies considerably from one individual to another. Effects of noise at various levels can include interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, and can cause physiological and psychological stress and hearing loss. Given these effects, some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others. In general, residences, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes are considered to be the most sensitive to noise. Places 132 Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Manual. September 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-111 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision such as churches, libraries, and cemeteries, where people tend to pray, study, and/or contemplate are also sensitive to noise. Commercial and industrial uses are considered the least noise-sensitive. Portions of the proposed project are located within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County and some portions are located within the City of Martinez. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are single-family residences located approximately 1,010 feet south of Pacheco Reach’s most southern boundary. These single-family residences are located within Vine Hill, which is a census-designated place in Contra Costa County. Other noise sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the proposed project are residences and schools; however, these sensitive receptors are located beyond 1,300 feet from the proposed project. Existing Noise Setting The noise environment surrounding the proposed project is influenced by vehicular traffic along I-680, freight traffic along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line, use of industrial equipment and natural sounds (e.g., birds chirping, crickets). According to the Contra Costa County’s 2005-2020 General Plan, the sensitive receptors on Blum Road and Explorer Way located within Vine Hill are exposed to vehicular traffic noise along I-680 ranging from 60 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn.133 Regulatory Framework County of Contra Costa General Plan The following policies found in the County of Contra Costa 2005-2020 General Plan are relevant to the proposed project:134 Policy 11-8: 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. Figure 25 shows the General Plan land use compatibilities relative to the community noise environments as a comparison to the use of other noise compatibilities used in the analysis of noise impacts on sensitive receptors below. County of Contra Costa Municipal Code Contra Costa County’s Municipal Code does not contain quantitative standards for regulating noise from construction equipment. However, Section 716-8.1004 of the County Code addresses hours of operation for excavation and grading activities. If operations under the permit are within 500 feet of residential or commercial occupancies, except as otherwise provided by conditions of approval for the project, grading operations shall be limited to weekdays and to the hours, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed at any time. 133 County of Contra Costa, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan. January 18, 2005. 134 County of Contra Costa, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan. January 18, 2005. Figure 25 Contra Costa General Plan Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments SOURCE: Contra Costa County, 2004 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 Figure 11-6 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Graphic Created on August, 23 2004 Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-009537:59:48.455N122:06:35.384W Page 11-38 rESA � 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-113 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision City of Martinez General Plan The City of Martinez’s General Plan 2035 does not contain any goals or policies relevant to the proposed project. City of Martinez Municipal Code According to Section 8.34.030(B) of the City of Martinez Municipal Code, construction activities (e.g., demolition, excavation, erection, alteration or repair activities) is not allowed before 7:00 a.m., or after 7:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday, Sunday, and State, Federal or Local Holidays, when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.). Discussion a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant) The proposed project is located within the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County (i.e., southern portion of the North Reach and all of the Middle Reach and South Reach) and City of Martinez (i.e., northern portion of the North Reach). The nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed project is located approximately 1,010 feet south of the South Reach’s southern boundary. Construction Impacts As discussed above, both the County of Contra Costa and City of Martinez establish allowable construction hours within their respective general plans and municipal codes. Proposed project construction activities, within all three reaches, are proposed to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Work may occur on weekends and outside of these hours. Work conducted outside of these hours would require prior approval by the District and the Resident Engineer will be onsite to address any noise issues. Since the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed project is located further than 500 feet from the proposed project, the proposed project would be consistent with Section 716-8.1004 of the County of Contra Costa Municipal Code, which restricts hours of grading to between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. when within 500 feet of residential or commercial occupancies. Policy 11-8 of the Contra Costa County 2005-2020 General Plan does not contain defined hours for what it considers “daytime” and “normal” working hours; therefore, for this analysis normal working hours are considered to be those identified in Section 8.34.030 of the City of Martinez Municipal Code (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Work on Sundays and holidays would require prior approval by the District and the Resident Engineer will be onsite to address any noise issues. Since construction activities are expected to occur within the allowed construction hours provided in Section 8.34.030 of the City of Martinez Municipal Code, the construction of the proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-114 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Although there would be no long-term operational noise sources following construction, the construction of the proposed project could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Construction noise levels at and near the proposed project would fluctuate depending on the type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Given the low level of construction-related vehicle trips associated with hauling and commuting workers, these trips would not be expected to raise ambient noise levels along haul routes. Table 18 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment that would operate during the construction of the proposed project. TABLE 18 REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS – (50 FEET FROM SOURCE) Type of Equipment Lmax, dBA Hourly Leq, dBA/Percent Used1 South Reach Mower 84 80/40 Scraper 85 81/40 Bulldozer 85 81/40 Dump Truck 84 80/40 Water Truck 84 80/40 Rotary Dicher 84 80/40 Front Loader 80 76/40 Compactor 80 73/20 Bobcat 80 76/40 Grader 85 81/40 Excavator 85 81/40 Middle Reach Mower 84 80/40 Scraper 85 81/40 Bulldozer 85 81/40 Dump Truck 84 80/40 Water Truck 84 80/40 Rotary Dicher 84 80/40 Front Loader 80 76/40 Compactor 80 73/20 Bobcat 80 76/40 Grader 85 81/40 Excavator 85 81/40 North Reach Mower 84 80/40 Scraper 85 81/40 Bulldozer 85 81/40 Dump Truck 84 80/40 Water Truck 84 80/40 Rotary Dicher 84 80/40 Front Loader 80 76/40 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-115 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS – (50 FEET FROM SOURCE) Type of Equipment Lmax, dBA Hourly Leq, dBA/Percent Used1 North Reach (cont.) Compactor 80 73/20 Bobcat 80 76/40 Grader 85 81/40 Excavator 85 81/40 Portable Pumps 77 74/50 Paver 85 82/50 Roller 85 78/20 Forklift 85 78/20 Tractor 84 80/40 Crane 85 77/16 Pile Driver (impact) 95 88/20 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 81/40 NOTE: 1 “Percent used” were obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. SOURCE: FHWA, 2006. The operation of each piece of equipment within the three reaches would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. Over a typical workday, the equipment would be operating at different locations and all the equipment would not operate concurrently at the same location of the proposed project. To quantify construction-related noise exposure that would occur at the nearest sensitive receptors, it was assumed that the two loudest pieces of construction equipment would operate at the closest location of the proposed project to the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Table 19 presents the highest Leq noise levels that sensitive receptors could be exposed to at each of the construction sites. TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS DURING PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Reach1 Distance to Nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet) Two Loudest Pieces of Construction Equipment Combined Noise level from 50 feet (dBA Leq)2 Attenuated Noise Level (dBA Leq)3 Exceed 90 dBA Leq (yes or no)? South 1,010 Grader, Excavator 84 53 No Middle 2,290 Grader, Excavator 84 42 No North 3,970 Pile Driver, Excavator 89 42 No NOTES: 1 Pacheco Reach has no construction activities. 2 Reference construction equipment noise levels were obtained from Caltrans’ Roadway Construction Noise Level (RCNM). 3 Assumed an attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance (i.e., soft site), to account for interning terrain and structures. SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January 2006. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-116 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision The County of Contra Costa and City of Martinez do not contain noise level standards that are applicable to short-term construction activities in their respective general plans and municipal codes Although there are no applicable local policies or standards available to judge the significance of short-term daytime construction noise levels, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Manual has identified a daytime 1-hour Leq level of 90 dBA as a noise level where adverse community reaction could occur at residential land uses for general assessment of construction noise.135 These assessment criteria used here to assess whether construction-related noise levels would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. As shown in Table 19, onsite construction activities at each of the reaches would not expose the nearest sensitive receptor to noise levels that would exceed the 90 dBA Leq threshold or those of the County General Plan noise compatibility in Figure 25, and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The temporary increase in ambient noise levels would cause a less-than-significant impact. Operation Impacts Once all construction activities are completed, the proposed project would not create any new permanent noise sources (e.g., pumps, generators). Therefore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. This would result in no impact from project operations and maintenance. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant) Since the operation of the proposed project would not include any activities that generate significant levels of vibration, it is not anticipated that the operation of the proposed project would expose the nearest sensitive receptor or structure to vibration levels that would result in human annoyance or building damage. Therefore, only vibration impacts from onsite construction activities are evaluated. For adverse human reaction, the analysis applies the “strongly perceptible” threshold of 0.9 inch/ second PPV for transient sources.136 A threshold of 0.3 inch/second PPV is used to assess damage risk for all other buildings.137 There are no historic structures in the vicinity of proposed project that could be adversely affected by project construction-related vibration. The potential use of a bulldozer during the construction of the proposed would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels during construction. According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, bulldozers typically generate vibration levels of 0.089 inch/second PPV at a distance of 25 feet.138 There are single-family residences located 1,010 feet south of the Pacheco Reach’s most southern boundary. These single-family residences would be exposed to a 135 Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Manual. September 2018. 136 California Department of Transportation, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. 137 California Department of Transportation, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. 138 Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Manual. September 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-117 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision vibration level of less than 0.0004 inch/second PPV, well below the applied human annoyance and building damage threshold. Consequently, existing sensitive receptors and structures near the proposed project would not be affected by substantial groundborne vibration during project construction and this impact would be considered less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? (No Impact) The proposed project is located approximately 2 miles north of the Buchanan Field Airport. According to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the proposed project is located approximately 0.17 miles north of the airport’s 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Since the proposed project would not locate new uses (e.g., residential, commercial, retail) near the Buchanan Field Airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the proposed project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-118 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.14 Population and Housing Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Discussion a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)? (No Impact) The proposed project does not propose changes to land uses that would result in new residences or businesses, nor would it extend roads or other infrastructure. The expanded floodplain would not result in increased flood protection such that new areas could be developed. During the approximately 3.5-year construction period, it is estimated that 45 construction workers would be employed. Given the site’s proximity to several population centers, it is expected that regional labor would meet the construction workforce requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to growth inducement. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impacts) The project would restore and enhance natural habitats in an area with no residences and would not displace existing people or housing. No people would be displaced due to the project. No housing would need to be constructed due to displacement of existing housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-119 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.15 Public Services Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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 following public services: i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Fire protection and general rescue services in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County are provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD),139,140 In total, CCCFPD operates 23 fire stations, serving a population of 600,000 people across a 304 square-mile area. In particular, the industrial businesses in the project vicinity are served by CCCFPD. In the event of a fire emergency, Fire Station 9 in Pacheco and Fire Station 12 in Martinez would respond.141 The project site is served by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. The nearest County Sheriff’s office is Muir Station at 1980 Muir Road in the City of Martinez, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site, which serves the project area and other unincorporated area in the northern middle part of the county.142 a.i) 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection? (Less than Significant) Because construction activities would be short-term and temporary and would involve a workforce of approximately 45 construction workers on any given day, these workers would 139 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, 2018. https://www.cccfpd.org/about-cccfpd.php. Accessed September 18, 2018. 140 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_ maps_contracosta. Accessed September 18, 2018. 141 NEP Fire Services, 2018. United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa Map. https://batchgeo.com/map/ 2041c9ec625cc4f8779b42c4710507ab. Accessed September 18, 2018. 142 Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff, 2018. http://www.cocosheriff.org/bureaus/field_operations/patrol/ muir.htm. Accessed September 18, 2018. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-120 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision either already live in nearby communities or would not relocate to the nearby communities for the construction work. Therefore, project construction would not significantly increase demand for fire protection services throughout the project vicinity due to population growth, and would not change any uses on the site. For these reasons, the project would not be expected to substantially affect CCCFPD’s ability to maintain service ratios, response times, other performance objectives, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. For these reasons, the project’s impact with respect to the provision of fire service would be less than significant. a.ii) 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection? (Less than Significant) For the reasons provided in response to question a.i), above, the project would not be expected to substantially affect the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office’s ability to maintain service ratios, response times, other performance objectives, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. For these reasons, the project’s impact with respect to the provision of police protection facilities would be less than significant. a.iii) 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools? (No Impact) The proposed project would result in a small temporary increase of construction worker employees in the project area. The construction workers would most likely be from nearby communities, and would not require new or modification of existing school facilities. There would be no impact to schools. a.iv) 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks? (Less than Significant) The nearest park or recreational area is the Waterbird Regional Preserve, located less than a mile west of the project site. For the reasons described in response to question a.i), above, the project would not result in increased population such that there would be additional demand for parks facilities during or after construction. Additionally, the project would increase the available public access on-site. Impacts related to increasing public access are addressed in other sections of this document, particularly in Section 2.2.16, Recreation. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the need for new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-121 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision a.v) 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 government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities? (Less than Significant) The proposed project would not involve new permanent employees and, therefore, it is not expected to increase the use of other public facilities such as libraries or hospitals. Therefore, the project’s impact would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-122 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.16 Recreation Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. RECREATION: 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 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Discussion The proposed project would entail enhancement and restoration of coastal marsh habitat along Walnut and Pacheco Creeks. Nearby existing parks and trails include the Iron Horse Regional Trail, a Class 1 paved multi-use trail, the northernmost end of which is approximately 1.5 miles south from the project limits at Marsh Drive just south of Highway 4, the Waterbird Regional Preserve, approximately 1,000 feet southwest from the North Reach of 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? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts During project construction, no closure of the Iron Horse Regional Trail would be required; the trail does not cross any haul routes and is not located near project construction staging or work areas. During project construction of the Middle Reach, Waterbird Way would be used as a haul route for transporting fill to other project areas, which is the only access point to the parking area for Waterbird Regional Preserve. Waterbird Way would not be closed during the maximum two construction seasons in which the Middle Reach would be constructed. Nevertheless, the presence of construction activities may compel some would-be users to visit other nearby parks in the area, such as Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline Park and Waterfront Park, among many others. However, given that the Waterbird Regional Preserve would remain open during construction, any such displacement would not result in substantial increases in receiving park users such that the parks would experience physical deterioration. The project would expand recreational access in the North Reach, likely decreasing the use of other recreational facilities; therefore, the project would have a less than significant short-term and temporary impact on neighborhood or regional parks and recreational facilities. Operational Impacts Though the project would expand trails on the project site (see summary of project features in Table 1 in Chapter 1, Project Description) and would prepare the site to be connected to potential expansions of existing trails (specifically the future Great California Delta Trail, Iron Horse Regional Trail, and the San Francisco Bay Trail) as shown on Figure 4 in Chapter 1, Project Description, the project would not connect these trails under jurisdiction of the EBRPD. This lack 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-123 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision of connection means that there would be no additional trail users and, therefore, project operations would have a less-than-significant impact on degradation of recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed elsewhere in other sections of this document, the proposed project includes recreational facilities, some of which may have impacts on the environment. The specific types of impacts, and mitigation measures identified to minimize or avoid significant impacts, are discussed in the other resource sections of this document corresponding to the affected topic area (e.g., Section 2.2.2, Air Quality; Section 2.2.4, Biological Resources; Section 2.2.13, Noise; and Section 2.2.17, Transportation). Please refer to those sections for specific discussions of potential physical adverse effects on the environment and their respective resource-specific mitigations. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-124 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.17 Transportation Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION — Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Environmental Setting The project site is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County approximately 3 miles east of the City of Martinez, along the lowest 2.5 miles of Walnut Creek and 1.5 miles of Pacheco Creek (see Figure 1). Site access, haul routes and staging areas are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Regional construction access to the South Reach will be provided from I-680 via State Route 4 (SR 4) at the Pacheco Boulevard on- and off-ramps. Blum Road, Imhoff Drive, and Waterbird Way would be used for local access between the freeway on- and off-ramps and the project site. Construction access to the Middle Reach would include Waterbird Way and Acme landfill access roads. Construction access to the North Reach will be provided from I-680 via Waterfront Road. Highways I-680 is a four- to ten-lane interstate highway running north and south between U.S. 101 in San Jose and I-80 in Fairfield. It carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 138,000 vehicles on ten travel lanes (five in each direction) in the project area.143 SR 4 is a two- to six-lane state highway running east and west between San Pablo Avenue in Hercules and SR 89 in the Sierra Nevada. It carries an ADT volume of approximately 88,000 vehicles on four travel lanes (two in each direction) in the project area. Arterial Roadways Pacheco Boulevard is a four-lane north-south arterial roadway with a designated bike lane in the northbound direction in the project area. It serves industrial, retail, and residential land uses, and provides access to the South Reach. County Connection Route 19 and 99X, which connect Martinez to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Concord Station, travel along Pacheco Boulevard. Waterfront Road is a two-lane east-west arterial roadway in the project area. It serves industrial land uses along the Suisun Bay waterfront and provides access to the North and Middle Reaches. 143 California Department of Transportation, 2017. 2016 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Published in 2017. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/ docs/ 2016_aadt_volumes.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-125 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Collector Roadways Blum Road is a two-lane north-south collector roadway with on-street parking on both sides near Pacheco Boulevard. Blum Road provides access to residential and industrial lane uses. The intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Blum Road includes the westbound SR-4 on- and off-ramp terminals. Imhoff Drive is a two-lane east-west collector roadway that provides access to County services and industrial land uses. Waterbird Way is a 1.2 –mile two-lane east-west collector roadway that connects Waterfront Road to the Republic Services waste disposal/transfer site. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities County Connection, the public transit service provider in central Contra Cost County, does not operate any fixed-route transit service in the project area.144 There is currently no public roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian access through the project area except for Waterfront Road; however regional trail network plans have proposed several potential future trail connections passing through or near the project area, including the extension of the existing Iron Horse Trail to the project site and a future trail connector from the project site to the San Francisco Bay Trail. EBRPD has prepared a preliminary feasibility study of potential Iron Horse Trail alignments through the project reaches, which would include a public access trail along the flood control levee on the South Reach.145 a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less than Significant) South Reach As stated in Chapter 1, Project Description, the South Reach would be designed to facilitate the implementation of future public access improvements, including the extension of the Iron Horse Trail along the new setback levee, construction of a pedestrian crossing over the BNSF railroad, and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Pacheco Creek. However, these components would not be built as part of the project, only considered and designed for future implementation. Furthermore, the proposed 30-foot wide levee crown would be adequate to support a two-way Caltrans Class I bikeway (11.6-foot minimum width required) and the levee profile and crest cross slopes would be within Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) tolerances. The District would continue to work with the EBRPD to refine plans for future public access through the project site. North Reach As noted in Section 1.2.4, North Reach, the District is partnering with the JMLT to develop public access plans for the North Reach. Public access in the North Reach includes an interpretive center with a restroom, parking/staging area, a trail network with interpretive signage, and overlooks at the north end of the site. The District would continue to work with the JMLT to refine plans for future public access in the North Reach. 144 County Connection, 2018. System Map Weekday Routes. 2018. Available: https://countyconnection.com/wp- content/themes/countyconnection/schedules/CCCTA_Weekday.pdf. 145 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2017. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project – Project Study Report. December 2017. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-126 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Middle Reach No public bicycle or pedestrian access would be provided through the Middle Reach. Construction Impacts As presented in Table 1 and described in Chapter 1, Project Description, the proposed project would restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary, Pacheco Creek. Construction activities would involve site preparation, earthwork, access improvements, construction of new facilities, and revegetation on the project site. Direct traffic impacts from construction of the project would be short -term and temporary. The duration of impacts related to short-term disruption of traffic flow and potential increased congestion generated by construction vehicles would be limited to the period of time needed to complete construction of the project components. Construction activities that would generate off-site traffic would include the delivery of construction vehicles and equipment to the project site, the daily arrival and departure of construction workers, the delivery of materials throughout the construction period. Construction equipment would be delivered to and removed from the project site in phases for the different construction activities. Estimated maximum daily truck and worker trips for the proposed project by construction phase are provided below in Table 20. Construction seasons are described in Section 1.2.6, Project Construction. TABLE 20 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TRIPS Construction Phase Truck Trips Worker Trips Total North and South Reach Restoration 25 45 70 Middle Reach Restoration First Season 16 21 37 Middle Reach Restoration Second Season 16 26 42 Recreation – trails and associated components 5 18 23 Recreation – Interpretive Center 4 10 14 SOURCE: Placeworks, 2019. As shown in Table 20, the estimated haul truck traffic would vary depending on the activity, but would peak at up to approximately 25 trucks per day during first and second construction seasons (estimated to be May 2021 to November 2022), which would yield up to approximately 50 daily one-way trips per day to and from the project site, which would likely be spread over the course of the 11-hour work day rather than occurring all at once.146 The proposed project would construct all three reaches in an integrated manner that allows for balance of cut and fill between the reaches, except for the movement of some of the sand from the North Reach to the Marathon Refinery; therefore, most trucks associated with the transport of cut and fill material would only travel between the reaches rather than using regional transportation facilities. 146 Hours of construction would generally occur between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with some exceptions pursuant to County of Contra Costa and City of Martinez requirements. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-127 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Construction of the North and South Reach restoration, which would take approximately nine months to complete and estimated to occur between May 2020 and January 2021, would require the largest number of construction workers. Up to 45 construction workers would be present on a peak day, and those workers would commute to and from the worksite primarily before or after peak traffic hours. Parking for worker vehicles and construction vehicles would be available in designated on-site staging areas within the project footprint. Construction-generated traffic would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in any long- term degradation in operating conditions on any locally used roadways for the proposed project. The impact of construction-related traffic would be a temporary and result in intermittent reduction of the capacities of streets in the project area because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. Drivers could experience delays if they were traveling behind a heavy truck; however, as noted above, only 25 trucks per day are expected to travel to/from the project site during the peak of construction activities, and those truck trips would occur over the course of the 11-hour work day. Project construction-related traffic would not be substantial in relation to traffic flow conditions on I-680, SR 4, or local access roadways. The project trips would fall within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes on I-680 and SR 4 (not perceptible to the average motorist), and so while the traffic generated by construction activities would be noticeable (i.e., would represent a higher percent increase in traffic volumes) on the local-serving roadways serving the construction site, the effect on traffic flow would be less than significant. Operational Impacts The primary source of vehicle trips generated by project operations would be the proposed public access facilities in the North Reach. In addition, routine observation and maintenance activities, which are described in Section 1.2.7, Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring and Management, would occasionally generate vehicle trips on project area roadways. As described in detail in Section 1.2.4, North Reach, public access plans for the North Reach include an interpretive center, restrooms, trails, and a vehicle parking area with striped parking for 50 vehicles as well as additional unstriped capacity for buses and overflow. Figure 12 illustrates the trails and other public access features. These public access facilities are expected to attract approximately 13,000 visitors per year to the North Reach, with access from Waterfront Road. Visitors of the proposed public access facilities would by and large travel to the area on weekends and during off-peak hour times on weekdays, and would therefore not contribute noticeably to the weekday, peak period roadway congestion (the result of typical home-to-work and work-to-home commuting patterns) on regional roadways used to access the project site. Based on this annual visitation estimate, daily visitor trip generation for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays were calculated using CalEEMod (see Section 2.2.3, Air Quality). The results were as follows:  Weekday: 9.65 trips  Saturdays: 116.13 trips  Sundays: 85.45 trips 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-128 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Considering that most, if not all, of the ten weekday, 116 Saturday, and 85 Sunday visitors would be traveling to/from the project site in vehicles carrying more than one visitor (i.e., buses carrying school children, vehicles carrying families/friends), the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed public access facilities on local roadways in the project area would likely be less than half of the visitor trip generation. Furthermore, the vehicle trips would be spread across the period that the facilities are open to the public, which has not yet been defined by the District, but would likely be at least eight daylight hours similar to the hours of operation of other similar recreational facilities. At a maximum, this would result in about 58 new daily one-way vehicle trips, which is less than the number of daily vehicle trips evaluated above in the discussion of construction impacts. Therefore, operation of the project would not noticeably increase the current traffic volumes on area roadways. Based on the discussion above, the project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs related to public transit or bicycle and pedestrian facilities, nor would it affect the safety of such services/facilities. Furthermore, the project would include provisions for a potential extension of the existing Iron Horse Trail to the project site and a future trail connector from the project site to the San Francisco Bay Trail. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less than Significant) In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the new CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was adopted in December 2018 by the California Natural Resources Agency. These revisions to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts are primarily focused on projects within transit priority areas, and shifts the focus from driver delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses. Vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, is a measure of the total number of miles driven to or from a development and is sometimes expressed as an average per trip or per person. The newly adopted guidance provides that a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide. The County is currently engaged in this process and has not yet formally adopted its updated transportation significance thresholds or its updated transportation impact analysis procedures. Since the regulations of SB 743 have not been finalized or adopted by the County, a qualitative analysis of traffic delay are the measures used in this document to determine the significance of transportation impacts (see impact discussion a, above). As such, no further analysis is required and impacts related to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) The land uses adjacent to and included in the project area include heavy industrial (Acme Landfill, Conco Incorporated) and Open Space (State Lands Commission). Due to the industrial uses in the project area, this area is not inhabited by residents. As such, the temporary 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-129 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision introduction of construction equipment required to construct the project on roadways in and around the project site would be compatible with existing uses and would not pose a safety hazard. Furthermore, the project does not propose to make any changes to public roadways; internal access roadways developed as part of the project would be designed to comply with local adopted roadway standards. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than Significant) The project would be located in a lightly developed area with multiple access roads allowing adequate egress/ingress to each of the three reaches in the event of an emergency. Additionally, as part of the project, internal access roadway improvements would occur. Therefore, the project would allow for adequate emergency access. As described under impact discussion a), previously, increased project-related operational traffic would not cause a significant increase in congestion and would not significantly affect roadway operations. Furthermore, the project would not require closures of public roads, which could inhibit access by emergency vehicles. During construction of the project, heavy construction- related vehicles could interfere with emergency response to the site or emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency (e.g., slowing vehicles traveling behind the truck). However, given that there are no businesses or emergency response stations and only a limited number of residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, it is not likely that heavy construction-related traffic would result in inadequate emergency access. As such, the impact would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-130 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — 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: a) 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 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the 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. ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Discussion The description of existing cultural, archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources was in included in the previous checklist item under cultural resources. 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 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) (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Tribal cultural resources are: 1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register, or local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or, 2) a resource determined by the lead CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). For a cultural landscape to be considered a tribal cultural resource, it must be geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape (PRC Section 21074[b]). Also, a historical resource, as defined in PRC Section 21084.1, unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or non-unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h), may also be a tribal cultural resource. According to the requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), one tribe, the Wilton Rancheria, requested consultation regarding projects in Contra Costa County. The District sent a letter to 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-131 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Wilton Rancheria with information about the proposed project that was confirmed delivered on June 15, 2018. No responses have been received to date. Although at this time, no other tribes have contacted the District requesting notification, the District contacted the NAHC to request a search of the sacred lands file in relation to the proposed project site. On April 16, 2018, the NAHC responded that there are no sacred lands on file. However, inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources could result in a significant impact. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact TCR-1: The project could result in potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Based on the analysis presented above the District did not identify any tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, nor did they determined that any resources to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are identified during project implementation that are determined to be tribal cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources, outlined in the Cultural Resources section, would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This mitigation would ensure that work halt in the vicinity of a find until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment and provide additional recommendations if necessary, including contacting Native American tribes. b) 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 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the 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. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) For the same reasons stated in the analysis of potential impacts on tribal cultural resources above in ‘a’, impacts would be potentially significant, but implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-132 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.19 Utilities and Service Systems Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and responsibly foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The project would restore coastal wetlands and expand coastal wetland habitat. Concurrent with the setback levee construction, the project would protect and modify the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline. Realignment of the Shortcut Pipeline would require the pipeline to be taken temporarily out of service. The allowable shut-down windows for the Shortcut Pipeline would be a maximum 4-week duration between April 15 to May 30 and/or between September 1 to October 15. Any shutdowns during these time periods would also require the pipeline to be returned to service within 24 hours. In order to facilitate the construction of the new levee and the realignment of the Shortcut pipeline within these timeframes, the pipeline would be shut down during the April 15 to May 30 window, the pipeline drained, and a temporary bypass installed, designed to support the fully operational capacity of the Shortcut Pipeline. The pipeline would then be returned to service using the temporary bypass. Then, construction of the new setback levee and demolition and replacement of the Shortcut and Recycled Water Pipelines would begin. Construction of the setback levee at the pipelines would include subgrade excavation, dewatering, placement of lightweight fill, placement of earth fill, and installation of the sheetpile cutoff wall. Following completion of the levee and installation of the new section of pipeline, the Shortcut Pipeline would be shut down during the September 1 to October 15 window, the pipeline drained, 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-133 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision the temporary bypass removed and the new pipeline connected. The replacement of the Recycled Water Pipeline would occur during the same time as the Shortcut Pipeline replacement following the same general sequence of work, with the exception that the Recycled Water Pipeline is inactive and would not need to be shutdown or drained. There would be no interruption in water supply service to CCWD customers during construction beyond the short-term period to install the bypass, as described above. In order to inspect and maintain their facilities, CCWD requires the use of roads on District and Conco property to access the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline. Access is granted through an easement from Conco and a license from the District. To maintain the existing level of access and to inspect and maintain the pipelines, the District’s license would be modified and new easements obtained from Conco and the District by CCWD. Temporary dewatering would require groundwater to be treated and discharged properly by the contractor in accordance with permit conditions by CCCSD. The volume of groundwater discharged would be short-term, temporary and would not be a substantial increase in volume treated by the CCCSD. Therefore, no new facilities would be required to treat this new source of wastewater. The project would be built adjacent to the CCCSD outfall pipeline in the North Reach. No relocation or modification to the CCCSD outfall pipeline would be required for the construction of the project. The project would be built near and beneath existing PG&E overhead power lines. Power lines cross the site at three locations – an east-west line crossing Pacheco Creek and Walnut Creek in the South Reach; a north-south line crossing Pacheco Creek where the creek bends sharply in the South Reach and Middle Reach; and a roughly east-west line along the southern side of Waterfront Road. An additional power line outside of the project limits crosses Walnut Creek at a diagonal just south of the BNSF Railroad. While construction work would not require the relocation of any power lines, construction would have the potential to damage power lines and expose construction workers to hazardous conditions, particularly through the use of vertical construction equipment such as cranes. To avoid this potential damage, construction workers would follow the Power Line Safety standards from the Department of Industrial Relations.147 This includes:  Identifying the work zone;  Determine if any part of the equipment, load line or load (including rigging and lifting accessories), if operated up to the equipment's maximum working radius in the work zone, could get closer than 20 feet to a power line;  Preventing encroachment/electrocution; and  Providing training to operators and crew members Therefore, construction impacts on the location of water, wastewater, or power utilities would be less than significant. 147 Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 15. Cranes and Derricks in Construction. § 1612.1. Power Line Safety (Up to 350 kV) - Equipment Operations. Available: https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1612_1.html. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-134 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Operational Impacts Project operation would include an interpretive center that would include restrooms. The restrooms would use a below ground concrete vault to store wastewater that would be emptied by a contractor on an as needed basis for delivery to the CCCSD for treatment. The contractor would be licensed and permitted by the CCCSD to dispose of wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant. Daily usage of the proposed interpretive center would result in an increase of a limited number of people during the weekdays and weekends, limited to the hours of operation of the recreational facilities. The increase in visitor use would result in a relatively minor increase in wastewater demand compared to the 40 million gallons of wastewater treated by CCCSD serving over 3,000 businesses and about 489,000 residents every day.148 Therefore, the project would not result in an expansion, relocation, or construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or storm drainage facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and responsibly foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts Project construction would require water for dust control. Water for dust control would be provided by the construction contractor(s), but could be provided by water from dewatering provided it meets water quality permit conditions and aligns with the construction timeline. Otherwise, the construction contractor would buy water from available water sources near the project site and/or store water on the project site, as needed for dust suppression. As part of Phase 1 of the project, new plants would be planted in the marsh and upland areas and invasive plants would be removed. Management would be required to remove invasive weeds and planting of new plants. Irrigation water would be required for the new plants in upland and transition zones. The water used would be by temporary drip irrigation, used only from April through October for the first three years or until plants have matured. Water supplies to serve the irrigation would be purchased by the landscaping contractor from local sources of water and stored onsite in tanks to be pumped through the irrigation system. Water supplies could come from recycled water purchased directly from the CCCSD to serve the project during the irrigation seasons. Therefore, impacts on water supplies would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Project operations would include potable water use on site at the interpretive center; however, no irrigation water would be needed for landscaping after establishment during the habitat restoration activities. In addition, water use would be limited to efficient drip irrigation of any areas requiring additional plantings through the operation and maintenance adaptive management plan from sources mentioned above under construction. Restrooms would be constructed over concrete vaults and would be maintained/emptied by a contractor as needed and would not need water service. No water connections would be required for the interpretive center. Drinking water for use at the interpretive center would be supplied by a water cooler with water jugs brought in by a vendor, as needed. Because of the limited daily use and hours of operation of the interpretive 148 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 2018. Optimizations Report Summary FY 2017/18. Available: https://www.centralsan.org/plans-reports. Accessed June 30, 2019. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-135 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision center and limited occupational space, the use of the interpretive center would not result in a substantial increase in water demand and does not require a water supply assessment. For these reasons, the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and the impact would be less than significant. c) 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? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts As described previously in item ‘a’ above, the project would restore coastal wetlands and expand coastal wetland habitat. Concurrent with the setback levee construction, the project would protect and modify the Shortcut Pipeline and Recycled Water Pipeline. Realignment of the Shortcut Pipeline would require the pipeline to be taken temporarily out of service. Temporary dewatering would require groundwater to be treated and discharged properly by the contractor in accordance with permit conditions by CCCSD. The volume of groundwater discharged would be short -term, temporary and would not be a substantial increase in volume treated by the CCCSD. Therefore, no new facilities would be required to treat this new source of wastewater. The project would be built adjacent to the CCCSD outfall pipeline in the North Reach. No relocation or modification to the CCCSD outfall pipeline would be required for the construction of the project. Therefore, construction impacts on the location of water, wastewater, or power utilities would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Project operation would include an interpretive center that would include restrooms. The restrooms would use a below ground concrete vault to store wastewater that would be emp tied by a contractor on an as needed basis for delivery to the CCCSD for treatment. The contractor would be licensed and permitted by the CCCSD to dispose of wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant. Daily usage of the proposed interpretive center would result in an increase of a limited number of people during the weekdays and weekends, limited to the hours of operation of the recreational facilities. The increase in visitor use would result in a relatively minor increase in wastewater demand compared to the 40 million gallons of wastewater treated by CCCSD serving over 3,000 businesses and about 489,000 residents every day.149 Therefore, the project would not require an expansion, relocation, or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts To the extent practicable, the project would utilize excavated soil on site. However, in the event that some soil was discovered to be contaminated and could not be used for the project, this soil 149 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 2018. Optimizations Report Summary FY 2017/18. Available: https://www.centralsan.org/plans-reports. Accessed June 30, 2019. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-136 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision would be disposed of at the Class II Acme landfill. The addition of potentially 100 cubic yards of miscellaneous debris would be negligible, and would not contribute substantially to landfill capacity reduction. The project would also comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations concerning solid waste, including the County’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance.150 Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Project operations would generate solid waste from visitors and operation of the interpretive center that would be limited to the number of visitors and hours of operation. Therefore, solid waste generation would not be substantial compared to County-wide solid waste generation and impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts To the extent practicable, the project would utilize excavated soil on site. However, in the event that some soil was discovered to be contaminated and could not be used for the project, this soil would be disposed of at the Class II Acme landfill. The addition of potentially 100 cubic yards of miscellaneous debris would be negligible, and would not contribute substantially to landfill capacity reduction. The project would also comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations concerning solid waste, including the County’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance.151 Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Project operations would generate solid waste from visitors and operation of the interpretive center that would be limited to the number of visitors and hours of operation. Therefore, solid waste generation would not be substantial compared to County-wide solid waste generation and impacts would be less than significant. 150 County of Contra Costa – Board of Supervisors, 2004. Ordinance No. 2004-16. Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/c-n-d/Ordinance_5-20-04.pdf. 151 County of Contra Costa – Board of Supervisors, 2004. Ordinance No. 2004-16. Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/c-n-d/Ordinance_5-20-04.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-137 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.20 Wildfire Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Discussion Environmental Setting Portions of the Middle, South, and Pacheco Reaches are located within moderate to high fire hazards severity zones.152,153 The strong winds coming from the Bay and Ocean can exacerbate fire hazards in the project area by increasing the speed and growth of any fires that do start. While the lack of trees and wet marsh vegetation would likely limit the severity of fire in the project area, the possibility of fire is still present due to the annual grasses that dry in the late spring and stay dry through the fall (May through October). Additionally, the presence of oil refinery infrastructure adjacent to the project site make fire potentially more dangerous due to the fuel source and exposure of people and property. a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The relevant adopted emergency response plan is the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services’ Emergency Operations Plan.154 The plan outlines responsibilities and roles in the event of an emergency. Project construction would not impair the emergency response plan because no roads or access to the project site would be blocked and all elements of the County’s emergency 152 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, January, 2009. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. 153 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, November, 2007. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6662/fhszs_map7.pdf. 154 Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services, 2015. Emergency Operations Plan. Available: http://www.cocosheriff.org/documents/ESD/CCC%20Emergency%20Operations%20Plan.pdf. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-138 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision response plan could proceed while the project is being constructed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Once constructed, the project area would not result in interruption or blocking access along local roadways and would not impair the adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The project site is a relatively flat, nearly treeless floodplain; the only site relief is from the levees that rise 10-15 feet above the floodplain and have slopes on either side. The area can experience strong winds traveling through the San Francisco Bay towards the Sacramento Delta. These conditions contribute to the potential for high fire danger on the site. However, the lack of trees and mostly grasslands and marsh make the fuel load of the site low, reducing the severity of wildfire risks. Construction activities would include dust suppression using water trucks and all equipment would be required to be equipped with spark arresting devices and fire equipment (e.g., fire extinguishers). Construction workers could be exposed to an uncontrolled spread of wildfire, but their brief presence on the site combined with the low severity of a grass or marshland wildfire makes the impact from wildfire risk low. Therefore, project construction would not exacerbate wildfire risks and impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Although the project would result in an increase in visitors, the public access facilities would limit visitor access to trails and the interpretive center, reducing the access other vegetated areas of the project. Further, the expansion of marsh habitat, which has lower fire risk than either the existing seasonal wetlands or grasslands, could potentially lower fuel load and, thus, wildfire risk of the project area overall. No fuels would be used or stored on-site for project operation; therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts Additional infrastructure would not be required for construction that could exacerbate fire risk. The project would rely on existing utilities and would not involve the construction of additional access roads for the project. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant. Operational Impacts The interpretive center would be built as part of the project and would involve the construction of minor associated infrastructure connecting existing roads and utilities to the project site. This would require improvements to the road connecting the interpretive center to Waterfront Road, as 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-139 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision well as connections to existing utilities located along Waterfront Road. However, infrastructure on site would be maintained properly and would not exacerbate the risk of wildfire or result in ongoing impacts on the environment. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than Significant) Construction Impacts The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes during construction. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant. Operational Impacts Operation of the project would include expanding the floodplain, but would not would expose people or structures to significant risks including flooding or landslide as result of runoff, pot-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Additionally, no people or structures would be located downstream of the project. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-140 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Discussion a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed in Section IV, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-13 would ensure that development of the proposed 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-1 through BIO-13 would ensure that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. As discussed in Section V, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-2 would ensure that the project does not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-2 would ensure that potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, mitigation measures would be implemented as described in the Air Quality and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections to reduce other impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, Project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-141 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 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)? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) As noted throughout this document, the potential impacts of the proposed project are largely restricted to temporary and short-term construction-related impacts and are site-specific. As noted above, all of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project were determined to be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of mitigation measures AQ-1, BIO-1 through BIO-13, CUL-1 through CUL-2, and HAZ-1. As a result, the potential impacts of the proposed project are not considered to have cumulatively considerable contributions to other past, present, or probable future projects, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Most of the potential impacts of the proposed project would be temporary, short-term, and site- specific. These impacts would be localized to the proposed project site and may include limited adverse effects on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazard and hazardous materials. However, the proposed project would not include any activities or uses that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project has been designed to meet the District’s flood standards and would adhere to local codes and regulations as conditions of project approval. Compliance with applicable local, State, and federal standards, as well as incorporation of project mitigation measures, would result in less-than-significant impacts. The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings as impacts would be avoided and minimized where possible and mitigated when necessary. Mitigation measures would be implemented as described in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources sections. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Environmental Checklist Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-142 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Project Characteristics - Expanded North - "Phase 2_S and N" Land Use - Acreage from project description; buildings from Placeworks Construction Phase - Project Specific "District Lands_LWC_Construction Details_2018-0118.xlsx" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - water truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - dump truck = haul trip Off-road Equipment - LGP Dump Truck = onsite haul trip 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 403.00 Acre 403.00 17,554,680.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2021Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 1 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Off-road Equipment - LGP Dump Truck = onsite haul trip Off-road Equipment - LGP dump truck = onsite truck trip Off-road Equipment - LGP Dump Truck = onsite haul trip Off-road Equipment - vendor trips Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - project specific equipment count; haul trucks for onsite movement Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - project specific equipment count; haul trucks for onsite movement Off-road Equipment - dump truck = haul trip Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - Project specific. John Deer 1600 Series III Turbo = 60.0 hp; load factor from crawler tractor default (0.4288) Off-road Equipment - project specific equipment count concrete pump truck = cement and mortar mixers + pumps + haul truck (onsite movement) Off-road Equipment - concrete pump truck = cement and mortar mixers + pumps + haul truck (onsite movement) Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - project specific equipment count; haul trucks for onsite movement Trips and VMT - Onsite haul trips = 0.25 Offsite haul trips = 5 miles Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 14.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 15.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 6.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 61.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 62.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 48.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 2 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 103.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 62.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 9.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 61.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/2/2102 9/21/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2132 1/20/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/16/2073 6/19/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/25/2037 9/8/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/14/2040 11/24/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 1/26/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/7/2025 7/7/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/27/2028 10/21/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2031 8/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/6/2034 8/31/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/26/2134 1/13/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/24/2021 5/14/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/18/2022 1/25/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 9/23/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 8/7/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 10/23/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 9/30/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 11/13/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 7/20/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 7/24/2020 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 3 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/4/2043 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/17/2073 9/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/3/2102 1/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/7/2034 9/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/26/2037 9/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/15/2040 11/2/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/19/2022 5/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/8/2025 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/28/2028 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2031 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2132 1/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/25/2021 11/2/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 8/3/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 9/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 9/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 11/2/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 11/2/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 6/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/5/2043 6/1/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 24.00 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 77.25 257.50 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 93.00 124.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 88.00 60.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.43 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 4 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 5 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Install culverts tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate marsh pond tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Install culverts tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate levee2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate tidal channels2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Breach tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate levee1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate tidal channels1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Isolate tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Mow tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Fencing tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grade upland fill tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Build tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Access Road tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Reveg CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 6 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate berms tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 5.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 5.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 11,767.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,950.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,134.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,200.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,650.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 467.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 21,559.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 5,117.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,000.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 2,234.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 7 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 24.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 3.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 20.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 15.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 24.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 8 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.3020 5.2814 2.3467 7.5500e- 003 0.2782 0.1093 0.3875 0.0393 0.1022 0.1415 0.0000 692.6742 692.6742 0.1339 0.0000 696.0212 2021 0.0239 0.3035 0.1034 3.7000e- 004 0.0679 9.5200e- 003 0.0774 7.6600e- 003 8.7700e- 003 0.0164 0.0000 32.8070 32.8070 9.4500e- 003 0.0000 33.0432 Maximum 0.3020 5.2814 2.3467 7.5500e- 003 0.2782 0.1093 0.3875 0.0393 0.1022 0.1415 0.0000 692.6742 692.6742 0.1339 0.0000 696.0212 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.3020 5.2814 2.3467 7.5500e- 003 0.2782 0.1093 0.3875 0.0393 0.1022 0.1415 0.0000 692.6738 692.6738 0.1339 0.0000 696.0209 2021 0.0239 0.3035 0.1034 3.7000e- 004 0.0679 9.5200e- 003 0.0774 7.6600e- 003 8.7700e- 003 0.0164 0.0000 32.8069 32.8069 9.4500e- 003 0.0000 33.0432 Maximum 0.3020 5.2814 2.3467 7.5500e- 003 0.2782 0.1093 0.3875 0.0393 0.1022 0.1415 0.0000 692.6738 692.6738 0.1339 0.0000 696.0209 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 9 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9739 3.7716 8.9120 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 7.0357 3,299.535 9 3,306.571 6 0.5434 4.5700e- 003 3,321.518 7 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-1-2020 7-31-2020 2.4453 2.4453 2 8-1-2020 10-31-2020 2.2136 2.2136 3 11-1-2020 1-31-2021 1.1883 1.1883 Highest 2.4453 2.4453 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 10 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9739 3.7716 8.9120 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 7.0357 3,299.535 9 3,306.571 6 0.5434 4.5700e- 003 3,321.518 7 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Mow Site Preparation 5/1/2020 5/14/2020 5 10 Clear and grub excavation and fill areas 2 Reveg Site Preparation 11/2/2020 1/25/2021 5 61 Revegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 11 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3 Setback Grading 5/1/2020 7/7/2020 5 48 Foundation excavation and subgrade preparation for new setback levees 4 Grade NW NE Grading 6/1/2020 10/21/2020 5 103 Excavate and Grading of NW and NE areas 5 Haul N to S Grading 6/1/2020 8/25/2020 5 62 Haul levee fill material from North to South 6 Build Grading 6/1/2020 8/31/2020 5 66 Build levee with North and South sourced Materials 7 Fill Grading 9/1/2020 9/8/2020 5 6 Place fill material along transition slope 8 Haul to N Grading 9/1/2020 11/24/2020 5 61 Haul excess material to North Reach 9 Grade upland fill Grading 11/2/2020 1/26/2021 5 62 Finsh Grading of upland fill and stockpile and road 10 Excavate levee1 Trenching 6/1/2020 7/20/2020 5 36 Excavate existing levee to elevation 10 ft NAVD 11 Excavate tidal channels1 Trenching 6/1/2020 7/24/2020 5 40 Excavate new tidal channels within diked basin 12 Pipeline1 Building Construction 6/1/2020 6/19/2020 5 15 Implement Shortcut pipelin recycled water pipelinn and petroleum pipeline protection measuresn 13 Isolate Trenching 6/1/2020 6/1/2020 5 1 Isolate SLC Channel from tidal connect 14 Excavate marsh pond Trenching 6/1/2020 9/23/2020 5 83 Excavate new tidal channels marsh ponds in N SN and SW areasN 15 Install culverts Trenching 8/3/2020 8/7/2020 5 5 Install new culverts under TransMontaigne Pier Access Road 16 Excavate levee2 Trenching 9/1/2020 10/23/2020 5 39 Excavate levee to design elevation 17 Excavate tidal channels2 Trenching 9/1/2020 9/30/2020 5 22 Excavate new tidal channels connecting to Walnut and Pacheco Creeks 18 Excavate berms Trenching 11/2/2020 11/13/2020 5 10 Excavate existing berms in SW 19 Breach Trenching 11/2/2020 11/27/2020 5 20 Breach new tidal channel connections 20 Pipeline2 Building Construction 9/1/2020 9/21/2020 5 15 Implement Shortcut pipelin recycled water pipelinn and petroleum pipeline protection measuresn 21 Fencing Building Construction 1/1/2021 1/20/2021 5 14 Fencing 22 Access Road Paving 1/1/2021 1/13/2021 5 9 Access road improvements CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 12 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Mow Other General Industrial Equipment 6 8.00 60 0.43 Setback Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Setback Scrapers 1 4.00 367 0.48 Grade NW NE Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grade NW NE Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Haul N to S Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38 Build Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Build Plate Compactors 1 5.00 8 0.43 Excavate levee1 Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38 Excavate tidal channels1 Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Pipeline1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8.00 9 0.56 Pipeline1 Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Pipeline1 Pumps 4 8.00 84 0.74 Pipeline1 Pumps 2 8.00 84 0.74 Isolate Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Excavate marsh pond Excavators 1 7.00 158 0.38 Install culverts Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8.00 221 0.50 Install culverts Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 13 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Fill Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Haul to N Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Excavate levee2 Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Excavate tidal channels2 Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Pipeline2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8.00 9 0.56 Pipeline2 Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Pipeline2 Pumps 4 8.00 84 0.74 Pipeline2 Pumps 2 8.00 84 0.74 Reveg Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36 Grade upland fill Graders 4 8.00 187 0.41 Grade upland fill Plate Compactors 2 8.00 8 0.43 Excavate berms Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Breach Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Fencing Other Material Handling Equipment 0 8.00 168 0.40 Access Road Rollers 1 4.00 80 0.38 Access Road Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 14 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Mow 5 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Setback 2 9.00 0.00 2,650.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grade NW NE 2 20.00 0.00 21,559.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Haul N to S 1 15.00 0.00 5,117.00 10.80 6.60 5.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Build 2 9.00 2.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate levee1 1 6.00 0.00 2,000.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate tidal channels1 1 6.00 0.00 2,234.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Pipeline1 10 24.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Isolate 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate marsh pond 1 12.00 0.00 11,767.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Install culverts 2 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Fill 1 12.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Haul to N 1 12.00 0.00 2,950.00 10.80 6.60 5.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate levee2 1 6.00 0.00 2,134.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate tidal channels2 1 6.00 0.00 1,200.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Pipeline2 10 24.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Reveg 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grade upland fill 5 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate berms 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Breach 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Fencing 0 3.00 2.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Access Road 2 9.00 0.00 467.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 15 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Mow - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0900e- 003 0.0554 0.0515 7.0000e- 005 4.0400e- 003 4.0400e- 003 3.7200e- 003 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.8205 5.8205 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 5.8675 Total 6.0900e- 003 0.0554 0.0515 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0400e- 003 4.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.7200e- 003 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.8205 5.8205 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 5.8675 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6234 Total 3.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 16 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Mow - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.0900e- 003 0.0554 0.0515 7.0000e- 005 4.0400e- 003 4.0400e- 003 3.7200e- 003 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.8205 5.8205 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 5.8675 Total 6.0900e- 003 0.0554 0.0515 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0400e- 003 4.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.7200e- 003 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 5.8205 5.8205 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 5.8675 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6234 Total 3.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 2.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6231 0.6231 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 17 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.2300e- 003 0.0970 0.0360 1.4000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 3.2200e- 003 2.9600e- 003 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 12.0778 12.0778 3.9100e- 003 0.0000 12.1755 Total 8.2300e- 003 0.0970 0.0360 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.2200e- 003 3.2200e- 003 0.0000 2.9600e- 003 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 12.0778 12.0778 3.9100e- 003 0.0000 12.1755 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Total 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 18 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.2300e- 003 0.0970 0.0360 1.4000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 3.2200e- 003 2.9600e- 003 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 12.0778 12.0778 3.9100e- 003 0.0000 12.1755 Total 8.2300e- 003 0.0970 0.0360 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.2200e- 003 3.2200e- 003 0.0000 2.9600e- 003 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 12.0778 12.0778 3.9100e- 003 0.0000 12.1755 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Total 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 19 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9200e- 003 0.0328 0.0136 5.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.6669 4.6669 1.5100e- 003 0.0000 4.7047 Total 2.9200e- 003 0.0328 0.0136 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.6669 4.6669 1.5100e- 003 0.0000 4.7047 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1703 0.1703 0.0000 0.0000 0.1704 Total 8.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1703 0.1703 0.0000 0.0000 0.1704 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 20 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.9200e- 003 0.0328 0.0136 5.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.6669 4.6669 1.5100e- 003 0.0000 4.7047 Total 2.9200e- 003 0.0328 0.0136 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1000e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 1.0100e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.6669 4.6669 1.5100e- 003 0.0000 4.7047 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1703 0.1703 0.0000 0.0000 0.1704 Total 8.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1703 0.1703 0.0000 0.0000 0.1704 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 21 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Setback - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0141 0.1627 0.1189 2.3000e- 004 6.5500e- 003 6.5500e- 003 6.0300e- 003 6.0300e- 003 0.0000 20.0535 20.0535 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 20.2157 Total 0.0141 0.1627 0.1189 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.5500e- 003 6.5500e- 003 0.0000 6.0300e- 003 6.0300e- 003 0.0000 20.0535 20.0535 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 20.2157 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.5100e- 003 0.1285 0.0189 1.4000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 13.8473 13.8473 2.0200e- 003 0.0000 13.8978 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 5.3100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.7100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7200e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4953 1.4953 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4962 Total 3.2300e- 003 0.1290 0.0242 1.6000e- 004 2.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.1200e- 003 5.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 15.3426 15.3426 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 15.3940 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 22 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Setback - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0141 0.1627 0.1189 2.3000e- 004 6.5500e- 003 6.5500e- 003 6.0300e- 003 6.0300e- 003 0.0000 20.0535 20.0535 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 20.2157 Total 0.0141 0.1627 0.1189 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.5500e- 003 6.5500e- 003 0.0000 6.0300e- 003 6.0300e- 003 0.0000 20.0535 20.0535 6.4900e- 003 0.0000 20.2157 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.5100e- 003 0.1285 0.0189 1.4000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 13.8473 13.8473 2.0200e- 003 0.0000 13.8978 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.2000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 5.3100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.7100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7200e- 003 4.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4953 1.4953 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4962 Total 3.2300e- 003 0.1290 0.0242 1.6000e- 004 2.0200e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.1200e- 003 5.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 15.3426 15.3426 2.0600e- 003 0.0000 15.3940 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 23 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Grade NW NE - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1365 0.0000 0.1365 0.0147 0.0000 0.0147 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0638 0.7295 0.5524 1.0500e- 003 0.0296 0.0296 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 91.9045 91.9045 0.0297 0.0000 92.6476 Total 0.0638 0.7295 0.5524 1.0500e- 003 0.1365 0.0296 0.1662 0.0147 0.0273 0.0420 0.0000 91.9045 91.9045 0.0297 0.0000 92.6476 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0204 1.0454 0.1539 1.1600e- 003 2.5000e- 003 7.1000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 1.3900e- 003 0.0000 112.6540 112.6540 0.0164 0.0000 113.0651 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4100e- 003 2.4400e- 003 0.0253 8.0000e- 005 8.1400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 8.1900e- 003 2.1700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.2200e- 003 0.0000 7.1305 7.1305 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.1348 Total 0.0238 1.0478 0.1792 1.2400e- 003 0.0106 7.6000e- 004 0.0114 2.8800e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 119.7845 119.7845 0.0166 0.0000 120.1999 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 24 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Grade NW NE - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1365 0.0000 0.1365 0.0147 0.0000 0.0147 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0638 0.7295 0.5524 1.0500e- 003 0.0296 0.0296 0.0273 0.0273 0.0000 91.9044 91.9044 0.0297 0.0000 92.6475 Total 0.0638 0.7295 0.5524 1.0500e- 003 0.1365 0.0296 0.1662 0.0147 0.0273 0.0420 0.0000 91.9044 91.9044 0.0297 0.0000 92.6475 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0204 1.0454 0.1539 1.1600e- 003 2.5000e- 003 7.1000e- 004 3.2200e- 003 7.1000e- 004 6.8000e- 004 1.3900e- 003 0.0000 112.6540 112.6540 0.0164 0.0000 113.0651 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4100e- 003 2.4400e- 003 0.0253 8.0000e- 005 8.1400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 8.1900e- 003 2.1700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.2200e- 003 0.0000 7.1305 7.1305 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.1348 Total 0.0238 1.0478 0.1792 1.2400e- 003 0.0106 7.6000e- 004 0.0114 2.8800e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 119.7845 119.7845 0.0166 0.0000 120.1999 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 25 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Haul N to S - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8000e- 003 0.0374 0.0507 8.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.8100e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 7.0324 7.0324 2.2700e- 003 0.0000 7.0892 Total 3.8000e- 003 0.0374 0.0507 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8100e- 003 1.8100e- 003 0.0000 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 7.0324 7.0324 2.2700e- 003 0.0000 7.0892 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.8200e- 003 0.3684 0.0639 7.0000e- 004 0.0108 7.1000e- 004 0.0116 2.9900e- 003 6.8000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 0.0000 67.4652 67.4652 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 67.6000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5400e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0114 4.0000e- 005 3.6700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2191 3.2191 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2211 Total 0.0104 0.3695 0.0753 7.4000e- 004 0.0145 7.3000e- 004 0.0153 3.9700e- 003 7.0000e- 004 4.6600e- 003 0.0000 70.6843 70.6843 5.4700e- 003 0.0000 70.8211 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 26 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Haul N to S - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8000e- 003 0.0374 0.0507 8.0000e- 005 1.8100e- 003 1.8100e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 7.0323 7.0323 2.2700e- 003 0.0000 7.0892 Total 3.8000e- 003 0.0374 0.0507 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8100e- 003 1.8100e- 003 0.0000 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 0.0000 7.0323 7.0323 2.2700e- 003 0.0000 7.0892 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.8200e- 003 0.3684 0.0639 7.0000e- 004 0.0108 7.1000e- 004 0.0116 2.9900e- 003 6.8000e- 004 3.6600e- 003 0.0000 67.4652 67.4652 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 67.6000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5400e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0114 4.0000e- 005 3.6700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2191 3.2191 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2211 Total 0.0104 0.3695 0.0753 7.4000e- 004 0.0145 7.3000e- 004 0.0153 3.9700e- 003 7.0000e- 004 4.6600e- 003 0.0000 70.6843 70.6843 5.4700e- 003 0.0000 70.8211 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 27 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Build - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0175 0.0000 0.0175 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.2139 0.0642 2.3000e- 004 6.8700e- 003 6.8700e- 003 6.3400e- 003 6.3400e- 003 0.0000 19.8863 19.8863 6.2900e- 003 0.0000 20.0435 Total 0.0165 0.2139 0.0642 2.3000e- 004 0.0175 6.8700e- 003 0.0244 1.8900e- 003 6.3400e- 003 8.2300e- 003 0.0000 19.8863 19.8863 6.2900e- 003 0.0000 20.0435 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.4000e- 004 7.2700e- 003 1.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.5948 1.5948 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5970 Worker 9.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 7.2900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 6.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.0561 2.0561 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0573 Total 1.2200e- 003 7.9700e- 003 9.1200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.7400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.7900e- 003 7.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.6509 3.6509 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.6543 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 28 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Build - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0175 0.0000 0.0175 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 1.8900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.2139 0.0642 2.3000e- 004 6.8700e- 003 6.8700e- 003 6.3400e- 003 6.3400e- 003 0.0000 19.8862 19.8862 6.2900e- 003 0.0000 20.0435 Total 0.0165 0.2139 0.0642 2.3000e- 004 0.0175 6.8700e- 003 0.0244 1.8900e- 003 6.3400e- 003 8.2300e- 003 0.0000 19.8862 19.8862 6.2900e- 003 0.0000 20.0435 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.4000e- 004 7.2700e- 003 1.8300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.5948 1.5948 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5970 Worker 9.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 004 7.2900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3600e- 003 6.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.0561 2.0561 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0573 Total 1.2200e- 003 7.9700e- 003 9.1200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.7400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.7900e- 003 7.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.6509 3.6509 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.6543 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 29 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Fill - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 1.5900e- 003 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4300e- 003 0.0190 5.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7492 1.7492 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7633 Total 1.4300e- 003 0.0190 5.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.5900e- 003 6.1000e- 004 2.2000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7492 1.7492 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7633 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2492 0.2492 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2494 Total 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2492 0.2492 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2494 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 30 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Fill - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 1.5900e- 003 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4300e- 003 0.0190 5.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7492 1.7492 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7633 Total 1.4300e- 003 0.0190 5.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.5900e- 003 6.1000e- 004 2.2000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.6000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.7492 1.7492 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7633 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2492 0.2492 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2494 Total 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2492 0.2492 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2494 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 31 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Haul to N - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8000e- 003 0.0276 0.0374 6.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.3400e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.1892 5.1892 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.2312 Total 2.8000e- 003 0.0276 0.0374 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3400e- 003 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.1892 5.1892 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.2312 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.0800e- 003 0.2124 0.0368 4.0000e- 004 6.2500e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 1.7200e- 003 3.9000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 38.8944 38.8944 3.1100e- 003 0.0000 38.9721 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2100e- 003 8.7000e- 004 8.9900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.5338 2.5338 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5353 Total 6.2900e- 003 0.2132 0.0458 4.3000e- 004 9.1400e- 003 4.3000e- 004 9.5700e- 003 2.4900e- 003 4.1000e- 004 2.9000e- 003 0.0000 41.4281 41.4281 3.1700e- 003 0.0000 41.5073 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 32 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Haul to N - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8000e- 003 0.0276 0.0374 6.0000e- 005 1.3400e- 003 1.3400e- 003 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.1892 5.1892 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.2311 Total 2.8000e- 003 0.0276 0.0374 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3400e- 003 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 1.2300e- 003 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 5.1892 5.1892 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.2311 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.0800e- 003 0.2124 0.0368 4.0000e- 004 6.2500e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 1.7200e- 003 3.9000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 38.8944 38.8944 3.1100e- 003 0.0000 38.9721 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2100e- 003 8.7000e- 004 8.9900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.5338 2.5338 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5353 Total 6.2900e- 003 0.2132 0.0458 4.3000e- 004 9.1400e- 003 4.3000e- 004 9.5700e- 003 2.4900e- 003 4.1000e- 004 2.9000e- 003 0.0000 41.4281 41.4281 3.1700e- 003 0.0000 41.5073 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 33 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Grade upland fill - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0658 0.0000 0.0658 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0436 0.5677 0.1689 6.1000e- 004 0.0182 0.0182 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 52.6860 52.6860 0.0167 0.0000 53.1044 Total 0.0436 0.5677 0.1689 6.1000e- 004 0.0658 0.0182 0.0840 7.1000e- 003 0.0168 0.0239 0.0000 52.6860 52.6860 0.0167 0.0000 53.1044 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3100e- 003 9.4000e- 004 9.7300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7414 2.7414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7431 Total 1.3100e- 003 9.4000e- 004 9.7300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7414 2.7414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7431 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 34 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Grade upland fill - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0658 0.0000 0.0658 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0436 0.5677 0.1689 6.1000e- 004 0.0182 0.0182 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 52.6859 52.6859 0.0167 0.0000 53.1043 Total 0.0436 0.5677 0.1689 6.1000e- 004 0.0658 0.0182 0.0840 7.1000e- 003 0.0168 0.0239 0.0000 52.6859 52.6859 0.0167 0.0000 53.1043 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3100e- 003 9.4000e- 004 9.7300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7414 2.7414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7431 Total 1.3100e- 003 9.4000e- 004 9.7300e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7414 2.7414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.7431 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 35 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Grade upland fill - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0658 0.0000 0.0658 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0170 0.2178 0.0674 2.5000e- 004 6.9300e- 003 6.9300e- 003 6.3900e- 003 6.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.5196 21.5196 6.8400e- 003 0.0000 21.6905 Total 0.0170 0.2178 0.0674 2.5000e- 004 0.0658 6.9300e- 003 0.0727 7.1000e- 003 6.3900e- 003 0.0135 0.0000 21.5196 21.5196 6.8400e- 003 0.0000 21.6905 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 3.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.0821 1.0821 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0828 Total 5.0000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 3.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.0821 1.0821 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0828 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 36 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Grade upland fill - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0658 0.0000 0.0658 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 7.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0170 0.2178 0.0674 2.5000e- 004 6.9300e- 003 6.9300e- 003 6.3900e- 003 6.3900e- 003 0.0000 21.5195 21.5195 6.8400e- 003 0.0000 21.6904 Total 0.0170 0.2178 0.0674 2.5000e- 004 0.0658 6.9300e- 003 0.0727 7.1000e- 003 6.3900e- 003 0.0135 0.0000 21.5195 21.5195 6.8400e- 003 0.0000 21.6904 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 3.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.0821 1.0821 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0828 Total 5.0000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 3.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.0821 1.0821 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0828 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 37 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.11 Excavate levee1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.2000e- 003 0.0217 0.0294 5.0000e- 005 1.0500e- 003 1.0500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0833 4.0833 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 4.1163 Total 2.2000e- 003 0.0217 0.0294 5.0000e- 005 1.0500e- 003 1.0500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0833 4.0833 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 4.1163 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.8900e- 003 0.0970 0.0143 1.1000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 10.4508 10.4508 1.5300e- 003 0.0000 10.4889 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.6000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.7477 0.7477 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7481 Total 2.2500e- 003 0.0972 0.0169 1.2000e- 004 1.0800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 11.1984 11.1984 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 11.2370 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 38 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.11 Excavate levee1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.2000e- 003 0.0217 0.0294 5.0000e- 005 1.0500e- 003 1.0500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0833 4.0833 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 4.1163 Total 2.2000e- 003 0.0217 0.0294 5.0000e- 005 1.0500e- 003 1.0500e- 003 9.7000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0833 4.0833 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 4.1163 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.8900e- 003 0.0970 0.0143 1.1000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 10.4508 10.4508 1.5300e- 003 0.0000 10.4889 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 2.6500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.6000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.7477 0.7477 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7481 Total 2.2500e- 003 0.0972 0.0169 1.2000e- 004 1.0800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 11.1984 11.1984 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 11.2370 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 39 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.12 Excavate tidal channels1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8400e- 003 0.0181 0.0245 4.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.4028 3.4028 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 3.4303 Total 1.8400e- 003 0.0181 0.0245 4.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.4028 3.4028 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 3.4303 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.1200e- 003 0.1083 0.0159 1.2000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.6735 11.6735 1.7000e- 003 0.0000 11.7161 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.8307 0.8307 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8312 Total 2.5200e- 003 0.1086 0.0189 1.3000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 12.5043 12.5043 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 12.5473 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 40 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.12 Excavate tidal channels1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8400e- 003 0.0181 0.0245 4.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.4027 3.4027 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 3.4303 Total 1.8400e- 003 0.0181 0.0245 4.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 8.8000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.4027 3.4027 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 3.4303 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.1200e- 003 0.1083 0.0159 1.2000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.6735 11.6735 1.7000e- 003 0.0000 11.7161 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.8307 0.8307 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8312 Total 2.5200e- 003 0.1086 0.0189 1.3000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 12.5043 12.5043 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 12.5473 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 41 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.13 Pipeline1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9273 32.9273 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Total 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9273 32.9273 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1000e- 004 3.3100e- 003 8.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7249 0.7249 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7259 Worker 6.0000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2461 1.2461 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2469 Total 7.1000e- 004 3.7400e- 003 5.2500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.6200e- 003 4.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.9710 1.9710 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9728 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 42 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.13 Pipeline1 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9272 32.9272 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Total 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9272 32.9272 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1000e- 004 3.3100e- 003 8.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7249 0.7249 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7259 Worker 6.0000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2461 1.2461 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2469 Total 7.1000e- 004 3.7400e- 003 5.2500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.6200e- 003 4.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.9710 1.9710 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9728 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 43 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.14 Isolate - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2269 0.2269 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2287 Total 1.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2269 0.2269 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2287 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 Total 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 44 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.14 Isolate - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2269 0.2269 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2287 Total 1.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2269 0.2269 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2287 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 Total 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 45 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.15 Excavate marsh pond - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 8.9000e- 003 0.0876 0.1187 1.9000e- 004 4.2400e- 003 4.2400e- 003 3.9000e- 003 3.9000e- 003 0.0000 16.4750 16.4750 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 16.6082 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0876 0.1187 1.9000e- 004 4.2400e- 003 4.2400e- 003 3.9000e- 003 3.9000e- 003 0.0000 16.4750 16.4750 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 16.6082 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0111 0.5706 0.0840 6.4000e- 004 1.3600e- 003 3.9000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 3.9000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 0.0000 61.4871 61.4871 8.9700e- 003 0.0000 61.7115 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6500e- 003 1.1800e- 003 0.0122 4.0000e- 005 3.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9600e- 003 1.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.4476 3.4476 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4496 Total 0.0128 0.5718 0.0962 6.8000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 4.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.4400e- 003 3.9000e- 004 1.8300e- 003 0.0000 64.9346 64.9346 9.0500e- 003 0.0000 65.1611 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 46 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.15 Excavate marsh pond - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 8.9000e- 003 0.0876 0.1187 1.9000e- 004 4.2400e- 003 4.2400e- 003 3.9000e- 003 3.9000e- 003 0.0000 16.4750 16.4750 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 16.6082 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0876 0.1187 1.9000e- 004 4.2400e- 003 4.2400e- 003 3.9000e- 003 3.9000e- 003 0.0000 16.4750 16.4750 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 16.6082 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0111 0.5706 0.0840 6.4000e- 004 1.3600e- 003 3.9000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 3.9000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 7.6000e- 004 0.0000 61.4871 61.4871 8.9700e- 003 0.0000 61.7115 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6500e- 003 1.1800e- 003 0.0122 4.0000e- 005 3.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9600e- 003 1.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.4476 3.4476 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.4496 Total 0.0128 0.5718 0.0962 6.8000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 4.2000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.4400e- 003 3.9000e- 004 1.8300e- 003 0.0000 64.9346 64.9346 9.0500e- 003 0.0000 65.1611 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 47 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.16 Install culverts - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.3100e- 003 0.0148 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1977 3.1977 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.2235 Total 1.3100e- 003 0.0148 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1977 3.1977 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.2235 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 48 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.16 Install culverts - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.3100e- 003 0.0148 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1977 3.1977 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.2235 Total 1.3100e- 003 0.0148 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.1977 3.1977 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 3.2235 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 49 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.17 Excavate levee2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7900e- 003 0.0176 0.0239 4.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.3177 3.3177 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.3445 Total 1.7900e- 003 0.0176 0.0239 4.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.3177 3.3177 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.3445 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0200e- 003 0.1035 0.0152 1.2000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.1510 11.1510 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 11.1917 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8100 0.8100 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8105 Total 2.4100e- 003 0.1038 0.0181 1.3000e- 004 1.1700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.2500e- 003 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 11.9609 11.9609 1.6500e- 003 0.0000 12.0021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 50 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.17 Excavate levee2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7900e- 003 0.0176 0.0239 4.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.3177 3.3177 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.3445 Total 1.7900e- 003 0.0176 0.0239 4.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.3177 3.3177 1.0700e- 003 0.0000 3.3445 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0200e- 003 0.1035 0.0152 1.2000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.1510 11.1510 1.6300e- 003 0.0000 11.1917 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.9000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8100 0.8100 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8105 Total 2.4100e- 003 0.1038 0.0181 1.3000e- 004 1.1700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.2500e- 003 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 11.9609 11.9609 1.6500e- 003 0.0000 12.0021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 51 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.18 Excavate tidal channels2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.0100e- 003 9.9500e- 003 0.0135 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.8715 1.8715 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8866 Total 1.0100e- 003 9.9500e- 003 0.0135 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.8715 1.8715 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8866 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.1400e- 003 0.0582 8.5600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.2705 6.2705 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 6.2933 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Total 1.3600e- 003 0.0584 0.0102 7.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 6.7274 6.7274 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.7505 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 52 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.18 Excavate tidal channels2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.0100e- 003 9.9500e- 003 0.0135 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.8715 1.8715 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8866 Total 1.0100e- 003 9.9500e- 003 0.0135 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.8715 1.8715 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8866 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.1400e- 003 0.0582 8.5600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.2705 6.2705 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 6.2933 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.4569 0.4569 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4572 Total 1.3600e- 003 0.0584 0.0102 7.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 6.7274 6.7274 9.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.7505 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 53 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.19 Excavate berms - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4.9600e- 003 0.0588 0.0373 8.0000e- 005 2.2900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.6543 6.6543 2.1500e- 003 0.0000 6.7081 Total 4.9600e- 003 0.0588 0.0373 8.0000e- 005 2.2900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.6543 6.6543 2.1500e- 003 0.0000 6.7081 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 54 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.19 Excavate berms - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4.9600e- 003 0.0588 0.0373 8.0000e- 005 2.2900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.6543 6.6543 2.1500e- 003 0.0000 6.7081 Total 4.9600e- 003 0.0588 0.0373 8.0000e- 005 2.2900e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.1100e- 003 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.6543 6.6543 2.1500e- 003 0.0000 6.7081 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 55 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.20 Breach - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.4500e- 003 0.0241 0.0327 5.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.1700e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0000 4.5370 4.5370 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.5737 Total 2.4500e- 003 0.0241 0.0327 5.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.1700e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0000 4.5370 4.5370 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.5737 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2077 0.2077 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2078 Total 1.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2077 0.2077 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2078 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 56 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.20 Breach - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.4500e- 003 0.0241 0.0327 5.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.1700e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0000 4.5370 4.5370 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.5737 Total 2.4500e- 003 0.0241 0.0327 5.0000e- 005 1.1700e- 003 1.1700e- 003 1.0800e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0000 4.5370 4.5370 1.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.5737 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2077 0.2077 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2078 Total 1.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2077 0.2077 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2078 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 57 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.21 Pipeline2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9273 32.9273 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Total 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9273 32.9273 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1000e- 004 3.3100e- 003 8.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7249 0.7249 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7259 Worker 6.0000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2461 1.2461 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2469 Total 7.1000e- 004 3.7400e- 003 5.2500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.6200e- 003 4.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.9710 1.9710 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9728 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 58 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.21 Pipeline2 - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9272 32.9272 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Total 0.0236 0.2005 0.2230 3.8000e- 004 0.0113 0.0113 0.0112 0.0112 0.0000 32.9272 32.9272 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 33.0221 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1000e- 004 3.3100e- 003 8.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7249 0.7249 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7259 Worker 6.0000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2461 1.2461 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2469 Total 7.1000e- 004 3.7400e- 003 5.2500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6000e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.6200e- 003 4.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.9710 1.9710 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.9728 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 59 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.22 Fencing - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 003 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3351 0.3351 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3355 Worker 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1403 0.1403 0.0000 0.0000 0.1404 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.4400e- 003 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4754 0.4754 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4759 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 60 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.22 Fencing - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 003 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3351 0.3351 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3355 Worker 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1403 0.1403 0.0000 0.0000 0.1404 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.4400e- 003 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4754 0.4754 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4759 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 61 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.23 Access Road - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.7800e- 003 0.0290 0.0133 3.0000e- 005 1.4600e- 003 1.4600e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 2.2074 2.2074 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2253 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.7800e- 003 0.0290 0.0133 3.0000e- 005 1.4600e- 003 1.4600e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 2.2074 2.2074 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2253 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.1000e- 004 0.0219 3.1700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4147 2.4147 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4231 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2705 0.2705 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2707 Total 5.3000e- 004 0.0220 4.0800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.6852 2.6852 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6938 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 62 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 3.23 Access Road - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.7800e- 003 0.0290 0.0133 3.0000e- 005 1.4600e- 003 1.4600e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 2.2074 2.2074 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2253 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.7800e- 003 0.0290 0.0133 3.0000e- 005 1.4600e- 003 1.4600e- 003 1.3500e- 003 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 2.2074 2.2074 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2253 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.1000e- 004 0.0219 3.1700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4147 2.4147 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4231 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2705 0.2705 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2707 Total 5.3000e- 004 0.0220 4.0800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.6852 2.6852 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6938 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 63 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Unmitigated 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 761.67 9,168.25 6746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Total 761.67 9,168.25 6,746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.575198 0.040076 0.193827 0.113296 0.016988 0.005361 0.017552 0.025197 0.002581 0.002349 0.005904 0.000881 0.000789 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 64 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 65 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 66 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 67 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 68 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 69 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 70 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 71 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 72 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:00 PMPage 73 of 73 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 2" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 403.00 Acre 403.00 17,554,680.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2021Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 1 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Additional construction associated to sand pile movement from North Reach Land Use - Construction only for sand pile removal from North Reach Construction Phase - days based on max equipment in phase Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Off-road Equipment - from ART_Equipment_Details.xlsx Trips and VMT - Haul trip is project specifc = 4 miles one way Vendor trips for water trucks, RTV, and street sweeps is project specific. Assume not phased Grading - Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - NA Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 500.00 3.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 28.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 3.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 9.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 347.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 347.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 182.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 247.00 182.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 88.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 2 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 347.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 34.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 250.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 8.00 153.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 88.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 142.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 641.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 3 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 6,550.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 28.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 130.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 15.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 15.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 15.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 15.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 13.00 15.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 4 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0648 1.1549 0.3880 1.9700e- 003 0.2294 0.0222 0.2516 0.1189 0.0207 0.1395 0.0000 184.1828 184.1828 0.0247 0.0000 184.8008 Maximum 0.0648 1.1549 0.3880 1.9700e- 003 0.2294 0.0222 0.2516 0.1189 0.0207 0.1395 0.0000 184.1828 184.1828 0.0247 0.0000 184.8008 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0648 1.1549 0.3880 1.9700e- 003 0.2294 0.0222 0.2516 0.1189 0.0207 0.1395 0.0000 184.1827 184.1827 0.0247 0.0000 184.8007 Maximum 0.0648 1.1549 0.3880 1.9700e- 003 0.2294 0.0222 0.2516 0.1189 0.0207 0.1395 0.0000 184.1827 184.1827 0.0247 0.0000 184.8007 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 5 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9739 3.7716 8.9120 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 7.0357 3,299.535 9 3,306.571 6 0.5434 4.5700e- 003 3,321.518 7 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-1-2020 7-31-2020 1.2620 1.2620 Highest 1.2620 1.2620 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 6 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9739 3.7716 8.9120 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 7.0357 3,299.535 9 3,306.571 6 0.5434 4.5700e- 003 3,321.518 7 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 7 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris Demolition 5/1/2020 5/5/2020 5 3 2 Mobilization Site Preparation 5/1/2020 5/4/2020 5 2 3 Clearing and Stripping Site Preparation 5/1/2020 5/13/2020 5 9 4 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite Grading 5/1/2020 6/9/2020 5 28 5 Erosion Control Grading 5/1/2020 5/5/2020 5 3 6 Access Road Improvements Paving 5/1/2020 5/4/2020 5 2 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 8 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris Excavators 1 5.00 347 0.38 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris Generator Sets 1 8.00 34 0.74 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 88 0.37 Mobilization Generator Sets 1 8.00 34 0.74 Mobilization Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36 Mobilization Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37 Mobilization Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 88 0.37 Clearing and Stripping Excavators 1 8.00 347 0.38 Clearing and Stripping Generator Sets 1 8.00 34 0.74 Clearing and Stripping Rubber Tired Dozers 2 5.00 182 0.40 Clearing and Stripping Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite Excavators 1 7.00 347 0.38 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite Generator Sets 1 8.00 34 0.74 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 182 0.40 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Erosion Control Generator Sets 1 8.00 34 0.74 Erosion Control Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36 Erosion Control Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Access Road Improvements Generator Sets 2 8.00 34 0.74 Access Road Improvements Graders 1 8.00 250 0.41 Access Road Improvements Plate Compactors 1 8.00 153 0.43 Access Road Improvements Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 9 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.4100e- 003 0.0128 0.0126 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1955 2.1955 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2114 Total 1.4100e- 003 0.0128 0.0126 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1955 2.1955 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2114 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris 5 15.00 4.00 142.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Mobilization 6 18.00 6.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Clearing and Stripping 5 15.00 28.00 641.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite 5 15.00 130.00 6,550.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Erosion Control 3 9.00 6.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Access Road Improvements 5 15.00 15.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 4.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 10 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.2000e- 004 9.5200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.6343 1.6343 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.6378 Vendor 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1450 0.1450 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1452 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1558 0.1558 0.0000 0.0000 0.1559 Total 3.1000e- 004 0.0102 2.3300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.9350 1.9350 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.9388 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.4100e- 003 0.0128 0.0126 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1955 2.1955 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2114 Total 1.4100e- 003 0.0128 0.0126 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 6.3000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1955 2.1955 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2114 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 11 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Remove and Abandon Infrastructure & Debris - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.2000e- 004 9.5200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.6343 1.6343 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.6378 Vendor 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1450 0.1450 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1452 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1558 0.1558 0.0000 0.0000 0.1559 Total 3.1000e- 004 0.0102 2.3300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.9350 1.9350 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.9388 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Mobilization - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2200e- 003 0.0122 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.6360 1.6360 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6480 Total 1.2200e- 003 0.0122 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.6360 1.6360 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6480 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 12 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Mobilization - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1450 0.1450 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1452 Worker 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1246 0.1246 0.0000 0.0000 0.1247 Total 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2696 0.2696 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2699 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2200e- 003 0.0122 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 5.7000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.6360 1.6360 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6480 Total 1.2200e- 003 0.0122 0.0103 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.7000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.6360 1.6360 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6480 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 13 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Mobilization - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1450 0.1450 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1452 Worker 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1246 0.1246 0.0000 0.0000 0.1247 Total 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 004 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2696 0.2696 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2699 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Clearing and Stripping - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0339 0.0000 0.0339 0.0186 0.0000 0.0186 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.8200e- 003 0.0763 0.0429 1.1000e- 004 3.4400e- 003 3.4400e- 003 3.1900e- 003 3.1900e- 003 0.0000 9.4224 9.4224 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.4931 Total 7.8200e- 003 0.0763 0.0429 1.1000e- 004 0.0339 3.4400e- 003 0.0373 0.0186 3.1900e- 003 0.0218 0.0000 9.4224 9.4224 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.4931 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 14 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Clearing and Stripping - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0000e- 003 0.0430 7.2800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.3772 7.3772 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3931 Vendor 4.6000e- 004 0.0139 3.4900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.1000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.0446 3.0446 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.0487 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 5.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4673 0.4673 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4676 Total 1.6800e- 003 0.0570 0.0124 1.2000e- 004 2.3700e- 003 1.3000e- 004 2.5100e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 10.8891 10.8891 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.9094 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0339 0.0000 0.0339 0.0186 0.0000 0.0186 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.8200e- 003 0.0763 0.0429 1.1000e- 004 3.4400e- 003 3.4400e- 003 3.1900e- 003 3.1900e- 003 0.0000 9.4224 9.4224 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.4931 Total 7.8200e- 003 0.0763 0.0429 1.1000e- 004 0.0339 3.4400e- 003 0.0373 0.0186 3.1900e- 003 0.0218 0.0000 9.4224 9.4224 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.4931 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 15 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Clearing and Stripping - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0000e- 003 0.0430 7.2800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.3772 7.3772 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.3931 Vendor 4.6000e- 004 0.0139 3.4900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.1000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.0446 3.0446 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.0487 Worker 2.2000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 5.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4673 0.4673 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4676 Total 1.6800e- 003 0.0570 0.0124 1.2000e- 004 2.3700e- 003 1.3000e- 004 2.5100e- 003 6.6000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 0.0000 10.8891 10.8891 8.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.9094 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1686 0.0000 0.1686 0.0927 0.0000 0.0927 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0321 0.3188 0.1609 3.9000e- 004 0.0148 0.0148 0.0137 0.0137 0.0000 33.3848 33.3848 0.0101 0.0000 33.6375 Total 0.0321 0.3188 0.1609 3.9000e- 004 0.1686 0.0148 0.1834 0.0927 0.0137 0.1064 0.0000 33.3848 33.3848 0.0101 0.0000 33.6375 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 16 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0102 0.4391 0.0744 7.8000e- 004 0.0111 7.6000e- 004 0.0119 3.0600e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 75.3834 75.3834 6.5000e- 003 0.0000 75.5459 Vendor 6.6300e- 003 0.2005 0.0505 4.6000e- 004 0.0108 9.3000e- 004 0.0117 3.1200e- 003 8.9000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 0.0000 43.9782 43.9782 2.3700e- 003 0.0000 44.0374 Worker 7.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.1600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.4538 1.4538 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4547 Total 0.0175 0.6401 0.1300 1.2600e- 003 0.0236 1.7000e- 003 0.0253 6.6200e- 003 1.6300e- 003 8.2500e- 003 0.0000 120.8154 120.8154 8.9100e- 003 0.0000 121.0379 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1686 0.0000 0.1686 0.0927 0.0000 0.0927 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0321 0.3188 0.1609 3.9000e- 004 0.0148 0.0148 0.0137 0.0137 0.0000 33.3847 33.3847 0.0101 0.0000 33.6375 Total 0.0321 0.3188 0.1609 3.9000e- 004 0.1686 0.0148 0.1834 0.0927 0.0137 0.1064 0.0000 33.3847 33.3847 0.0101 0.0000 33.6375 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 17 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Grade Excavation and Haul Offsite - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0102 0.4391 0.0744 7.8000e- 004 0.0111 7.6000e- 004 0.0119 3.0600e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.7900e- 003 0.0000 75.3834 75.3834 6.5000e- 003 0.0000 75.5459 Vendor 6.6300e- 003 0.2005 0.0505 4.6000e- 004 0.0108 9.3000e- 004 0.0117 3.1200e- 003 8.9000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 0.0000 43.9782 43.9782 2.3700e- 003 0.0000 44.0374 Worker 7.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.1600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.6600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 4.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.4538 1.4538 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4547 Total 0.0175 0.6401 0.1300 1.2600e- 003 0.0236 1.7000e- 003 0.0253 6.6200e- 003 1.6300e- 003 8.2500e- 003 0.0000 120.8154 120.8154 8.9100e- 003 0.0000 121.0379 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Erosion Control - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.1400e- 003 0.0109 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4390 1.4390 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4488 Total 1.1400e- 003 0.0109 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4390 1.4390 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4488 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 18 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Erosion Control - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2175 0.2175 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2178 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0935 0.0935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0935 Total 7.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3109 0.3109 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3113 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.1400e- 003 0.0109 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4390 1.4390 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4488 Total 1.1400e- 003 0.0109 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4390 1.4390 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.4488 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 19 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Erosion Control - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e- 005 9.9000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2175 0.2175 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2178 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0935 0.0935 0.0000 0.0000 0.0935 Total 7.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3109 0.3109 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3113 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Access Road Improvements - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.3300e- 003 0.0131 7.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4186 1.4186 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4277 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3300e- 003 0.0131 7.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4186 1.4186 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4277 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 20 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Access Road Improvements - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3625 0.3625 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3630 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4663 0.4663 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4669 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.3300e- 003 0.0131 7.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4186 1.4186 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4277 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3300e- 003 0.0131 7.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4186 1.4186 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.4277 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 21 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Access Road Improvements - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.6500e- 003 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3625 0.3625 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3630 Worker 5.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1038 0.1038 0.0000 0.0000 0.1039 Total 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4663 0.4663 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4669 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 22 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 Unmitigated 0.7707 3.7716 8.9083 0.0306 2.5863 0.0285 2.6148 0.6942 0.0267 0.7209 0.0000 2,810.627 4 2,810.627 4 0.1054 0.0000 2,813.263 5 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 761.67 9,168.25 6746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Total 761.67 9,168.25 6,746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.575198 0.040076 0.193827 0.113296 0.016988 0.005361 0.017552 0.025197 0.002581 0.002349 0.005904 0.000881 0.000789 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 23 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 24 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 25 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 26 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 27 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 28 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 29 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 30 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 9/3/2019 11:04 AMPage 31 of 32 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - North Reach Sand Pile - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 403.00 Acre 403.00 17,554,680.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2022Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 1 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Expanded North - "Phase 3_M and N_A" Land Use - Acreage from project description; buildings from Placeworks Construction Phase - Project Specific "Expanded North_LWC_Construction Details_2018-0118.xlsx" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Off-road Equipment - LGP Track Dump truck = haul truck trip Off-road Equipment - Dump truck = haul trip water truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - Dump truck = haul trip water truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - Project specific. John Deer 1600 Series III Turbo = 60.0 hp; load factor from crawler tractor default (0.4288) Trips and VMT - project specific Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 500.00 34.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 59.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 104.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 3.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/31/2023 6/17/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/14/2027 7/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/3/2030 11/23/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/24/2024 5/5/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/25/2024 5/3/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/15/2027 7/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/1/2023 5/3/2021 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 2 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblFleetMix HHD 0.03 0.03 tblFleetMix LDA 0.58 0.58 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.19 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.3580e-003 5.3610e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.8740e-003 5.9040e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.11 tblFleetMix MH 7.6800e-004 7.8900e-004 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.02 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.6140e-003 2.5810e-003 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.8700e-004 8.8100e-004 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.2740e-003 2.3490e-003 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 88.00 60.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.43 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Mow tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Foundation Excavation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 3 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Haul M to N tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Haul N to M tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 5.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 5.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,834.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,834.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 7,450.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 21.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 4 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.0501 1.0698 0.3534 1.9700e- 003 0.2345 0.0131 0.2477 0.1196 0.0122 0.1318 0.0000 185.6897 185.6897 0.0242 0.0000 186.2941 Maximum 0.0501 1.0698 0.3534 1.9700e- 003 0.2345 0.0131 0.2477 0.1196 0.0122 0.1318 0.0000 185.6897 185.6897 0.0242 0.0000 186.2941 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2021 0.0501 0.8150 0.3534 1.9700e- 003 0.2345 0.0131 0.2477 0.1196 0.0122 0.1318 0.0000 185.6896 185.6896 0.0242 0.0000 186.2940 Maximum 0.0501 0.8150 0.3534 1.9700e- 003 0.2345 0.0131 0.2477 0.1196 0.0122 0.1318 0.0000 185.6896 185.6896 0.0242 0.0000 186.2940 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 23.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 5 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7182 3.5263 8.2501 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 0.0000 2,727.327 5 2,727.327 5 0.0992 0.0000 2,729.807 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9214 3.5264 8.2538 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 7.0357 3,216.236 0 3,223.271 7 0.5371 4.5700e- 003 3,238.062 4 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-3-2021 8-2-2021 0.4819 0.3817 2 8-3-2021 9-30-2021 0.3296 0.2492 Highest 0.4819 0.3817 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 6 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.7182 3.5263 8.2501 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 0.0000 2,727.327 5 2,727.327 5 0.0992 0.0000 2,729.807 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.9214 3.5264 8.2538 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 7.0357 3,216.236 0 3,223.271 7 0.5371 4.5700e- 003 3,238.062 4 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 7 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Foundation Excavation Demolition 5/3/2021 6/17/2021 5 34 Foundation excavation and subgrade preparation for new setback levees 2 Mow Site Preparation 5/3/2021 5/5/2021 5 3 Clear and grub excavation and fill areas 3 Haul M to N Grading 5/3/2021 7/22/2021 5 59 Haul, stockpile, and place foundation excavation material from Middle to North 4 Haul N to M Grading 7/1/2021 11/23/2021 5 104 Haul and place levee foundation, levee, and toe berm material from North to Middle OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Foundation Excavation Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Foundation Excavation Plate Compactors 1 2.00 8 0.43 Mow Other General Industrial Equipment 1 8.00 60 0.43 Haul M to N Plate Compactors 1 1.00 8 0.43 Haul M to N Graders 1 2.00 247 0.40 Haul N to M Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38 Haul N to M Plate Compactors 1 2.00 8 0.43 Haul N to M Graders 1 4.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 8 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Foundation Excavation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.6300e- 003 0.0148 0.0218 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0257 3.0257 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0494 Total 1.6300e- 003 0.0148 0.0218 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0257 3.0257 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0494 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Foundation Excavation 2 9.00 0.00 1,834.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Mow 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Haul M to N 2 12.00 2.00 1,834.00 10.80 6.60 5.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Haul N to M 3 21.00 2.00 7,450.00 10.80 6.60 5.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 9 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Foundation Excavation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.6200e- 003 0.0860 0.0125 1.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 9.4829 9.4829 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 9.5160 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.0220 1.0220 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0226 Total 2.0900e- 003 0.0863 0.0159 1.1000e- 004 1.4200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4900e- 003 3.8000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 10.5049 10.5049 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 10.5386 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.6300e- 003 0.0148 0.0218 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0257 3.0257 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0494 Total 1.6300e- 003 0.0148 0.0218 4.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0257 3.0257 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.0494 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 10 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Foundation Excavation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.6200e- 003 0.0860 0.0125 1.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 9.4829 9.4829 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 9.5160 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.0220 1.0220 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0226 Total 2.0900e- 003 0.0863 0.0159 1.1000e- 004 1.4200e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.4900e- 003 3.8000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 10.5049 10.5049 1.3400e- 003 0.0000 10.5386 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Mow - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8000e- 004 2.5400e- 003 2.5500e- 003 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.2910 0.2910 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2934 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.5400e- 003 2.5500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.2910 0.2910 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2934 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 11 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Mow - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0301 0.0301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0301 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0301 0.0301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0301 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8000e- 004 2.5400e- 003 2.5500e- 003 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.2910 0.2910 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2934 Total 2.8000e- 004 2.5400e- 003 2.5500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.2910 0.2910 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2934 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 12 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Mow - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0301 0.0301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0301 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0301 0.0301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0301 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Haul M to N - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0444 0.0000 0.0444 0.0244 0.0000 0.0244 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.4500e- 003 0.0572 0.0176 6.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.6800e- 003 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.6477 5.6477 1.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.6927 Total 4.4500e- 003 0.0572 0.0176 6.0000e- 005 0.0444 1.8200e- 003 0.0462 0.0244 1.6800e- 003 0.0261 0.0000 5.6477 5.6477 1.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.6927 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 13 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Haul M to N - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.9700e- 003 0.1248 0.0221 2.5000e- 004 3.8900e- 003 2.2000e- 004 4.1100e- 003 1.0700e- 003 2.2000e- 004 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 23.8873 23.8873 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 23.9337 Vendor 1.8000e- 004 5.9100e- 003 1.4700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.4122 1.4122 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4140 Worker 1.0900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 7.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8200e- 003 7.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.3647 2.3647 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3660 Total 4.2400e- 003 0.1315 0.0316 2.9000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 2.5000e- 004 7.2900e- 003 1.9100e- 003 2.5000e- 004 2.1600e- 003 0.0000 27.6641 27.6641 1.9800e- 003 0.0000 27.7137 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0444 0.0000 0.0444 0.0244 0.0000 0.0244 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.4500e- 003 9.3000e- 004 0.0176 6.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.6800e- 003 1.6800e- 003 0.0000 5.6477 5.6477 1.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.6927 Total 4.4500e- 003 9.3000e- 004 0.0176 6.0000e- 005 0.0444 1.8200e- 003 0.0462 0.0244 1.6800e- 003 0.0261 0.0000 5.6477 5.6477 1.8000e- 003 0.0000 5.6927 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 14 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Haul M to N - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.9700e- 003 0.1248 0.0221 2.5000e- 004 3.8900e- 003 2.2000e- 004 4.1100e- 003 1.0700e- 003 2.2000e- 004 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 23.8873 23.8873 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 23.9337 Vendor 1.8000e- 004 5.9100e- 003 1.4700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.4122 1.4122 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4140 Worker 1.0900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 7.9400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8200e- 003 7.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.3647 2.3647 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3660 Total 4.2400e- 003 0.1315 0.0316 2.9000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 2.5000e- 004 7.2900e- 003 1.9100e- 003 2.5000e- 004 2.1600e- 003 0.0000 27.6641 27.6641 1.9800e- 003 0.0000 27.7137 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Haul N to M - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1566 0.0000 0.1566 0.0861 0.0000 0.0861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0217 0.2578 0.1470 3.6000e- 004 9.1300e- 003 9.1300e- 003 8.4100e- 003 8.4100e- 003 0.0000 31.7085 31.7085 0.0102 0.0000 31.9626 Total 0.0217 0.2578 0.1470 3.6000e- 004 0.1566 9.1300e- 003 0.1657 0.0861 8.4100e- 003 0.0945 0.0000 31.7085 31.7085 0.0102 0.0000 31.9626 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 15 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Haul N to M - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0121 0.5070 0.0899 1.0000e- 003 0.0158 9.1000e- 004 0.0167 4.3500e- 003 8.7000e- 004 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 97.0340 97.0340 7.5400e- 003 0.0000 97.2226 Vendor 3.1000e- 004 0.0104 2.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.4000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.4892 2.4892 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.4924 Worker 3.3500e- 003 2.3100e- 003 0.0245 8.0000e- 005 8.6300e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 2.3000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3500e- 003 0.0000 7.2945 7.2945 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 7.2985 Total 0.0157 0.5197 0.1170 1.1100e- 003 0.0250 9.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.8300e- 003 9.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 0.0000 106.8177 106.8177 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 107.0136 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1566 0.0000 0.1566 0.0861 0.0000 0.0861 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0217 0.0593 0.1470 3.6000e- 004 9.1300e- 003 9.1300e- 003 8.4100e- 003 8.4100e- 003 0.0000 31.7084 31.7084 0.0102 0.0000 31.9626 Total 0.0217 0.0593 0.1470 3.6000e- 004 0.1566 9.1300e- 003 0.1657 0.0861 8.4100e- 003 0.0945 0.0000 31.7084 31.7084 0.0102 0.0000 31.9626 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 16 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.5 Haul N to M - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0121 0.5070 0.0899 1.0000e- 003 0.0158 9.1000e- 004 0.0167 4.3500e- 003 8.7000e- 004 5.2200e- 003 0.0000 97.0340 97.0340 7.5400e- 003 0.0000 97.2226 Vendor 3.1000e- 004 0.0104 2.5900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.4000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.4892 2.4892 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.4924 Worker 3.3500e- 003 2.3100e- 003 0.0245 8.0000e- 005 8.6300e- 003 6.0000e- 005 8.6900e- 003 2.3000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.3500e- 003 0.0000 7.2945 7.2945 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 7.2985 Total 0.0157 0.5197 0.1170 1.1100e- 003 0.0250 9.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.8300e- 003 9.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 0.0000 106.8177 106.8177 7.8300e- 003 0.0000 107.0136 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 17 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.7182 3.5263 8.2501 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 0.0000 2,727.327 5 2,727.327 5 0.0992 0.0000 2,729.807 2 Unmitigated 0.7182 3.5263 8.2501 0.0297 2.5861 0.0271 2.6131 0.6941 0.0253 0.7195 0.0000 2,727.327 5 2,727.327 5 0.0992 0.0000 2,729.807 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 761.67 9,168.25 6746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Total 761.67 9,168.25 6,746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.575198 0.040076 0.193827 0.113296 0.016988 0.005361 0.017552 0.025197 0.002581 0.002349 0.005904 0.000881 0.000789 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 18 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 19 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 20 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 21 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7100e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6800e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 22 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 23 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 24 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 25 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 5:12 PMPage 26 of 27 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 3" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 403.00 Acre 403.00 17,554,680.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company PacifiCorp 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1656.39 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 1 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Expanded Roads - "Phase 4_M and N_B" Land Use - Acreage from project description; buildings from Placeworks Construction Phase - Project Specific "Expanded North_LWC_Construction Details_2018-0118.xlsx" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - water truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - dump truck = haul trip Off-road Equipment - LGP dump truck = onsite truck trip Off-road Equipment - LGP Dump Truck = onsite haul trip Off-road Equipment - project specific Off-road Equipment - dump truck = haul trip Off-road Equipment - Project specific. John Deer 1600 Series III Turbo = 60.0 hp; load factor from crawler tractor default (0.4288) Off-road Equipment - water truck = vendor dump truck = onsite haul Off-road Equipment - project specific Trips and VMT - onsite haul trip = 0.25 haul offsite = 5 Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 11.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 63.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 775.00 21.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 7.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 2 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 7.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/6/2027 6/15/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/26/2030 10/26/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2033 9/29/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/24/2035 11/2/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/23/2023 5/10/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/16/2024 11/9/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2033 5/27/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2033 10/26/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2033 9/20/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2033 11/2/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/17/2024 6/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/7/2027 8/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/27/2030 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2033 11/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/24/2023 11/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2033 5/2/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2033 8/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2033 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2033 11/1/2022 tblFleetMix HHD 0.03 0.03 tblFleetMix LDA 0.58 0.58 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.19 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.3410e-003 5.3610e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.8320e-003 5.9040e-003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 3 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.11 tblFleetMix MH 7.4900e-004 7.8900e-004 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.02 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.6410e-003 2.5810e-003 tblFleetMix SBUS 8.9100e-004 8.8100e-004 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.2000e-003 2.3490e-003 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 88.00 60.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.43 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate tidal channels1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate levee1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Excavate tidal channels2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Breach tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Mow CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 4 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Raise tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Haul to N tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Access Road tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Reveg tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 5.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.25 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 29.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,034.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 517.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 4,634.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 6,334.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 684.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 684.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 3.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 9.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 5 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 9.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 6 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.0350 0.8617 0.2881 1.2700e- 003 0.1237 8.4600e- 003 0.1321 0.0643 7.8100e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 118.6479 118.6479 0.0203 0.0000 119.1552 Maximum 0.0350 0.8617 0.2881 1.2700e- 003 0.1237 8.4600e- 003 0.1321 0.0643 7.8100e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 118.6479 118.6479 0.0203 0.0000 119.1552 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.0350 0.7412 0.2881 1.2700e- 003 0.1237 8.4600e- 003 0.1321 0.0643 7.8100e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 118.6479 118.6479 0.0203 0.0000 119.1552 Maximum 0.0350 0.7412 0.2881 1.2700e- 003 0.1237 8.4600e- 003 0.1321 0.0643 7.8100e- 003 0.0722 0.0000 118.6479 118.6479 0.0203 0.0000 119.1552 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 13.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 7 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.6610 2.8846 7.6750 0.0287 2.5859 0.0238 2.6097 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 0.0000 2,632.685 8 2,632.685 8 0.0904 0.0000 2,634.945 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,262.666 6 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Total 0.8641 2.8847 7.6787 0.0287 2.5859 0.0239 2.6098 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 7.0357 3,895.359 5 3,902.395 2 0.5283 4.5700e- 003 3,916.965 7 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-2-2022 8-1-2022 0.0939 0.0927 2 8-2-2022 9-30-2022 0.5692 0.4830 Highest 0.5692 0.4830 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 8 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.6610 2.8846 7.6750 0.0287 2.5859 0.0238 2.6097 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 0.0000 2,632.685 8 2,632.685 8 0.0904 0.0000 2,634.945 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,262.666 6 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Total 0.8641 2.8847 7.6787 0.0287 2.5859 0.0239 2.6098 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 7.0357 3,895.359 5 3,902.395 2 0.5283 4.5700e- 003 3,916.965 7 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 9 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Mow Site Preparation 5/2/2022 5/10/2022 5 7 Clear and grub excavation and fill areas 2 Reveg Site Preparation 11/1/2022 11/9/2022 5 7 Revegetation 3 Fill Grading 6/1/2022 6/15/2022 5 11 Place fill material along transition slope 4 Raise Grading 8/1/2022 10/26/2022 5 63 5 Haul to N Grading 9/1/2022 9/29/2022 5 21 Haul excess material to North Reach 6 Excavate tidal channels1 Trenching 5/2/2022 5/27/2022 5 20 Excavate new tidal channels within diked basin 7 Excavate levee1 Trenching 8/1/2022 10/26/2022 5 63 Excavate existing levee to elevation 10 ft NAVD 8 Excavate tidal channels2 Trenching 9/1/2022 9/20/2022 5 14 Excavate new tidal channels connecting to Walnut and Pacheco Creeks 9 Breach Trenching 11/1/2022 11/2/2022 5 2 Breach new tidal channel connections 10 Access Road Paving 11/1/2022 11/2/2022 5 2 Access road improvements OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 10 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Raise Plate Compactors 1 2.00 8 0.43 Raise Graders 1 4.00 247 0.40 Mow Other General Industrial Equipment 1 8.00 60 0.43 Excavate tidal channels1 Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38 Fill Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38 Excavate levee1 Excavators 1 5.00 158 0.38 Haul to N Excavators 1 2.00 158 0.38 Haul to N Plate Compactors 1 2.00 8 0.43 Haul to N Graders 1 2.00 187 0.41 Excavate tidal channels2 Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38 Reveg Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36 Breach Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Access Road Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Access Road Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 11 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Mow - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.8400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6791 0.6791 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6846 Total 5.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.8400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6791 0.6791 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6846 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Raise 2 18.00 2.00 4,634.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Mow 6 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate tidal channels1 1 6.00 0.00 1,034.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Fill 1 6.00 0.00 517.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate levee1 1 9.00 0.00 6,334.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Haul to N 3 18.00 2.00 684.00 10.80 6.60 5.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Excavate tidal channels2 1 6.00 0.00 684.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Reveg 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Breach 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Access Road 2 9.00 0.00 29.00 10.80 6.60 0.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 12 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Mow - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Total 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.8400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6791 0.6791 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6846 Total 5.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.8400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6791 0.6791 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6846 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 13 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Mow - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Total 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Reveg - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0200e- 003 0.0106 5.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.9231 1.9231 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.9386 Total 1.0200e- 003 0.0106 5.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.9231 1.9231 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.9386 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 14 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Total 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0200e- 003 0.0106 5.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.9231 1.9231 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.9386 Total 1.0200e- 003 0.0106 5.3600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.9231 1.9231 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.9386 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 15 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Reveg - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Total 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 0.0000 0.0676 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Fill - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.6000e- 004 4.8900e- 003 8.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2474 1.2474 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2575 Total 5.6000e- 004 4.8900e- 003 8.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2474 1.2474 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2575 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 16 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Fill - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.3000e- 004 0.0234 3.3800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.6466 2.6466 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6554 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2124 0.2124 0.0000 0.0000 0.2125 Total 5.2000e- 004 0.0235 4.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.8590 2.8590 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.8679 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.6000e- 004 4.8900e- 003 8.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2474 1.2474 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2575 Total 5.6000e- 004 4.8900e- 003 8.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2474 1.2474 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2575 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 17 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Fill - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.3000e- 004 0.0234 3.3800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.6466 2.6466 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.6554 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2124 0.2124 0.0000 0.0000 0.2125 Total 5.2000e- 004 0.0235 4.0600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.8590 2.8590 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.8679 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Raise - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0949 0.0000 0.0949 0.0521 0.0000 0.0521 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.7400e- 003 0.1087 0.0366 1.4000e- 004 3.4700e- 003 3.4700e- 003 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 12.0537 12.0537 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 12.1498 Total 8.7400e- 003 0.1087 0.0366 1.4000e- 004 0.0949 3.4700e- 003 0.0983 0.0521 3.2000e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 12.0537 12.0537 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 12.1498 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 18 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Raise - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.8500e- 003 0.2098 0.0303 2.4000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.7225 23.7225 3.1400e- 003 0.0000 23.8011 Vendor 1.8000e- 004 5.9800e- 003 1.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4931 1.4931 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4950 Worker 1.6200e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0117 4.0000e- 005 4.4800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.5100e- 003 1.1900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 3.6487 3.6487 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6506 Total 5.6500e- 003 0.2168 0.0435 3.0000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.4500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.6000e- 003 0.0000 28.8643 28.8643 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 28.9466 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0949 0.0000 0.0949 0.0521 0.0000 0.0521 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.7400e- 003 1.9800e- 003 0.0366 1.4000e- 004 3.4700e- 003 3.4700e- 003 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 0.0000 12.0537 12.0537 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 12.1498 Total 8.7400e- 003 1.9800e- 003 0.0366 1.4000e- 004 0.0949 3.4700e- 003 0.0983 0.0521 3.2000e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 12.0537 12.0537 3.8400e- 003 0.0000 12.1498 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 19 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Raise - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.8500e- 003 0.2098 0.0303 2.4000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 6.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.7225 23.7225 3.1400e- 003 0.0000 23.8011 Vendor 1.8000e- 004 5.9800e- 003 1.4800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4931 1.4931 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4950 Worker 1.6200e- 003 1.0800e- 003 0.0117 4.0000e- 005 4.4800e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.5100e- 003 1.1900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2200e- 003 0.0000 3.6487 3.6487 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6506 Total 5.6500e- 003 0.2168 0.0435 3.0000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 1.5000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.4500e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.6000e- 003 0.0000 28.8643 28.8643 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 28.9466 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Haul to N - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0158 0.0000 0.0158 8.6900e- 003 0.0000 8.6900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7200e- 003 0.0191 0.0136 3.0000e- 005 6.9000e- 004 6.9000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7951 2.7951 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.8173 Total 1.7200e- 003 0.0191 0.0136 3.0000e- 005 0.0158 6.9000e- 004 0.0165 8.6900e- 003 6.4000e- 004 9.3300e- 003 0.0000 2.7951 2.7951 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.8173 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 20 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Haul to N - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0400e- 003 0.0439 8.0400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.5200e- 003 4.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 8.7975 8.7975 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 8.8140 Vendor 6.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 4.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4977 0.4977 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4983 Worker 5.4000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.2162 1.2162 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2169 Total 1.6400e- 003 0.0463 0.0124 1.1000e- 004 3.0600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.5114 10.5114 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.5292 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0158 0.0000 0.0158 8.6900e- 003 0.0000 8.6900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7200e- 003 5.3200e- 003 0.0136 3.0000e- 005 6.9000e- 004 6.9000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7951 2.7951 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.8172 Total 1.7200e- 003 5.3200e- 003 0.0136 3.0000e- 005 0.0158 6.9000e- 004 0.0165 8.6900e- 003 6.4000e- 004 9.3300e- 003 0.0000 2.7951 2.7951 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.8172 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 21 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Haul to N - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.0400e- 003 0.0439 8.0400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.5200e- 003 4.0000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 8.7975 8.7975 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 8.8140 Vendor 6.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 4.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4977 0.4977 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4983 Worker 5.4000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.2162 1.2162 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2169 Total 1.6400e- 003 0.0463 0.0124 1.1000e- 004 3.0600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.4000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 10.5114 10.5114 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.5292 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Excavate tidal channels1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.6000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 0.0122 2.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.7010 1.7010 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.7148 Total 7.6000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 0.0122 2.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.7010 1.7010 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.7148 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 22 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Excavate tidal channels1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.6000e- 004 0.0468 6.7600e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.2933 5.2933 7.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.3108 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.0300e- 003 0.0469 8.0000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6794 5.6794 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.6971 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.6000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 0.0122 2.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.7010 1.7010 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.7148 Total 7.6000e- 004 6.6600e- 003 0.0122 2.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.7010 1.7010 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.7148 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 23 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Excavate tidal channels1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.6000e- 004 0.0468 6.7600e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.2933 5.2933 7.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.3108 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.0300e- 003 0.0469 8.0000e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6794 5.6794 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.6971 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Excavate levee1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 3.9900e- 003 0.0350 0.0641 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 1.6900e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 8.9304 8.9304 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 9.0026 Total 3.9900e- 003 0.0350 0.0641 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 1.6900e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 8.9304 8.9304 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 9.0026 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 24 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Excavate levee1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.2600e- 003 0.2867 0.0414 3.3000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 8.9000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 32.4252 32.4252 4.3000e- 003 0.0000 32.5326 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.1000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 5.8400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.2400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.2500e- 003 6.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8243 1.8243 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8253 Total 6.0700e- 003 0.2873 0.0472 3.5000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 3.1400e- 003 8.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 34.2495 34.2495 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 34.3579 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 3.9900e- 003 0.0350 0.0641 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 1.6900e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 8.9304 8.9304 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 9.0026 Total 3.9900e- 003 0.0350 0.0641 1.0000e- 004 1.6900e- 003 1.6900e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 8.9304 8.9304 2.8900e- 003 0.0000 9.0026 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 25 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Excavate levee1 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.2600e- 003 0.2867 0.0414 3.3000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 8.9000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 32.4252 32.4252 4.3000e- 003 0.0000 32.5326 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.1000e- 004 5.4000e- 004 5.8400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.2400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.2500e- 003 6.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.8243 1.8243 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8253 Total 6.0700e- 003 0.2873 0.0472 3.5000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 3.1400e- 003 8.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 0.0000 34.2495 34.2495 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 34.3579 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.9 Excavate tidal channels2 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.1000e- 004 6.2200e- 003 0.0114 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.5876 1.5876 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.6005 Total 7.1000e- 004 6.2200e- 003 0.0114 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.5876 1.5876 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.6005 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 26 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Excavate tidal channels2 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.7000e- 004 0.0310 4.4700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.5016 3.5016 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.5132 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2703 0.2703 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2704 Total 6.9000e- 004 0.0310 5.3400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.7718 3.7718 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.7836 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.1000e- 004 6.2200e- 003 0.0114 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.5876 1.5876 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.6005 Total 7.1000e- 004 6.2200e- 003 0.0114 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.5876 1.5876 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.6005 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 27 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Excavate tidal channels2 - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.7000e- 004 0.0310 4.4700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.5016 3.5016 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.5132 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2703 0.2703 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2704 Total 6.9000e- 004 0.0310 5.3400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 4.3000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.7718 3.7718 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.7836 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.10 Breach - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.0000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 3.2600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4536 0.4536 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4573 Total 2.0000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 3.2600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4536 0.4536 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4573 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 28 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Breach - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0193 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0193 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0193 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0193 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.0000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 3.2600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4536 0.4536 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4573 Total 2.0000e- 004 1.7800e- 003 3.2600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4536 0.4536 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.4573 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 29 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Breach - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0193 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0193 Total 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0193 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0193 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.11 Access Road - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.0000e- 003 0.0105 5.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.9808 0.9808 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9887 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0000e- 003 0.0105 5.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.9808 0.9808 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9887 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 30 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.11 Access Road - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1485 0.1485 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1490 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0580 Total 5.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2064 0.2064 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2069 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.0000e- 003 0.0105 5.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.9808 0.9808 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9887 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0000e- 003 0.0105 5.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.9808 0.9808 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9887 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 31 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.11 Access Road - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1485 0.1485 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1490 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0579 0.0579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0580 Total 5.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2064 0.2064 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2069 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 32 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6610 2.8846 7.6750 0.0287 2.5859 0.0238 2.6097 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 0.0000 2,632.685 8 2,632.685 8 0.0904 0.0000 2,634.945 2 Unmitigated 0.6610 2.8846 7.6750 0.0287 2.5859 0.0238 2.6097 0.6941 0.0223 0.7163 0.0000 2,632.685 8 2,632.685 8 0.0904 0.0000 2,634.945 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 761.67 9,168.25 6746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Total 761.67 9,168.25 6,746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.575198 0.040076 0.193827 0.113296 0.016988 0.005361 0.017552 0.025197 0.002581 0.002349 0.005904 0.000881 0.000789 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 33 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 34 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 35 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 36 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 37 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Unmitigated 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Total 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 38 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Total 1,262.666 6 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 1,264.582 2 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 39 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 40 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/11/2019 6:35 PMPage 41 of 42 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Phase 4" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 403.00 Acre 403.00 17,554,680.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 1 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Expanded North - "Pacheco Marsh Construction" Land Use - Acreage from project description; buildings from Placeworks Construction Phase - Project Specific "Pacheco Marsh_Public Access_Construction Estimates.xls" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Trips and VMT - Facility main includes vendor trips for fencing/bollards Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Off-road Equipment - water truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - concrete truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - assume 1 of each Off-road Equipment - water trucks & concrete trucks = vendor trips Off-road Equipment - Concrete truck = vendor trip Off-road Equipment - assume one of each Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 66.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 7,750.00 50.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 550.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/24/2024 8/31/2023 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 2 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cement and Mortar Mixers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cranes Rubber Tired Dozers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Trail tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Trail tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 3 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 586.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 16.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 120.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 16.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 8.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 202.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 2,877.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 5.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 1,475.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 18.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 12.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 3.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 7,373.00 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 15.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 4 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 0.2215 1.8153 1.5920 3.4300e- 003 0.0333 0.0813 0.1146 8.9900e- 003 0.0748 0.0838 0.0000 306.0060 306.0060 0.0810 0.0000 308.0320 Maximum 0.2215 1.8153 1.5920 3.4300e- 003 0.0333 0.0813 0.1146 8.9900e- 003 0.0748 0.0838 0.0000 306.0060 306.0060 0.0810 0.0000 308.0320 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 0.2215 1.8153 1.5920 3.4300e- 003 0.0333 0.0813 0.1146 8.9900e- 003 0.0748 0.0838 0.0000 306.0057 306.0057 0.0810 0.0000 308.0317 Maximum 0.2215 1.8153 1.5920 3.4300e- 003 0.0333 0.0813 0.1146 8.9900e- 003 0.0748 0.0838 0.0000 306.0057 306.0057 0.0810 0.0000 308.0317 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 5 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.6562 2.9315 7.6410 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 0.0000 2,643.504 6 2,643.504 6 0.0906 0.0000 2,645.770 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.8594 2.9315 7.6447 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 7.0357 3,132.413 1 3,139.448 8 0.5286 4.5700e- 003 3,154.025 4 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.4687 1.4687 2 9-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.2108 0.2108 Highest 1.4687 1.4687 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 6 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.6562 2.9315 7.6410 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 0.0000 2,643.504 6 2,643.504 6 0.0906 0.0000 2,645.770 2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.8594 2.9315 7.6447 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 7.0357 3,132.413 1 3,139.448 8 0.5286 4.5700e- 003 3,154.025 4 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 7 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Trail Paving 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 Agg base + decomp granite surface + filter fabric 2 Prefab Bridges Building Construction 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 Two bridges 3 Road and Parkling lot Paving 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 base and asphalt 4 Overlook + Bird Blind Building Construction 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 Combined (same equipment, bird blind smaller task) 5 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms Building Construction 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 Combined (small tasks 1 of each) 6 Signs + Benches Building Construction 6/1/2023 8/31/2023 5 66 Combined (small tasks 5 signs, 10 benches) 7 Facility Building-main Building Construction 9/1/2023 11/9/2023 5 50 from CalEEMod defaults/building only 8 Facility Building-paving Paving 11/10/2023 11/16/2023 5 5 from CalEEMod defaults/building only 9 Facility Building-arch coat Architectural Coating 11/17/2023 11/23/2023 5 5 om CalEEMod defaults/building only OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,810; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,270; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 8 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Facility Building-arch coat Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48 Facility Building-paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 8.00 9 0.56 Prefab Bridges Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Overlook + Bird Blind Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Facility Building-paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Facility Building-main Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29 Prefab Bridges Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20 Signs + Benches Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20 Facility Building-main Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20 Road and Parkling lot Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Facility Building-paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Road and Parkling lot Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Road and Parkling lot Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Facility Building-paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Prefab Bridges Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Overlook + Bird Blind Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Signs + Benches Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Facility Building-main Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Trail Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Trail Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 9 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Trail - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Trail 2 18.00 2.00 586.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Facility Building-arch coat 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Prefab Bridges 3 12.00 2.00 16.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Overlook + Bird Blind 2 18.00 4.00 120.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms 3 12.00 2.00 16.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Signs + Benches 2 3.00 0.00 8.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Facility Building-main 10 10.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Road and Parkling lot 3 15.00 0.00 202.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Facility Building- paving 7 18.00 2.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 10 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Trail - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.4900e- 003 0.0486 0.0150 2.2000e- 004 4.9500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 5.0400e- 003 1.3600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 0.0000 21.0315 21.0315 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 21.0564 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.5900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0113 4.0000e- 005 4.6900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.7200e- 003 1.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 3.6760 3.6760 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6778 Total 3.2200e- 003 0.0545 0.0277 2.8000e- 004 0.0100 1.3000e- 004 0.0102 2.7200e- 003 1.2000e- 004 2.8400e- 003 0.0000 26.2276 26.2276 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 26.2559 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 11 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Trail - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.4900e- 003 0.0486 0.0150 2.2000e- 004 4.9500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 5.0400e- 003 1.3600e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 0.0000 21.0315 21.0315 9.9000e- 004 0.0000 21.0564 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.5900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0113 4.0000e- 005 4.6900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.7200e- 003 1.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 3.6760 3.6760 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6778 Total 3.2200e- 003 0.0545 0.0277 2.8000e- 004 0.0100 1.3000e- 004 0.0102 2.7200e- 003 1.2000e- 004 2.8400e- 003 0.0000 26.2276 26.2276 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 26.2559 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Prefab Bridges - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1894 30.1894 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4335 Total 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1894 30.1894 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 12 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Prefab Bridges - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5742 0.5742 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5749 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.0600e- 003 6.8000e- 004 7.5100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.4507 2.4507 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4519 Total 1.2400e- 003 6.8800e- 003 9.3000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.6600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 9.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.5450 4.5450 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.5485 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1893 30.1893 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4334 Total 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1893 30.1893 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4334 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 13 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Prefab Bridges - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5742 0.5742 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5749 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.0600e- 003 6.8000e- 004 7.5100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.4507 2.4507 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4519 Total 1.2400e- 003 6.8800e- 003 9.3000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.6600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 9.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.5450 4.5450 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.5485 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Road and Parkling lot - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0170 0.1682 0.2406 3.8000e- 004 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 7.7400e- 003 7.7400e- 003 0.0000 33.0443 33.0443 0.0107 0.0000 33.3115 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0170 0.1682 0.2406 3.8000e- 004 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 7.7400e- 003 7.7400e- 003 0.0000 33.0443 33.0443 0.0107 0.0000 33.3115 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 14 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Road and Parkling lot - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.1000e- 004 0.0168 5.1700e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.7100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.2498 7.2498 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.2583 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3200e- 003 8.4000e- 004 9.3900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 3.0633 3.0633 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0648 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0176 0.0146 1.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.6800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 10.3131 10.3131 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 10.3232 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0170 0.1682 0.2406 3.8000e- 004 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 7.7400e- 003 7.7400e- 003 0.0000 33.0443 33.0443 0.0107 0.0000 33.3115 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0170 0.1682 0.2406 3.8000e- 004 8.4200e- 003 8.4200e- 003 7.7400e- 003 7.7400e- 003 0.0000 33.0443 33.0443 0.0107 0.0000 33.3115 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 15 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Road and Parkling lot - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.1000e- 004 0.0168 5.1700e- 003 7.0000e- 005 1.7100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.2498 7.2498 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.2583 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3200e- 003 8.4000e- 004 9.3900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 3.0633 3.0633 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0648 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0176 0.0146 1.0000e- 004 5.6200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.6800e- 003 1.5100e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 10.3131 10.3131 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 10.3232 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Overlook + Bird Blind - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Total 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 16 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Overlook + Bird Blind - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.0000e- 004 9.9500e- 003 3.0700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.3068 4.3068 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.3119 Vendor 2.8000e- 004 9.7500e- 003 2.7700e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.0402 3.0402 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0435 Worker 1.5900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0113 4.0000e- 005 4.6900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.7200e- 003 1.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 3.6760 3.6760 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6778 Total 2.1700e- 003 0.0207 0.0171 1.1000e- 004 6.4800e- 003 6.0000e- 005 6.5400e- 003 1.7600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 11.0230 11.0230 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 11.0332 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Total 0.0276 0.2859 0.1761 3.8000e- 004 0.0131 0.0131 0.0120 0.0120 0.0000 33.7863 33.7863 0.0109 0.0000 34.0595 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 17 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Overlook + Bird Blind - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.0000e- 004 9.9500e- 003 3.0700e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.3068 4.3068 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 4.3119 Vendor 2.8000e- 004 9.7500e- 003 2.7700e- 003 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.0402 3.0402 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0435 Worker 1.5900e- 003 1.0100e- 003 0.0113 4.0000e- 005 4.6900e- 003 3.0000e- 005 4.7200e- 003 1.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 3.6760 3.6760 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.6778 Total 2.1700e- 003 0.0207 0.0171 1.1000e- 004 6.4800e- 003 6.0000e- 005 6.5400e- 003 1.7600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 11.0230 11.0230 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 11.0332 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1894 30.1894 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4335 Total 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1894 30.1894 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 18 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5742 0.5742 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5749 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.0600e- 003 6.8000e- 004 7.5100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.4507 2.4507 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4519 Total 1.2400e- 003 6.8800e- 003 9.3000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.6600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 9.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.5450 4.5450 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.5485 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1893 30.1893 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4334 Total 0.0200 0.2083 0.1720 3.4000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 8.9400e- 003 8.9400e- 003 0.0000 30.1893 30.1893 9.7600e- 003 0.0000 30.4334 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 19 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Prefab Kayak Launch + Restrooms - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.0000e- 005 1.3300e- 003 4.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5742 0.5742 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5749 Vendor 1.4000e- 004 4.8700e- 003 1.3800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.5201 1.5201 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5217 Worker 1.0600e- 003 6.8000e- 004 7.5100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.4507 2.4507 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.4519 Total 1.2400e- 003 6.8800e- 003 9.3000e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.6600e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 9.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 4.5450 4.5450 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 4.5485 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Signs + Benches - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 8.3800e- 003 0.0824 0.1114 1.5000e- 004 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1000e- 003 4.1000e- 003 0.0000 13.4599 13.4599 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 13.5688 Total 8.3800e- 003 0.0824 0.1114 1.5000e- 004 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1000e- 003 4.1000e- 003 0.0000 13.4599 13.4599 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 13.5688 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 20 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Signs + Benches - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2871 0.2871 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2875 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.8800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 7.9000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6127 0.6127 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6130 Total 2.8000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 2.0800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 8.6000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.8998 0.8998 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 8.3800e- 003 0.0824 0.1114 1.5000e- 004 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1000e- 003 4.1000e- 003 0.0000 13.4599 13.4599 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 13.5688 Total 8.3800e- 003 0.0824 0.1114 1.5000e- 004 4.4600e- 003 4.4600e- 003 4.1000e- 003 4.1000e- 003 0.0000 13.4599 13.4599 4.3500e- 003 0.0000 13.5688 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 21 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Signs + Benches - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.0000e- 005 6.6000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2871 0.2871 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2875 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.8800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 0.0000 7.9000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6127 0.6127 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6130 Total 2.8000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 2.0800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 8.6000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.8998 0.8998 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1353 66.1353 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Total 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1353 66.1353 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 22 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 2.1000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.3032 2.3032 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.3057 Worker 6.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.7400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5471 1.5471 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5479 Total 8.8000e- 004 7.8100e- 003 6.8400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5900e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.8503 3.8503 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.8536 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1352 66.1352 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Total 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1352 66.1352 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 23 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.8 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 2.1000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.3032 2.3032 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.3057 Worker 6.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.7400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5471 1.5471 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5479 Total 8.8000e- 004 7.8100e- 003 6.8400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5900e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.8503 3.8503 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.8536 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.9 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 24 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1152 0.1152 0.0000 0.0000 0.1153 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2785 0.2785 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2786 Total 1.3000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3937 0.3937 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3939 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 25 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.9 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1152 0.1152 0.0000 0.0000 0.1153 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2785 0.2785 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2786 Total 1.3000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3937 0.3937 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3939 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.10 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0445 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.4000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Total 0.0452 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 26 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.10 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Total 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0445 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.4000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Total 0.0452 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 27 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.10 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Total 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 28 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6562 2.9315 7.6410 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 0.0000 2,643.504 6 2,643.504 6 0.0906 0.0000 2,645.770 2 Unmitigated 0.6562 2.9315 7.6410 0.0288 2.5859 0.0235 2.6094 0.6940 0.0219 0.7160 0.0000 2,643.504 6 2,643.504 6 0.0906 0.0000 2,645.770 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 761.67 9,168.25 6746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Total 761.67 9,168.25 6,746.22 6,948,647 6,948,647 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 29 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 30 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 31 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Unmitigated 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 32 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1983 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Total 0.2031 3.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.2000e- 003 7.2000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.6700e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 33 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 34 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 35 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 36 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/12/2019 11:24 AMPage 37 of 38 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 11.70 Acre 11.70 509,652.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 1 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Expanded North - "Pacheco Marsh Construction" for operational only Land Use - Acreage from project description (11.7 acres developed); buildings from Placeworks Construction Phase - Project Specific "Pacheco Marsh_Public Access_Construction Estimates.xls" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Trips and VMT - Facility main includes vendor trips for fencing/bollards Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Vehicle Trips - total annual trips = 13000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 2 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 2,000.00 4,270.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior 6,000.00 12,810.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 2000 4270 tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 6000 12810 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 50.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 5.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 1.01 34.66 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 84.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 214.00 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 43.00 1.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 9.93 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 7.30 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.82 tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 13,940,331.79 480,166,983.91 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 3 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 0.0910 0.4692 0.4637 8.4000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 0.0225 0.0255 8.1000e- 004 0.0207 0.0216 0.0000 73.9968 73.9968 0.0224 0.0000 74.5560 Maximum 0.0910 0.4692 0.4637 8.4000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 0.0225 0.0255 8.1000e- 004 0.0207 0.0216 0.0000 73.9968 73.9968 0.0224 0.0000 74.5560 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2023 0.0910 0.4692 0.4637 8.4000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 0.0225 0.0255 8.1000e- 004 0.0207 0.0216 0.0000 73.9967 73.9967 0.0224 0.0000 74.5560 Maximum 0.0910 0.4692 0.4637 8.4000e- 004 2.9700e- 003 0.0225 0.0255 8.1000e- 004 0.0207 0.0216 0.0000 73.9967 73.9967 0.0224 0.0000 74.5560 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 4 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 8.3100e- 003 0.0371 0.0968 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 0.0000 33.4838 33.4838 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 33.5125 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.0332 0.0371 0.0969 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 7.0357 522.3853 529.4210 0.4391 4.5700e- 003 541.7602 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 2 9-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.2108 0.2108 Highest 0.2108 0.2108 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 5 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 8.3100e- 003 0.0371 0.0968 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 0.0000 33.4838 33.4838 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 33.5125 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0357 0.0000 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 488.9013 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 0.0332 0.0371 0.0969 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 7.0357 522.3853 529.4210 0.4391 4.5700e- 003 541.7602 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 6 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Facility Building-main Building Construction 9/1/2023 11/9/2023 5 50 from CalEEMod defaults/building only 2 Facility Building-paving Paving 11/10/2023 11/16/2023 5 5 from CalEEMod defaults/building only 3 Facility Building-arch coat Architectural Coating 11/17/2023 11/23/2023 5 5 om CalEEMod defaults/building only OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Facility Building-main Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29 Facility Building-main Forklifts 4 8.00 89 0.20 Facility Building-main Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Facility Building-paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 8.00 9 0.56 Facility Building-paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Facility Building-paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Facility Building-paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Facility Building-arch coat Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,810; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,270; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 7 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1353 66.1353 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Total 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1353 66.1353 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Facility Building-main 10 10.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Facility Building- paving 7 18.00 2.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Facility Building-arch coat 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 8 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 2.1000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.3032 2.3032 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.3057 Worker 6.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.7400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5471 1.5471 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5479 Total 8.8000e- 004 7.8100e- 003 6.8400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5900e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.8503 3.8503 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.8536 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1352 66.1352 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Total 0.0430 0.4403 0.4293 7.5000e- 004 0.0215 0.0215 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 66.1352 66.1352 0.0214 0.0000 66.6700 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 9 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Facility Building-main - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 2.1000e- 003 2.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.3032 2.3032 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.3057 Worker 6.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.7400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.9900e- 003 5.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.5471 1.5471 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.5479 Total 8.8000e- 004 7.8100e- 003 6.8400e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5900e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.8503 3.8503 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.8536 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 10 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1152 0.1152 0.0000 0.0000 0.1153 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2785 0.2785 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2786 Total 1.3000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3937 0.3937 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3939 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.8300e- 003 0.0163 0.0205 3.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 7.8000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.7510 2.7510 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.7707 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 11 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Facility Building-paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e- 005 3.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1152 0.1152 0.0000 0.0000 0.1153 Worker 1.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.2785 0.2785 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2786 Total 1.3000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3937 0.3937 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3939 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0445 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.4000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Total 0.0452 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 12 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Total 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.0445 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.4000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Total 0.0452 4.3400e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.8511 0.8511 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8524 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 13 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.4 Facility Building-arch coat - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Total 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 0.0155 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 14 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 8.3100e- 003 0.0371 0.0968 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 0.0000 33.4838 33.4838 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 33.5125 Unmitigated 8.3100e- 003 0.0371 0.0968 3.6000e- 004 0.0328 3.0000e- 004 0.0331 8.7900e- 003 2.8000e- 004 9.0700e- 003 0.0000 33.4838 33.4838 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 33.5125 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park 9.65 116.13 85.45 88,015 88,015 Total 9.65 116.13 85.45 88,015 88,015 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.578638 0.038775 0.193686 0.110919 0.015677 0.005341 0.018293 0.026358 0.002641 0.002200 0.005832 0.000891 0.000749 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 15 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 16 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 17 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Unmitigated 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 18 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Total 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.0204 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Total 0.0248 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 19 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 20 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / 480.167 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Total 488.9013 0.0221 4.5700e- 003 490.8170 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 21 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park 34.66 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Total 7.0357 0.4158 0.0000 17.4306 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 22 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/28/2019 11:16 AMPage 23 of 24 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Rural 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/23/2019 10:24 AMPage 1 of 23 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - Expanded North - "Pacheco Marsh Construction" for operational of public access building only Land Use - From project description 3600 sq ft education center and 400 sq ft bathroom Construction Phase - Project Specific "Pacheco Marsh_Public Access_Construction Estimates.xls" Off-road Equipment - dump truck = onsite haul days Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Off-road Equipment - assumption from exterior CalEEMod run Trips and VMT - Facility main includes vendor trips for fencing/bollards Grading - Not relevant. BAAQMD PM Thresholds for exhaust only Energy Use - 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/23/2019 10:24 AMPage 2 of 23 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.6117 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.6117 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 NaturalGas Mitigated 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 NaturalGas Unmitigated 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/23/2019 10:24 AMPage 15 of 23 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 105520 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 Total 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 105520 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 Total 5.7000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 4.3400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.6310 5.6310 1.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 5.6644 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/23/2019 10:24 AMPage 16 of 23 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 33040 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 Total 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 33040 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 Total 9.6117 4.3000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 9.6494 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/23/2019 10:24 AMPage 17 of 23 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration - EN "Public Access" - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision | Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project i ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project – Habitat Assessment Page Summary ............................................................................................................................... S-1 Chapter 1, Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose for the Habitat Assessment ................................ 1 1.2 Description of Study Area ............................................................................ 1 1.3 Regulatory Context ...................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2, Methods ............................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Study Area.................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Survey Dates and Surveying Personnel .................................................... 13 2.3 Review of Background Information ............................................................ 14 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 15 3.1 Natural Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats ............................ 15 3.2 Special-Status Species .............................................................................. 22 Chapter 5, References and Report Preparation ................................................................. 33 5.1 References ................................................................................................. 33 5.2 Document Preparation ............................................................................... 35 List of Appendices A. Special Status Fish and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-1 B. Special Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-1 C. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Rare Plant Survey Report C-1 D. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum D-1 List of Figures 1. Study Area 3 2. Existing Land Use, Utilities and Infrastructure 4 3. Habitat Types 17 Table of Contents Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project ii ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project S-1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 SUMMARY The Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project), led by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), proposes to restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and from Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary Pacheco Creek, to provide sustainable flood protection, and to create opportunities for future public access. Figure 1 shows the habitat assessment study area for the proposed Project, which is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County approximately 3 miles east of the City of Martinez. The proposed Project, will restore and enhance tidal marsh, and enhance seasonal wetlands and upland areas. The Project will improve habitat quality, diversity, and connectivity along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, and along the southern Suisun Bay shoreline. The Project will breach and lower levees and berms to reintroduce the tides to diked former baylands, construct new setback levees for flood protection, and grade filled areas to create new tidal wetland areas. In addition to providing improved habitat for fish and wildlife, the Project will provide more sustainable flood protection that avoids significant dredging, and provide potential for a public access trail corridor for future connection of the Iron Horse Trail and Bay Trail extension. The Project is designed to be resilient to 2 feet of sea-level rise and adaptable to up to 5 feet of rise. The intent and scope of this report is to characterize biological resources in the Study Area, and provide general recommendations to avoid and minimize potential impacts to sensitive resources, when present, in support of future wetland restoration and public access activities. Several species with potential to occur are identified and described, including salt marsh harvest mouse, California black rail, Ridgway’s (California clapper) rail, northern harrier, Suisun song sparrow, Suisun marsh aster, Delta tule pea, and other potentially occurring species. Summary Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project S-2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose for the Habitat Assessment This report includes a description of the presence and distribution of common and special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and potential state- and federally- regulated waters and wetlands at the site and surrounding area of the proposed Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (“the Project”). The intent of this document is to characterize the existing biological resources at the Study Area to support environmental permitting, the District’s CEQA document, and restoration design. Information used in the preparation of this report was obtained from regional biological studies, reports from the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW, 2018), California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS, 2018), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife species list (USFWS, 2018), reconnaissance-level field surveys, and other biological literature. Vegetation types and wildlife habitats were identified using records, field observations, and aerial imagery. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted several reconnaissance-level surveys of portions of the Study Area on August 6 and 27, 2015, September 15, 2015, January 5 and 6, 2017, March 29, 2017, April 28, 2017, November 6 and 7, 2017 to gather information and verify existing data on vegetative communities, wetland extents, wildlife habitats, and habitat use on and surrounding the site. Protocol-level special-status plant surveys were also conducted within portions of the Study Area on May 16, 17, 24, June 8, 2018, October 30, and November 1, 2018 (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). 1.2 Description of Study Area The Study Area is located approximately 3 miles east of the City of Martinez, along the lowest 2.5 miles of Walnut Creek and 1.5 miles of Pacheco Creek. The Study Area consists of the South Reach, located between the BNSF Railroad embankment and the confluence of Pacheco and Walnut creeks; the Middle Reach, located between Pacheco Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) embankment; and the North Reach, located between Waterfront Road and Suisun Bay in the area historically called “Pacheco Marsh” (Figure 1). Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 1.2.1 Regional Setting The Study Area is located in Contra Costa County along the southern edge of Suisun Bay within the San Francisco Bay Delta. Contra Costa County has a diverse topography and micro-climate, and has an associated high diversity of vegetation, although the rapid pace of development in the region, has resulted in a substantial reduction in land available for native flora and fauna. San Francisco Bay has lost 80% of its historic tidal wetlands. In the areas immediately adjacent to Walnut Creek, 85% of the historic tidal wetland has been lost (SFEI, 2016). The vast majority of the historic tidal marsh habitat within the lower reaches of Walnut Creek has been diked or filled to support industrial development (SFEI, 2016). 1.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses, Utilities, and Infrastructure Figure 2 shows existing land use, utilities, and infrastructure within the three reaches and surrounding areas. The Study Area and adjacent lands consist primarily of publicly owned and privately owned open space, with existing and proposed future industrial land uses on adjacent parcels. Known utilities and other infrastructure that exist within the Study Area include:  Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s (CCCSD) buried Outfall Pipeline (North Reach)  Contra Costa Water District’s (CCWD) buried raw water “Shortcut Pipeline” (South Reach)  Buried and aboveground petroleum product pipelines operated by TransMontaigne, Andeavor, Kinder Morgan, Calpine, and Shell (South and North Reaches)  PG&E overhead power lines and associated towers and poles (South and Middle Reaches) Additional, unmapped subsurface infrastructure is believed to exist within the Study Area, including an underground petroleum pipeline operated by Chevron, located in the South Reach. The Project team continues to coordinate with utilities and other infrastructure operators to identify such unmapped subsurface infrastructure within the Study Area. There are also several transportation corridors passing near the Study Area:  Waterfront Road - a county road located between the Middle and North Reaches  UPRR – a single track railroad located between the Middle and North Reaches  BNSF Railroad – a double track railroad located immediately south of the South Reach Several parcels adjacent to the Study Area support industrial land uses, including:  Conco Inc.’s contractor yard (South Reach) o Conco Inc. has proposed a future expansion of their yard on the parcels west of the South Reach North Reach Middle Reach SouthReach Walnut Creek Suisun Bay Pacheco C reek Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project . 170378.00Figure 1 Study Area SOURCE: ESA 2018; NAIP 2016 0 1,0 00 FeetHabitat Assessment Study Area W a te rfro n t R o a d Lower Walnut Creek Restoration D170378 00. .Figure 2Existing Land Use, Utilities and InfrastructureNOTES:Locations of utilites and easements shown are approximateWaterfront Road Oil Pipelines include buried and above ground pipelines owned by TransMontaigne, Andeavor, and Kinder Morgan.Imagery Source: Contra Costa County, 2014 0 2,00 0 Feet S S CCCSD Outfall TransMontaigne Pier Road TransMontaigne Pipeline Waterfront Road Oil Pipelines !(ACME Compliance Wells CCWD Shorcut Pipeline !(CCWD Shortcut Pipeline Settlement Monitors CCWD Recycled Water Pipeline Refined Petroleum Product Pipeline IT Leachate Pipeline Railroad d d PG&E Power Lines FCD Property Easements Area of Potential Effect PG&E & Tidewater Oil Co.Easements CA Water Service CompanyEasement CCCSD Easement Approx. IT Pipeline Location (Not Verified)CCWD Easement PG&E Easement(Not Verified) Tesoro/Andeavor AcmeLandfill ConcoInc.MARTINEZ GUN CLUB CCCSD Waste waterTreatmentPlant IT Vine Hill CopartAuto City of Martinez ConcoInc. Closed La ndfill(IT Baker)ClosedLandfill(Acme)!AcmeLandfill W A T E R F R O N T R O A D!TransMontaigne Pipeline and Pier !CCCSD Outfall Pipeline State LandsCommission Po int Edith Ecologica l Reserve Peyton Marsh Tesoro/Andeavor Suisun Properties U N IO N P A C IF IC R A IL R O A D BNSFRAILROADW ALN U T C R E E K P A C H E C O C R E E K ConcoProperty State Lands Commission Property Acme Landfill Property PachecoMarsh Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 5 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 o These parcels were historically part of the IT hazardous materials treatment facility. Following the closure of this facility, contaminated materials were removed and encapsulated in the adjacent IT Baker Landfill.  Acme Landfill (Middle Reach)  Several Closed Landfills (South and Middle Reaches) o The closed IT Baker Landfill has leachate management system piping which passes through Conco owned parcels (South Reach) and connects to the Vine Hill hazardous materials processing site (Middle Reach). o Acme South landfill, located along the west bank of Pacheco Creek.  Martinez Gun Club (Middle Reach)  Tesoro (now Andeavor) Oil Refinery (East bank of Walnut Creek, all reaches)  Copart Auto Lot (North Reach)  Central Contra Costa Sanitary District’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (South Reach, to the south of the BNSF embankment)  Plains All-American Products Terminal (adjacent to the North Reach) 1.3 Regulatory Context Biological resources in the Study Area, including special-status species, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities, may fall under the jurisdiction of various regulatory agencies and be subject to their regulations and permit requirements. Biological resources observed within the Study Area, or with potential to occur in the Study Area, as described in Section 3: Environmental Setting, may be subject to the regulations described below. Additionally, some sensitive biological resources described in this report may occur outside of, but adjacent to the Study Area. If affected by Project activities, these resources also could be subject to regulatory considerations. 1.3.1 Federal Regulations 1.3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered. Two federal agencies oversee the FESA: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over anadromous fish, marine fish, and marine mammals. Section 7 of FESA requires a federal agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction to determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present in the Study Area and whether the proposed action will have a potentially significant impact on such Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 6 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. The USFWS designates critical habitat for threatened or endangered species under FESA. Critical habitat designations are specific areas within the geographic region that are occupied by a listed species that are determined to be critical to its survival and recovery in accordance with FESA. Federal entities issuing permits or acting as a federal agency must show that their actions do not negatively affect the critical habitat to the extent that it impedes the recovery of the species. 1.3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), administered by the USFWS, is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, a commitment by the United States to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. It generally prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds, bird parts, eggs, and nests, except as provided by the statute. The federal MBTA definition of “take” does not prohibit or penalize the incidental take of migratory birds that results from actions that are conducted without motivation to harm birds. 1.3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, enforced by the USFWS, makes it illegal to import, export, take (which includes molest or disturb), sell, purchase, or barter any bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) or parts thereof. 1.3.1.4 Federal Regulation of Waters of the United States including Wetlands Wetlands and other waters (e.g., rivers, streams, and natural ponds) are a subset of “waters of the U.S.,” and receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Clean Water Rule detailing the process for determining CWA jurisdiction over waters of the United States (WOTUS). The rule is currently in effect in California and 21 other states. The 2015 Clean Water Rule includes a detailed process for determining which areas may be subject to jurisdiction under the CWA, and broadly classifies features into three categories: those that are jurisdictional by rule (Category A below), those that excluded by rule (Category C below) and those features that require a “significant nexus test” (Category B below). The significant nexus test includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. For circumstances such as those described in Category B below, the significant nexus test would take into account physical indicators of flow (evidence of an ordinary high water mark [OHWM]), if a hydrologic connection to a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW) exists, and if the aquatic functions of the water body have a significant effect (more than speculative or insubstantial) on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. The USACE and EPA will apply the significant nexus standard to assess the flow characteristics and functions of a potential WOTUS Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 7 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 to determine if it significantly affects the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the downstream TNW. 2015 Clean Water Rule Key Points Summary Category A: The USACE and EPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters (jurisdictional by rule):  TNWs.  Interstate waters and wetlands.  Territorial seas.  Impoundments of waters (reservoirs, etc.).  Tributaries with the following attributes: – Contributes flow to a TNW. – Contain bed, banks, and ordinary high water mark. – Can be natural, man-altered, or man-made. – Can have constructed breaks (culverts, pipes, etc.) or natural breaks.  Waters “adjacent” to TNW and their tributaries, including: – Waters that are bordering, contiguous, or neighboring a TNW, interstate water, territorial sea, impoundment or tributary. Includes waters separated from other ‘‘waters of the United States’’ by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes or similar. – Waters within 100 feet of the OHWM of a TNW, interstate water, territorial sea, impoundment or tributary. – Waters within the 100-year floodplain and within 1,500 feet of a TNW, interstate water, territorial sea, impoundment or tributary. – Waters within 1,500 feet of the high tide line or OHWM of a TNW or territorial sea. Category B: The USACE and EPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact- specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a TNW unless excluded by rule (significant nexus test):  Vernal pools that have a significant nexus to a TNW or territorial sea.  Waters within the 100-year floodplain of a TNW, interstate water or territorial sea.  Waters within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or OHWM of a TNW, interstate water, territorial sea, impoundment or tributary. Category C: The USACE and EPA will not assert jurisdiction over the following features (excluded by rule):  Waste treatment facilities including basins and percolation ponds. Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 8 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019  Prior converted cropland.  The following types of ditches: – Ephemeral ditches that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary. – Intermittent ditches that are not a relocated tributary, excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands. – Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a TNW, interstate waters, territorial sea.  Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland.  Artificial, constructed lakes and ponds created in dry land such as stock watering ponds, irrigation ponds, settling basins, fields flooded for rice growing, cooling ponds  Swimming pools or reflecting pools in dry land.  Small ornamental waters created in dry land.  Water-filled depressions created in dry land from mining or construction activities including pits for fill, sand, or gravel.  Erosional features including gullies and rills that are not tributaries, non-wetland swales and constructed grass waterways.  Puddles.  Groundwater.  Stormwater control features created in dry land.  Wastewater recycling structures created in dry land including detention and retention basins, groundwater recharge basins, percolation ponds and water distributary structures. The USACE has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. In this regard, the USACE acts under two statutory authorities: the Rivers and Harbors Act (Sections 9 and 10), which governs specified activities in “navigable waters,”1 and the CWA (Section 404), which governs specified activities in waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The USACE requires a permit if a project proposes placement of structures within navigable waters and/or alteration of waters of the U.S. Some classes of fill activities may be authorized under Regional General or Nationwide permits if specific conditions are met. Nationwide permits do not authorize activities that are likely to jeopardize the existence of a threatened or endangered species (listed or proposed for listing under FESA). The Nationwide permit outlines general conditions and may specify project-specific conditions as required by the USACE during the 1 Navigable waters are defined as those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide or that are presently used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 9 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Section 404 permitting process. When a project’s activities do not meet the conditions for a Nationwide Permit, an Individual Permit may be issued by the USACE. 1.3.2 State Regulations 1.3.2.1 Waters of the State and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act Under CWA Section 401, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must certify that actions in the San Francisco Bay region receiving authorization under CWA Section 404 also meet state water quality standards. The RWQCB issue Water Quality Certifications for actions regulated under the CWA in coordination with the USACE. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal lead agencies also may endeavor to comply with state water quality regulations. The RWQCB also regulates waters of the state under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). “waters of the state” are broadly defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state”2 and include isolated, intrastate, and non-navigable waters and/or wetlands. The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water . Under the Act, the RWQCB must prepare and periodically update its water quality control basin plans (the Basin Plan). Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. Projects that affect wetlands or waters of the state must meet RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), which may be issued in combination with or in addition to a CWA Section 401water quality certification or waiver. 1.3.2.2 Section 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life… [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG, 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG, 1994). 2 California Water Code Section 13050. Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 10 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. 1.3.2.3 Section 3503 California Fish and Game Code Under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey), or of their nests and eggs. 1.3.2.4 California Fully Protected Species California law (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 birds, 4700 mammals, 5050 reptiles and amphibians and 5515 fish) allows the designation of a species as fully protected. This is a greater level of protection than is afforded by the California Endangered Species Act, since such a designation means the listed species cannot be taken at any time. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus), and California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) are California fully protected species. 1.3.2.5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the Guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on, for example, a “candidate species” that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project’s potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted. 1.3.3 Local Regulations 1.3.1 San Francisco Bay and Shoreline The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has regulatory jurisdiction, as defined by the McAteer-Petris Act, over the Bay and its shoreline, which generally consists of the area between the Bay shoreline and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel to the shoreline. These areas are defined in the McAteer-Petris Act (PRC Section 66610) as:  San Francisco Bay, being all areas that are subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate (Point Bonita-Point Lobos) and to the Sacramento River line (a line between Stake Point and Simmons Point, extended northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 11 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Cut), including all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (land laying between mean high tide and mean low tide); and submerged lands (land lying below mean low tide).  A shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the shoreline of San Francisco Bay as defined above and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line, but excluding any portions of such territory which are included in other areas of BCDC jurisdiction; provided that the Commission may, by resolution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance to the Bay. 1.3.2 Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance Chapter 816-6 of the Contra Costa County Zoning Code states: The site plan shall accurately indicate the location, species, tree dripline, and trunk circumference of all trees with a circumference of 20 inches or more, measured 4.5 feet about the ground (or any significant grouping of trees including groves of four or more trees regardless of trunk size) whose tree trunks lie within 50 feet of proposed grading or other proposed improvements, or other proposed development activity…If the proposed development is in proximity to two or more qualifying trees, then each tree shall be assigned a number for identification purposes. This site plan shall also specifically and clearly indicate whether individual trees are proposed to be (1) removed, (2) altered or otherwise affected. 1.3.3 Contra Costa County Conservation Element Policies Related to Vegetation and Wildlife Goal 8-D: To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant and wildlife habitats. Goal 8-E: To protect rare, threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants, significant plant communities, and other resources which stand out as unique because of their scarcity, scientific value, aesthetic quality or cultural significance. Attempt to achieve a significant net increase in wetland values and functions within the County over the life of the General Plan. Policy 8-6: Significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall be preserved. Policy 8-7: Important wildlife habitats which would be disturbed by major development shall be preserved, and corridors for wildlife migration between undeveloped lands shall be retained. Policy 8-8: Significant ecological resource areas in the County shall be identified and designated for compatible low-intensity land uses. Setback zones shall be established around the resource areas to assist in their protection. Policy 8-9: Areas determined to contain significant ecological resources, particularly those containing endangered species, shall be maintained in their natural state and carefully regulated to the maximum legal extent. Acquisition of the most ecologically sensitive properties within the County by appropriate public agencies shall be encouraged. Policy 8-10: Any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource areas shall ensure that the resource is protected. Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 12 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Policy 8-11: The County shall utilize performance criteria and standards which seek to regulate uses in and adjacent to significant ecological resource areas. Policy 8-17: The ecological value of wetland areas, especially the salt marshes and tidelands of the bay and delta, shall be recognized. Existing wetlands in the County shall be identified and regulated. Restoration of degraded wetland areas shall be encouraged and supported whenever possible. Policy 8-21: The planting of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. Policy 8-22: Applications of toxic pesticides and herbicides shall be kept at a minimum and applied in accordance with the strictest standards designed to conserve all the living resources of the County. The use of biological and other non-toxic controls shall be encouraged. Policy 8-23: Runoff of pollutants and siltation into marsh and wetland areas from outfalls serving nearby urban development shall be discouraged. Where permitted, development plans shall be designed in such a manner that no such pollutants and siltation will significantly adversely affect the value or function of wetlands. In addition, berms, gutters, or other structures should be required at the outer boundary of the buffer zones to divert runoff to sewer systems for transport out of the area. Policy 8-25: The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from the effects of potential industrial spills. Policy 8-27: Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and protected. Policy 8-28: All efforts shall be made to identify and protect the County’s mature native oak, bay, and buckeye trees. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 13 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 2 Methods 2.1 Study Area The District owns a large portion of the land within the Study Area and is pursuing opportunities to expand the proposed Project through partnerships with other local landowners. The use of the term “Study Area” refers to th e area generally defined by the potential Project boundary which includes parcels owned by the District, State Lands Commission, City of Martinez, Acme landfill, and Conco Inc. (Figure 1). Note that although this footprint is generally the starting point to define a biological survey area, in practical terms, biological resources have varied sensitivity to disturbance and a slightly larger Study Area is typically needed for many species inc luding nesting raptors, passerine birds, and many terrestrial species that may be located adjacent to a property. 2.2 Survey Dates and Surveying Personnel Environmental Science Associates (ESA) wetland restoration ecologist Stephanie Bishop conducted reconnaissance-level plant and wildlife surveys of the majority of the Study Area on August 6 and 27, 2015, September 15, 2015, January 5 and 6, 2017, March 29, 2017, April 28, 2017, and November 6 and 7, 2017. Other ESA botanists and wildlife biologists assisted in each of the reconnaissance-level surveys. The surveys were conducted to observe and characterize vegetation communities in the Study Area and to assess habitat quality and potential for common and special-status wildlife species and verify conditions described in site specific studies. The reconnaissance surveys are intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special-status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Study Area. The site visits do not constitute protocol-level surveys and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species. Habitats within areas that were not surveyed, including the expanded Suisun Properties portion of the North Reach (between the County property and Suisun Bay) and the State Lands Commission property east of Copart Auto, were mapped and assessed using aerial imagery. LSA (2012) and Salix (2016) also conducted wetland delineations within portions of the Project boundary and this information has been incorporated into the setting information described below. Methods Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 14 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Wood Biological Consulting conducted protocol-level special-status plant surveys within the majority of the Study Area on May 16, 17, 24, June 8, October 30 and November 1, 2018 (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Areas where plant surveys were not completed include the area west of the access road in the Middle Reach within the Acme landfill property, the expanded Suisun Properties portion of the North Reach, the State Lands Commission property east of Copart Auto, and the very western edge of the South Reach within the Conco property. 2.3 Review of Background Information Several site specific biological studies and surveys have been performed for the Study Area over the years. These, along with publicly available data and subscription-based biological resource data, were evaluated to provide a foundation of existing biological conditions in this report. Data sources that assisted in this analysis include:  Pacheco Marsh Restoration, Contra Costa County Wetland Technical Assessment, H. T. Harvey and Associates, 2003  Pacheco Marsh Restoration Plan, PWA, 2004  Data Summary Report for Baseline Surveys of Anadromous Fish Habitat in Lower Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California, Jones & Stokes, 2004  Final Delineation of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, for the Lower Walnut Creek Channel Restoration Project, Concord, California, Jones & Stokes, 2005a.  Botanical Report for the Lower Walnut Creek Channel Restoration Project, Concord, California, Jones & Stokes, 2005b  Jones & Stokes. 2007. Final Data Summary Report for Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement and Fry Emergence in Lower Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California. September, 2007.  Lower Walnut Creek Existing Conditions Report, ESA, 2015b  Resilient Landscape Visions for Walnut Creek – San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2016b  Lower Walnut Creek Feasibility Study Report, ESA, 2017  Lower Walnut Creek Wetland Delineation Report, ESA, 2017  Lower Walnut Creek Project Study Report, ESA, 2018  Topographic maps  Historic and current aerial imagery  USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), USFWS, 2018  The CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CDFW, 2018  The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online database, CNPS, 2018  eBird Hotspot Map for Waterfront Rd. wetlands and Pt. Edith Trail, eBird, 2018  Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum, H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2018  Lower Walnut Creek Rare Plant Survey Report, Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 15 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting This chapter provides the environmental baseline for vegetation communities and habitats and special-status plant and wildlife species in the Study Area. Habitat types occurring within the Study Area are briefly described below. Figure 3 shows the distribution of these habitats in the Study Area. 3.1 Natural Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats Natural Communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area and are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The Natural Communities classification presented herein is based on field observations, previous biological studies of the Study Area, and the standard Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (CDFG, 1986), Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types; wildlife habitats were classified and evaluated using the A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). 3.1.1 Upland Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Ruderal/Non-native Grassland The upland areas of the Study Area are dominated by ruderal vegetation and non-native grassland. Ruderal and non-native grassland habitats are most prevalent in areas subject to frequent and often severe vegetation and soil disturbances including disked or fallow fields, construction sites, levees, vehicle parking lots, and railroad or other public utility rights of way. This habitat occurs mostly in the North Reach, but also occurs along the levees in the Middle and South Reach. It is characterized by a dense growth of non-native grass species and ruderal vegetation dominated by non-native forbs. Plant species that are common to this habitat include annual non-native grasses, perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), black mustard (Brassica nigra), short pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Non-native annual grasses dominating this habitat include wild oat (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis). The ruderal areas contain many other invasive forbs including ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 16 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 The areas of undisturbed non-native grasslands habitat could potentially provide suitable foraging habitat for raptors and nest-sites for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). However, in areas disturbed from human and unauthorized dirt bike traffic, wildlife use of these areas is likely limited. Some common wildlife that may use these habitats include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). This habitat is more important for wildlife that inhabit marshes as refugia habitat in areas directly adjacent to tidal and non-tidal wetlands. Coastal Scrub Coastal scrub habitat occurs in small patches in the North Reach. This coastal scrub habitat has developed on disturbed areas and includes native shrubs, primarily coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), but also may include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and non-native tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). The coastal scrub within the Study Area is somewhat disturbed from human and dirt bike traffic, so wildlife use of these areas is likely limited, but may provide foraging, refuge, or nesting habitat for common birds or mammals. Eucalyptus trees Two eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) occur within the Study Area adjacent to the parking area within the City of Martinez park. The understory of these trees is non-native grassland. Large trees can generally provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for many species of birds. However, because these trees are near a parking area of a City park and near Waterfront Road, they may only provide nesting opportunities to birds willing to nest near disturbed areas, such as California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). These trees could also potential provide habitat for tree roosting bats such as the western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). Oak trees A few oak trees occur at the upstream end of Pacheco Creek within the South Reach. These oak trees are within disturbed areas next to roads and likely provide minimal wildlife habitat, but may provide foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds. Creeping Wild Rye There are also some nearly monotypic stands of native creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides) within the North Reach and South Reach. These areas provide similar wildlife habitat as the surrounding non-native grassland and also may provide important upland refugia habitat for marsh wildlife adjacent to non-tidal wetlands. A mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) was observed nesting within the creeping wild rye during one of the reconnaissance surveys. Area on ConcoProperty Mapped bySalix Consulting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project . 170378.00Figure 3 Existing Habitats SOURCE: ESA 2017, 2018; LSA 2012; Salix, 2016; NAIP 2016 * Wetland creeping wild rye occurs in small areas along the north edge of Pacheco Marsh. 0 980 Feet Uplandseucalyptuscoastal scrubcreeping wild rye trail/road/parkingruderal/non-native grasslandWetlands low marshmid/high marshmuted marshpickleweed marshseasonal wetlandcreeping wild rye *Watersscald/playaseasonal pondtidal channel BrackishTidal MarshNon-Tidal Wetlands Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 18 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 19 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Road/Trail/Parking The mostly unpaved trails and roads throughout the Study Area support few biological resources. These areas provide limited wildlife habitat and generally support only generalist, and sometimes non-native wildlife species that are tolerant of human presence and activities, such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) or Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). 3.1.2 Aquatic Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Tidal Brackish Marsh Tidal brackish marsh, found throughout all three reaches in the Study Area, is typical of brackish tidal marsh in Suisun Bay and contains low, mid, and high marsh zones. Muted marsh is also present within the North Reach and occurs where the tidal action is minimized due to undersized culverts. Low Marsh Zone The low marsh zone consists of the marsh directly adjacent to Lower Walnut Creek. Low marsh generally occurs between elevations 2.1 and 5.5 ft. NAVD, or approximately MLLW +1 ft. to mean high water (MHW), according to typical vegetation elevation zones in Suisun Marsh (USBR, 2013). Typical vegetation within the low marsh zone includes California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), common bulrush (S. acutus), and broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Common reed (Phragmites australis) has expanded over the years at the Study Area. The invasive form of common reed is assumed present in Suisun and the Delta, identified as a non- native genetic variant which is contributing to the rapid expansion observed in some marshes (Cal-IPC, 2008). Common reed occurs within the mid and upper elevation range in the low marsh. Mid Marsh Zone The mid marsh zone is inland of the low marsh zone and occur over a large area from the mouth of Walnut Creek to Waterfront Road. South of Waterfront Road only a narrow band of mid marsh exists. Mid marsh generally occurs between 5.5 and 6.2 ft. NAVD, or between MHW and mean higher high water (MHHW). Two species that generally occur within the mid marsh, but also occur in low marsh include bulrush (Bolboschoenus spp.) and common reed. Native pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) and invasive perennial pepperweed also occur and can be dominant species within the mid marsh zone. Other species co-occur with these dominant species in the mid marsh zone including non-native fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata). Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 20 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 High Marsh Zone The high marsh zone is inland of the mid marsh zone and, similar to the mid marsh zone, occurs over a large area from the mouth of Walnut Creek to Waterfront Road, and as a narrow band south of Waterfront Road. High marsh generally occurs between elevation 6.2 and 7.2 ft. NAVD, or between MHHW and Extreme HHW. Vegetation within the high marsh zone is dominated by pickleweed and invasive perennial pepperweed. Many other species are found at the upper elevations of the high marsh and at the edge of the transition zone including native salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and gumplant (Grindelia stricta). Plant diversity is greater in the mid and high marsh zones than in the low marsh within the Study Area. Some other native species encountered intermittently within the mid and high marsh include western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis glutinosa), and marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata). Although the high marsh has a diversity of native species, perennial pepperweed is a highly invasive plant within the mid marsh, high marsh, and transition zones and is known to exclude native species. Perennial pepperweed has been shown to reduce cover of rare endemic plant species in other brackish tidal marshes where they co-occur (Fiedler et al., 2007). Muted Tidal Marsh Muted tidal marsh is located within the North Reach and Pacheco Creek. Plant species commonly observed in the muted tidal marsh areas include pickleweed, fat-hen, and bulrush. Associated Wildlife Marsh vegetation throughout the Study Area provides nesting and foraging opportunities and cover for water bird species and small mammals, including mallard, green-winged teal (Anas crecca), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), Suisun song sparrow (Melospiza melodia maxillaris), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), salt marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and California vole (Microtus californicus). Raptors that are typical of marsh habitats include northern harrier, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Migratory shorebirds that forage in the mudflats along Suisun Bay during low tide, as well as the channel banks, include black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and several sandpiper species. During high tides, ducks that may be found in tidal marsh environments include northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), American wigeon (Anas americana), northern pintail (Anas acuta), gadwall (Anas strepera), and canvasback (Aythya valisineria). Special-status wildlife that may occur within tidal marsh habitats includes salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, and California black rail. Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 21 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Pickleweed Marsh Non-tidal pickleweed marsh occurs in all three reaches in the Study Area. Pickleweed marsh is dominated by pickleweed and contains varying densities of this plant. With a slight increase in elevation, pickleweed intergrades into areas composed of an assortment of hydrophytic species including, natives saltgrass, alkali heath, and non-natives fat-hen, perennial pepperweed, brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), and rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Similar to tidal brackish marsh, pickleweed marsh can provide nesting, foraging, and refugia habitat for wildlife associated with marsh vegetation. The lower water levels and sparse vegetation can attract foraging and potentially nesting shorebirds such as, sandpiper, black- necked stilt, American avocet, short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), and killdeer. Northern harrier commonly hunts over open marshes. Pickleweed marsh also provides habitat for small rodents that occur in the tidal brackish marshes and diked wetlands of the region including saltmarsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew (Sorex ornatus sinuosus). Seasonal Wetland Only a couple of seasonal wetlands exist in the Study Area and are dominated by invasive perennial pepperweed and stinkwort with other native and non-native vegetation. The seasonal wetlands within the Study Area are somewhat disturbed from human and dirt bike traffic, so wildlife use of these areas is likely limited, but they may provide foraging, refuge, or nesting habitat for common birds or mammals. Tidal Channel Lower Walnut Creek, Pacheco Creek, and small channels within the tidal marsh consist of open water, bordered by stands of bulrush, common reed, and other low marsh vegetation. Tidal channels include subtidal habitat and intertidal mudflat. Subtidal habitat occurs in Suisun Bay and within the Lower Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek channels where elevations are below the tide range and the substrate is, as a result, continuously submerged. Intertidal mudflat includes intertidal areas not continuously submerged. Intertidal mudflat occurs upslope of the subtidal areas and in numerous smaller tidal channels within the Study Area and is generally devoid of vegetation. Mudflat bordering the channels provides limited foraging opportunities for shorebirds. The deeper waters of the channel provide foraging and resting habitat for grebes, cormorants, and diving ducks; and the shallow waters could provide habitat for dabbling ducks such as mallard, northern shoveler, and gadwall. Scald/Playa Scald/playa habitats occur throughout the North, Middle, and South Reaches and contain little or no vegetation, but the scald edges are generally surrounded by pickleweed or other salt tolerant vegetation. Some of the scalds pond seasonally, while others only become saturated during Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 22 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 seasonal rains. The scalds contain sandy substrate and maintain high summer salt concentrations that prevents vegetation growth. Scald/playa habitat can provide foraging habitat to raptors. Seasonal Pond Seasonal ponds occur in small quantities in the North, Middle, and South Reaches of the Study Area. The shallow open water of the ponds may provide important foraging and resting habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and migrating birds. 3.2 Special-Status Species A comprehensive list of special-status fish, wildlife and plant species that could occur in the Study Area was compiled to assess the likelihood of species occurrence (see Appendix A and Appendix B). Some of these receive specific protection defined in federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “sensitive” on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as “special -status species” in this report. Species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Study Area are described below in greater detail. 3.2.1 Special-Status Plants Database information indicates that 38 special-status plants have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area (CDFW, 2018; CNPS, 2018). Of these, thirteen special-status plant species were determined to have moderate or high likelihood to occur within the Study Area. Protocol- level rare plant surveys were completed in May, June, October, and November 2018 within portions of the Study Area to identify whether these special-status plant species occur within the Study Area (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Summaries of each of these thirteen species is provided below. More details from the rare plant surveys can be found in the Rare Plant Survey Report in Appendix C. The remaining species were determined unlikely to occur based on lack of suitable specific habitat conditions (i.e., vernal pools), or because the associated habitat communities are not present (i.e., chaparral), or because of lack of suitable soil conditions, or because previous studies not identifying the species near the Study Area. 3.2.1.1 Plants Soft bird's-beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle) is a federal-listed endangered species, a state- listed rare species, and a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 species. Soft bird’s-beak is found in the heavy clay soils of coastal salt and brackish marshes of northern San Francisco Bay and occurs at the upper end of tidal zones. It is associated with pickleweed, salt grass, fat hen, and jaumea (Jaumea carnosa) and is rarely found in non-tidal conditions. Soft bird’s-beak is an annual herb in the broomrape family (Orobanchaceae) that blooms from July to November. It typically occurs on the edge of pannes and in low growing marsh vegetation in coastal salt marsh and coastal brackish marsh at elevations ranging from 0 to 10 feet. Soft bird's-beak is known to Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 23 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 occur less than one mile from the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh habitat in un- surveyed portions of the North Reach. Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) and is a CRPR 1B.1 species. It typically occurs in alkaline grassy areas on the edge of brackish marsh in valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 1 to 750 feet. This spiny, erect, yellow flowered, herbaceous annual can bloom from June through November. Leaves are green to gray-green and stems are white. The nearest documented occurrence is directly adjacent to the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). Associated species found in nearby Congdon’s tarplant populations include pickleweed, fat-hen, bristly ox-tongue, and Italian rye grass, all of which are common plant species found within the Study Area. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un- surveyed portions of the North, Middle, and South Reach. Pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi) is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) and is a CRPR 1B.2 species. It typically occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marshes, and valley and foothill grassland in vernally mesic soils at elevations ranging from 0 to 1,380 feet. This yellow-flowered, herbaceous annual can bloom from May through November. The nearest documented occurrence is approximately 7 miles from the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the North, Middle, and South Reach. Bolander’s hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi) is a CRPR 2B.1 perennial forb in the carrot family (Apiaceae) that blooms from July to September. It typically occurs in freshwater or brackish marsh and swamp habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 650 feet. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Bolander’s hemlock has potential to occur within un- surveyed portions of the North Reach because these areas contain potentially suitable tidal marsh habitat. The nearest documented occurrence is 1.4 miles from the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana) is a CRPR 1B.1 species. San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that blooms from April to October. It typically occurs in seasonal alkali sink scrub and wetlands in chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,740 feet (CDFW, 2018; CNPS, 2018). The nearest documented occurrence is approximately 1.5 miles west of the Study Area and occurs in annual grassland habitat above brackish marsh habitat (CDFW, 2018). This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle Reach and South Reach. Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 24 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) is a federal-listed threatened species, state-listed endangered species, and CRPR 1B.1 species. It is an annual herb belonging to the sunflower family (Asteraceae). This species is restricted to coastal prairie, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands, often on clay or sandy soils, at 10-220 m (33-722 ft) in elevation. Its current range includes marine terraces of the northern Monterey Bay in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, historically ranging into Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It is known from 37 historic occurrences, 22 of which are believed to be extant in only Solano and Santa Cruz counties (CDFW, 2018). All extant occurrences in Contra Costa County are reintroductions. Marginally suitable and highly disturbed coastal scrub and grassland habitat is present within the Study Area. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches. Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) is a federal-listed endangered species, and CRPR 1B.1 species. It is a low herbaceous member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Contra Costa goldfields inhabits seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools and mesic grasslands with typically clay or alkaline soils, below 700 feet in elevation. It was once distributed from the North Coast, southern Sacramento Valley, and the San Francisco Bay to the south Coast. It is presently restricted to locations near the Sacramento River Delta in Napa, Solano counties and Contra Costa counties, in the south San Francisco Bay area in Alameda County, and in Monterey County. It is presumed to have been extirpated from Santa Barbara, Mendocino and Santa Clara counties. In Contra Costa County, Contra Costa goldfields is known from four occurrences, only one of which is presumed extant. Mesic grassland and playa habitat occur within the study area, but are highly disturbed and offer only marginal habitat for this species. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches. Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii) is a perennial forb in the pea family (Fabaceae) with a CRPR 1B.2. It typically occurs along slough and channel edges among tall, dense vegetation in freshwater and brackish marsh habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 15 feet. The tule pea has lavender to reddish-purple flowers and wide wings along the stems. It is indistinguishable to the eye from its upland variety and taxonomic designations are made on the basis of habitat. Loss of natural edges on sloughs and rivers due to levee building and maintenance has resulted in loss of habitat for this species. Delta tule pea has been observed within brackish tidal marsh in the North Reach of the Study Area in 2004 and 2017 (CDFW, 2018; ESA, personal observation). Delta tule pea was observed within the North Reach in the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019) and potentially suitable habitat is available throughout the mid marsh zone, primarily within the North Reach. This species also has potential to occur in un-surveyed portions of the North Reach within tidal marsh habitat. Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), a state-listed rare and CRPR 1B.1 species, is a perennial forb in the carrot family (Apiaceae) that blooms from April to November. Mason’s liliaeopsis spreads rhizomatously across the exposed mud at the mid to low tide levels of fresh or brackish Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 25 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 tidal areas of river banks along the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Napa rivers, and along sloughs in the Delta. It typically occurs in areas within the direct tidal or splash zones on mud banks of sloughs and channels at elevations ranging from 0 to 35 feet. Mason’s lilaeopsis is threatened by loss of habitat due to levee building and repair in the Delta. The species bears three or four small white flowers in an umbel at the top of a quarter to half inch-tall flower stalk; leaves are hollow linear and reed-like, round in cross section with walls at intervals dividing the interior of the leaves into chambers. Mason’s lilaeopsis was documented near the mouth of Lower Walnut Creek along the east bank in 2004 (CDFW, 2018). During a kayak survey in 2015 this population was not observed. The Study Area contains mud flats and plant species associated with Mason’s lilaeopsis such as brass button, common bulrush, and rush (Juncus sp.). This species was observed along Lower Walnut Creek, outside of the protocol-level plant survey area, and along Pacheco Creek, within the protocol-level plant survey area, during the 2018 protocol-level plant survey (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). This species has potential to occur in un- surveyed portions of the North Reach within tidal marsh habitat. Delta mudwort (Limosella subulata), a CRPR 2B.1 species, is a perennial forb in the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae) that blooms from May to August. It typically occurs on mud banks of sloughs and channels in the Delta region in riparian scrub, freshwater marsh, and coastal brackish marsh habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 10 feet. This mudwort is a tiny-flowered plant that grows across the sandy mudflats by means of underground stems or stolons. The Study Area contains mud flats and plant species associated with Delta mudwort. This species has been documented just over 5 miles from the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach within tidal marsh habitat. Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense), a CRPR 3.1 species, is an annual forb in the knotweed family (Polygonaceae) that blooms from May to August. It typically occurs in salt and brackish marshes between 0 to 30 feet. This species has been documented 5.6 miles from Study Area on the north side of Suisun Bay. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable tidal marsh habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach. Long-styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla) is a CRPR 1B.2 species. It is a stout perennial herb that flowers from February to May. Long-styled sand spurrey is known from 22 occurrences, 12 of which are in Contra Costa and Solano counties. Within the Study Area, alkaline scalds and gaps in non-tidal salt marsh provide suitable habitat for long-styled sand spurrey. This species was not observed within the protocol-level plant survey area during 2018 protocol-level surveys (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches. Suisun Marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum), a CRPR 1B.2 species, is a perennial forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from May to November. It typically occurs along sloughs and channels in dense marsh vegetation in freshwater and coastal brackish marsh habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 10 feet. The plant is a tall (3 to 6 feet) perennial with fairly large Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 26 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 violet heads having ray flowers 10 to 12 mm (half inch) long. This species has several documented occurrences within the North Reach of the Study Area from 2004 and 2015 (CDFW, 2018; ESA, personal observation). This species was observed in the North Reach within the protocol-level plant survey area during the 2018 protocol-level plant survey (Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019). Potentially suitable habitat is available throughout the mid marsh zone, primarily within the North Reach. Potentially suitable tidal marsh habitat also exists in the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach. Associated species found with the populations within the Study Area include perennial pepperweed, fat-hen, pickleweed, western goldenrod, coyote brush, and gumplant. 3.2.2 Special-Status Fish and Wildlife Wildlife species that have a moderate to high likelihood to occur within the Study Area are described below. 3.2.2.1 Fish California Central Valley and Central California Coast steelhead DPSs. The California Central Valley (CCV) and Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead Distinct Population Segments (DPS) are listed as threatened under FESA. Steelhead possess the ability to spawn repeatedly, maintaining the mechanisms to return to the Pacific Ocean after spawning in freshwater. Juvenile steelhead may spend up to four years residing in freshwater prior to migrating to the ocean as smolts. CCV steelhead migrate through Suisun Bay waters in transit between freshwater spawning areas and the Pacific Ocean, and may therefore occur seasonally in the waters of the Study Area. CCC steelhead were historically abundant within the Walnut Creek watershed, however, impassable barriers within the lower watershed have restricted access to all upstream spawning and rearing habitat (Leidy et al., 2005). Sacramento River winter-run, Central Valley spring-run, and Central Valley fall/late fall- run Chinook Salmon ESUs. The population of Chinook salmon in the San Francisco Bay-Delta is comprised of three distinct races: winter-run, spring-run, and fall/late fall-run. These races are distinguished by the seasonal differences in adult upstream migration, spawning, and juvenile downstream migration. Chinook salmon are anadromous fish, spending three to five years at sea before returning to freshwater to spawn. These fish pass through the San Francisco Bay-Delta waters to reach their upstream spawning grounds. In addition, juvenile salmon migrate through the waters adjacent to the Study Area en route to the Pacific Ocean. Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, listed as both state and federally endangered, migrate through San Francisco Bay from December through July with a peak in March (Moyle 2002). Spawning is confined to the mainstem Sacramento River and occurs from mid-April through August (Moyle, 2002). Juveniles emerge between July and October, and are resident in their natal stream 5-10 months followed by an indeterminate residency period in estuarine habitats (Moyle, 2002). Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 27 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 The state- and federal-listed threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon migrate to the Sacramento River from March to September with a peak spawning period between late August and October (Moyle, 2002). Juvenile salmon emerge between November and March, and are resident in streams for a period of 3 to 15 months before migrating to downstream habitats (Moyle, 2002). The Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon is a California species of special concern. These salmon enter the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from June through December and spawn from October through December, with a peak in November. Adult and juvenile (smolts) winter-run, spring-run, and fall-run Chinook salmon are known to occur in Suisun Bay and the waters adjacent to the Study Area during migrations to upstream freshwater spawning habitat. Delta smelt, a federally threatened and state-listed endangered species, is a small, slender-bodied fish which is able to tolerate a wide salinity range and is endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. The fish live in schools and primarily feed on planktonic crustaceans, small insect larvae and mysid shrimp (Moyle, 2002). This species, which has a one-year life span, live primarily along the freshwater edge of the saltwater-freshwater interface of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Prior to spawning, delta smelt migrate upstream from the brackish-water habitat to river channels and tidally influenced backwater sloughs to spawn. Migration and spawning occur between December and June (Moyle, 2002). The species, though the current population has seen a dramatic reduction in numbers, has historically been collected in large quantities in Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay and at the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa power plants. The delta smelt has no commercial or recreational value, but is considered a key indicator species of the environmental health of the Delta. Though exceedingly rare, delta smelt are known to be present in the region of the Delta adjacent to the Study Area. Longfin smelt, a federal candidate for listing, state-listed threatened species, is a small schooling fish that inhabits the freshwater section of the lower Delta and has been observed from south San Francisco Bay to the Delta, with the bulk of the San Francisco Bay population occupying the region between the Carquinez Straight and the Delta. They have been collected in large numbers in Montezuma slough, Suisun Bay and near the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa power plants. In the fall, adults from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays migrate to fresher water in the Delta to spawn. The spawning habits of longfin smelt are similar to the delta smelt and both species are known to school together, though longfin smelt are exceedingly more common in the Bay-Delta. Larval stages are known to inhabit Suisun Bay and move down bay as they grow larger in April and May. The larvae are pelagic and found in the upper layers of the water column. Longfin smelt are harvested commercially and sold in local markets. Longfin smelt are known to be present in the region of Suisun Bay adjacent to the Study Area. Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon is a federal-listed threatened species. This anadromous fish is the most widely distributed member of the sturgeon family and the most marine-oriented of the sturgeon species. Green sturgeons range in the nearshore waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea and are common occupants of bays and estuaries along the western Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 28 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 coast of the United States (Moyle et al., 1995). Adults in the San Joaquin Delta are reported to feed on benthic invertebrates including shrimp, amphipods and occasionally small fish (Moyle et al., 1995) while juveniles have been reported to feed on opossum shrimp and amphipods. Adult green sturgeons migrate into freshwater beginning in late February with spawning occurring in March through July, with peak activity in April and June. After spawning, juveniles remain in fresh and estuarine waters for 1-4 years and then begin to migrate out to the sea (Moyle et al., 1995). The upper Sacramento River has been identified as the only known spawning habitat for the green sturgeon southern DPS. Although green sturgeon are caught and observed in the lower San Joaquin River, no spawning is known to occur within the river. Green Sturgeon is not expected to use the Study Area as spawning ground; however, they do travel through the adjacent Suisun Bay waters and may utilize the Study Area for feeding. Sacramento Splittail is a California species of special concern endemic to the San Francisco Bay-Estuary. They are a large, elongate minnow with a blunt head and a slight bump just behind the head. Splittail are adjusted to a wide range of salinities and temperatures and depend on both brackish water for rearing habitat and floodplain/river-edge habitat for spawning (Moyle, 2002). Once abundant throughout the San Francisco Estuary, splittail are now confined to Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, and the Napa, Petaluma, and Sacramento River systems. Splittail are known to occur within the lower reaches of Walnut Creek adjacent to the study area (Leidy, 2007). 3.2.2.2 Reptiles Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle, a California species of special concern, is a thoroughly aquatic turtle found in permanent ponds, rivers, streams, channels, and irrigation ditches with rocky or muddy bottoms, and emergent vegetation. Basking areas used by this species include partially submerged logs, rocks, vegetation mats, and open mud banks. Habitat destruction and stream course degradation are the primary threats to this species. Western pond turtle has been observed in Pacheco Creek at the upstream end of the Study Area. 3.2.2.3 Birds Ridgway’s rail (formerly California clapper rail) is a federally endangered, state endangered, and California fully protected species. Ridgway’s rail is the resident rail subspecies of northern and central California, and is currently restricted to the San Francisco Bay Estuary, with the largest populations occurring in remnant salt marshes of south San Francisco Bay. The Ridgway’s rail occurs only within salt and brackish marshes. Important Ridgway’s rail habitat components are: 1) well-developed tidal sloughs and secondary channels; 2) stands of cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in the lower marsh zone; 3) dense salt marsh vegetation for cover; 4) intertidal mudflats, gradually sloping banks of tidal channels, and cordgrass beds for foraging; 5) abundant invertebrate food resources; and 6) transitional vegetation at the marsh edge to serve as a refuge during high tides. In south and central San Francisco Bay, Ridgway’s rail typically inhabits salt marshes dominated by pickleweed and cordgrass. Breeding occurs from mid-March through July, with peak activity in late April to late May. Ridgeway’s rails have been documented near the Study Area in adjacent tidal marshes (CDFW, 2018). Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 29 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 California black rail. Potential breeding habitat for California black rail (state threatened species and California fully protected species) exists in the tidal marsh habitat in the Study Area. This species lives in coastal salt and brackish marshes. Year-round residents, these species stay mainly in the upper to lower zones of coastal marshes that are dominated by pickleweed. Threats to this species include lost and degradation of salt marsh habitat, encroachment of human activities, genetic isolation due to habitat fragmentation, and predation from coyotes, red fox, raptors, possibly river otter, raccoons, and feral cats. Two occurrences of black rails in 2005 and 2016, as documented by CNDDB, occur within the Study Area (CDFW, 2018). Tricolored blackbird is a state threatened species. Tricolored blackbirds are a colonial species that nest in marsh vegetation such as cattails, tules, and blackberry thickets. This species has been known to forage both along edges of ponds in the immediate vicinity of the nest site and in grasslands and croplands up to four miles from the nest site. Loss of habitat has reduced species nesting sites, and hence species numbers. Because of the ephemeral nature of their habitat, these blackbirds typically nest in different locations from year to year. Brackish marsh vegetation in the Study Area could provide suitable habitat for this species and eBird documents two sightings of individual tricolored blackbirds among a flock of red-winged blackbirds in marshes adjacent to the Study Area (eBird, 2018). Northern harrier. This species, like other raptors and birds in general, is protected under California Code 3503 and 3503.5, which prohibits the taking or destroying of any bird or nest in the order of Falconiformes (falcons, kites, and hawks) and Strigiformes (owls). It is also a California species of special concern. Northern harrier nest and forage along wet meadows, slough, savanna, prairie, and marshes, feeding on small mammals, such as California vole and mice. The territory for this species is often a minimum of 10-20 acres of foraging area. Destruction of marsh habitat is the primary reason for the decline of this species. Northern harrier was observed foraging within the Study Area during reconnaissance-level surveys and suitable nesting habitat occurs within the Study Area. Saltmarsh common yellowthroat. The common yellowthroat is a small warbler with a complex of subspecies. The salt marsh subspecies is recognized as a distinct breeding population, with geographic distribution, habitats, and subtle differences in morphological traits that distinguish it from other subspecies. It inhabits tidal salt and brackish marshes in winter, but breeds in freshwater to brackish marshes and riparian woodlands during spring to early summer. Nests are placed on or near the ground in dense emergent vegetation or shrubs. The subspecies is a California species of special concern due to major decline of both habitat and populations in the past decade, but is not currently listed as endangered or threatened. The common yellowthroat is also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is a California species of special concern. Suisun song sparrow is one of three morphologically distinct song sparrow subspecies that occur in the San Francisco Bay region. This particular subspecies is endemic to the marshes bordering Suisun Bay and is a California species of special concern. Intermixed stands of bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), cattail (Typha spp.), and other emergent vegetation provide suitable habitat in brackish marsh habitats. Suisun song sparrows nest in tall bulrush with local Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 30 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 pickleweed. They also frequent tall vegetation along the edges of tidal marshes and forage on mudflats and channel beds exposed at low tide. 3.2.2.4 Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse are small, native rodents that are endemic to the salt marshes and adjacent diked wetlands of San Francisco Bay. Salt marsh harvest mice are listed as federally and state endangered species. This species is considered a California fully protected species. Suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse is present in the brackish marshes adjacent to Lower Walnut Creek. In addition, CNDDB records exist from trapping efforts within the action area in the locality of Shell Marsh, Peyton Slough, and Pacheco Creek. Salt marsh harvest mouse was also trapped in Pt. Edith Wildlife Area, adjacent to action area, throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; as well as in Avon-Port Chicago Marsh in 1997 (CDFW, 2018). In 2008 four salt marsh harvest mice were captured during trapping efforts in the north part of the South Reach in pickleweed dominated vegetation (Monk & Associates 2008). It is anticipated salt marsh harvest mouse will occupy suitable pickleweed and marsh habitats within the action area. More information on the salt marsh harvest mouse distribution and habitat use can be found in the salt marsh harvest mouse technical memorandum in Appendix D (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2018). The Suisun shrew is a California species of special concern with similar habitat characteristics to the salt marsh harvest mouse. 3.2.3 Critical Habitat for Listed Fish and Wildlife Species Critical habitat is a term defined in the FESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the FESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species’ recovery are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) designated critical habitat for Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon on June 16, 1993 (NMFS, 1993) and for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and central California coast steelhead, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (NMFS, 2005) and for green sturgeon on October 9, 2009 (NMFS, 2009). The Study Area does not contain designated fish habitat but the adjacent open waters of Suisun Bay are designated critical habitat for these species. Critical habitat for delta smelt was designated by the USFWS on December 19, 1994 (USFWS, 1994) and includes the open water portions of Suisun Bay adjacent to the proposed Study Area. Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 31 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 3.2.3.1 Federal Essential Fish Habitat The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297), amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to establish new requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in federal Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) and to require federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all fishery management councils to amend their FMPs to describe and identify EFH for each managed fishery. The Act also requires consultation for all federal agency actions that may adversely affect EFH (i.e., direct versus indirect effects); it does not distinguish between actions in EFH and actions outside EFH. Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation with NMFS is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of the activity’s location. Under section 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to provide EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations to federal and state agencies for actions that adversely affect EFH. However, state agencies and private parties are not required to consult with NMFS unless state or private actions require a federal permit or receive federal funding. Although the concept of EFH is similar to that of critical habitat under the FESA, measures recommended to protect EFH by NMFS are advisory, not proscriptive. The bay waters adjacent to the Study Area fall within EFH for multiple species of commercially important fish managed under three federal fisheries management plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagic EFH: The Coastal Pelagic FMP is designed to protect habitat for a variety of fish species that are associated with open coastal waters. Fish managed under this plan include planktivores and their predators. Those commonly found in San Pablo and Suisun Bay include Northern anchovy and Pacific sardine. Pacific Groundfish EFH: The Pacific Groundfish FMP is designed to protect habitat for more than 90 species of fish, including rockfish, flatfish, roundfish, some sharks and skates, and other species that associate with the underwater substrate. Multiple species are reported in recent years as present in San Pablo and Suisun Bay waters, including English sole and starry flounder. Pacific Salmon EFH: The Pacific Salmon FMP is designed to protect habitat for commercially important salmonid species. Sacramento Chinook salmon is the only one of these species that may be seasonally present in the Study Area, although historically Coho salmon were once common in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 32 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 33 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 4 References and Report Preparation 4.1 References Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors, 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Calflora website (Calflora), 2018. Website: Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Available at: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed: May 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed: May 2018. CDFW, 2018b. Spring Kodiak Trawl Survey. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Delta/Spring-Kodiak-Trawl. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), 2008. Common reed as an invader in California. Cal-IPC News 17(4): 8-9. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2018. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed: May 2018. Contra Costa County (CCC), 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan; Chapter 8 Conservation Element. Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Martinez, CA. January 2005. eBird. 2018, eBird Website: Range Maps. Available at: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/. Accessed: May 2018. Fiedler, P et. al, 2007. Rare Plants in the Golden Gate Estuary (California): The Relationship Between Scale and Understanding. Australian Journal of Botany. 55:206-220. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2018. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum. Holland, RF, 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, CA: Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. References and Report Preparation Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 34 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Jones & Stokes, 2004. Data Summary Report for Baseline Surveys of Anadromous Fish Habitat in Lower Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California. July 2004. Jones & Stokes, 2007. Final Data Summary Report for Chinook Salmon Spawning Escapement and Fry Emergence in Lower Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California. September, 2007. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Leidy, R.A., 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary Institute.194 pp. LSA, 2012. Tesoro Waterfront Road Pipelines, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California, Waters of the United States. Field verified by the Corps March 13, 2012. Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, ed., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections, Sacramento, CA. Monk & Associates, Inc. 2008. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Presence/Absence Trapping Survey Report, Shell Pipeline Corporation – Pipeline Repair Site, Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. Moyle, P. B., 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. Davis, CA: University of California Press. Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake, 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Second edition. Final report to CA Department of Fish and Game. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1993. Federal Register. 50 CFR Part 226 Designated Critical Habitat; Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon; Final Rule. June, 1993. NMFS, 2005. Federal Register. 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule. September, 2005. NMFS, 2009. Federal Register. 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon; Final Rule. October, 2009. Papenfuss and Parham, 2013. Southern Sierra Legless Lizard – Aniella campi. Available at: http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.campi.html. Salix Consulting, Inc., 2016. Conco Development Martinez Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (USACE File #2003-282290S), February 5, 2016. SFEI, 2016. Resilient Landscape Vision for Lower Walnut Creek: Baseline Information & Management Strategies. A SFEI-ASC Resilient Landscape Program report developed in cooperation with the Flood Control 2.0 Regional Science Advisors and Contra Costa County References and Report Preparation Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 35 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Publication #782, San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center, Richmond, CA. Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors., 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Stebbins, R.C., 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013. Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation and Restoration Plan. URL: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=17283. United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Federal Register. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat Determination for the Delta Smelt; Final Rule. December, 1994. USFWS, 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, CA. xviii + 605 pp. USFWS, 2017. Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Region 8 USFWS Sacramento, California. USFWS, 2018. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. May 7, 2018. USFWS, 2018b. Critical Habitat Mapper. Available online: http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/ Accessed: May 2018. Wood Biological Consulting and ESA, 2019. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report. January, 2019. Zeiner, DC, WF Laudenslayer, Jr., KE Mayer, M White, 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 4.2 Document Preparation Prepared by: Stephanie Bishop and Michelle Giolli-Hornstein, Environmental Science Associates 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050 Oakland, CA 94612 References and Report Preparation Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 36 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Appendix A Special Status Fish and Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-3 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 TABLE A LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE LOWER WALNUT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Federal or State Threatened and Endangered Species Invertebrates Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe FE/-- Host is Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata). Associated with grasslands. Unsuitable habitat within Study Area. Nearest population occurs in the hills between Vallejo and Cordelia north of Suisun Bay and over 6 miles from the Study Area. Low Delta green ground beetle Elaphrus viridis FT/-- Restricted to small region in Solano County. Inhabits vernal pools habitats. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the Study Area. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is more than 10 miles from the Study Area. Low San Bruno elfin butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis FE/-- The San Bruno Elfin Butterfly inhabits rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal scrub on the San Francisco peninsula. No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Study Area is outside of the known range of the species. Low Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT/-- Endemic to the Central Valley of California. The beetle is found only in association with its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus spp.). No known elderberry bushes within the study area. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is more than 10 miles from the Study Area. Low California freshwater shrimp FE/CE Small, perennial coastal streams with exposed live roots of trees such as alders and willows along undercut banks. Occurs in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties. No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Study Area is outside of the known range of the species. Low Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT/-- Occur in vernal pools. No vernal pool habitat occurs within the Study Area. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is more than 10 miles from the Study Area. Low Fish Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris FT/CSC Inhabit near-shore marine waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea and are commonly observed in bays and estuaries along the western coast of North America. Southern DPS is only known to spawn in upper Sacramento River. May enter Lower Walnut Creek to forage. Suisun Bay, Lower Walnut Creek, and the marsh just west of the north reach of the study area are all part of designated critical habitat for the species. Moderate Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FE/CE Spawns and rears in Sacramento River and tributaries where gravelly substrate and shaded riparian habitat occurs. Migrates within Suisun Bay, so may occasionally stray into Study Area. Moderate Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT/CT Spawns and rears in Sacramento River and tributaries where gravelly substrate and shaded riparian habitat occurs. Migrates within Suisun Bay, so may occasionally stray into Study Area. Moderate Steelhead – California Central Valley DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss FT/-- Spawns and rears in coastal streams between the Russian River and Aptos Creek, as well as drainages of the SF and San Pablo Bays, where gravelly substrate and shaded riparian habitat occurs. Migrates through project vicinity. May occasionally stray into Lower Walnut Creek Moderate Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-4 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Steelhead –Central California Coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss FT/-- Requires cold, freshwater streams with suitable gravel for spawning. Rears in rivers and tributaries to the San Francisco Bay. Historically present within the watershed, impassable barriers have restricted access to all upstream spawning and rearing habitat. Low Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthyes FC/CT Occur in the middle or bottom of water column in salt or brackish water portions of the Sacramento/San Joaquin estuary. Concentrated in Suisun, San Pablo, and North SF Bays. Known to rear in Suisun Bay. May enter Lower Walnut Creek and other Study Area channels. Moderate Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus FT/CE Restricted to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including Suisun and San Pablo Bays and the Carquinez Strait. Critical habitat designated in Sacramento-Suisun Bay bordering the Study Area. May stray into Lower Walnut Creek and other Study Area channels. Low Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT/CT Seasonal freshwater ponds with little or no emergent vegetation. Utilizes mammal burrows in upland habitat for aestivation during the dry season. Unsuitable habitat within Study Area. Low California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii FT/CSC Breed in stock ponds, pools, and slow-moving streams with emergent vegetation for escape cover and egg attachment. Where water is seasonal often utilizes mammal burrows in upland habitat for aestivation Unsuitable habitat within Study Area. Low Reptiles Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus FT/CT Preferred habitat a mosaic of open coastal scrub or chaparral and grassland with rocky outcrops Unsuitable habitat within Study Area. Low Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas FT/CT The most aquatic of California garter snakes, this species prefers freshwater marsh and low- gradient streams, and has adapted to drainage canals and irrigation ditches. Predominantly in the Central Valley. Suitable habitat may occur within sloughs and channels in the Study Area. However, Study Area is west of species population and recovery units. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is more than 10 miles from the Study Area. Low Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor --/CT Nest in emergent vegetation within aquatic and riparian habitats. Marsh cattails and reeds provide suitable breeding habitat. Species was recently documented north of Suisun Bay, 4.3 miles from the Study Area. Moderate (Breeding) California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus --/CT&FP Occurs most commonly in tidal salt marshes dominated by pickleweed or tidal brackish marshes supporting bulrush in association with pickleweed. Nests and forages in tidal emergent wetland. Suitable marsh habitat within the Study Area and documented occurrences occur within and adjacent to the Study Area. High Ridgway’s (California clapper) rail Rallus obsoletus FE/CE&FP Nests and forages in emergent wetlands with pickleweed, cordgrass, and bulrush Suitable marsh habitat within Study Area and multiple occurrences in marshes adjacent or nearby the Study Area. High Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-5 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur California least tern Sterna antillarum browni FE/CE&FP Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated flat substrates including sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas No sandy beaches suitable for nesting colonies within the Study Area. Low Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris FE/CE&FP Saline emergent marsh with dense pickleweed. Endemic to San Francisco Bay estuary. Suitable habitat present with several occurrences recorded within and adjacent to the Study Area. Most recent occurrence within the Study Area was recorded in 2008. High San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE/CT Annual grasslands or open scrublands with loose textures soils for burrowing and suitable prey base Unsuitable habitat within Study Area. Not known from the Study Area or vicinity. Low State Species of Concern Fish Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha --/CSC Spawns and rears in Sacramento River and tributaries where gravelly substrate and shaded riparian habitat occurs. Migrates through project vicinity and spawning is known to occur in Walnut Creek upstream of Study Area. High Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus --/CSC Slow moving river sections and dead-end sloughs with flooded vegetation for spawning and foraging for young. Endemic to California Central Valley and found in Suisun Bay vicinity. One was found during a trawl survey in 2018 within Suisun Bay near the mouth of Lower Walnut Creek. May occasionally stray into Study Area. Moderate Reptiles Northern California legless lizard Aniella pulchra pulchra --/CSC Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces. Leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather often indicate suitable habitat. Study Area is northwest of known current range of the species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is from 1936 and is 8.7 miles from the Study Area. Low Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata --/CSC Freshwater ponds and slow streams, marshes, rivers, and irrigation ditches with upland sandy soils for laying eggs. Suitable aquatic habitat within channels but limited basking areas. CNDDB occurrence in Pacheco Creek at the upstream end of the Study Area. Two other CNDDB occurrences just over a mile from the upstream extent of the Study Area in tributaries to Walnut Creek. Moderate California horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvilii --/CSC Inhabits a variety of habitats including scrub, chaparral, grasslands and woodlands. Typically found in open sandy area often near ant hills. Study area contains marginal scrub and grassland habitat. Nearest CNDDB occurrence 8.5 miles from the Study Area within chaparral habitat. Low Birds Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-6 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii --/WL Dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats near water used most frequently. No suitable nesting habitat within the Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence 7.5 miles from the Study Area within woodlands. Low (Breeding) Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos --/FP Rolling foothills with open grasslands, scattered trees, and cliff-walled canyons. Nests constructed on steep cliffs or in large trees. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the Study Area. Low (Breeding) Short-eared owl Asio flammeus --/CSC Open country that supports concentrations of rodents and herbaceous cover sufficient to conceal their ground nests from predators. Suitable habitats may include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated alfalfa or grain fields, and ungrazed grasslands and old pastures. Marsh habitat provides suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Study area is outside of the current breeding range. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 8 miles from the Study Area north of Suisun Bay. Low (Breeding) Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea --/CSC Nests in mammal burrows in open, sloping grasslands and valley bottoms and foothills with low vegetation. No suitable burrows observed on site. Several CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles of the Study Area that occur in annual grasslands with an abundance of small mammal burrows. Low (Breeding) Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis --/WL Winters in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, and low foothills. Preys primarily on mammals. Does not nest in the region. Study Area is outside of species nesting range. There is potentially suitable foraging habitat, however, species is not common to area. Low (Breeding) Northern harrier Circus cyaneus --/CSC Mostly nests in emergent vegetation, wet meadows or near rivers and lakes, but may nest in grasslands away from water. Suitable marsh and grassland nesting habitat available. Observed foraging within the Study Area. High (Breeding) Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis --/CSC Densely vegetated marshes. Suitable marsh nesting habitat available within the Study Area. Only one historic occurrence along the south shore of Suisun Bay. Two recent occurrences north of Suisun Bay within 10 miles of the Study Area. Does not breed in California, except a limited area near the Oregon border. Unlikely (Breeding) Moderate (Non- breeding) White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus --/FP Commonly associated with agriculture areas. Generally, occur in low-elevation grassland, wetland, oak woodland, low shrub, open woodlands, or savannah habitats. Typically nest in dense tree stands in riparian areas adjacent to open space areas. Suitable nesting habitat not present within the Study Area. Low (Breeding) American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum --/FP Open habitats for foraging, including tundra, marshes, coasts, savannahs, grasslands, meadows, open woodlands, and agricultural areas. Often nest on cliffs often located near rivers or lakes. Riparian areas, as well as coastal and inland wetlands, are also important habitats year-round for this species. Suitable nesting habitat not present within the Study Area. Low (Breeding) Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-7 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa --/CSC Saline and freshwater marshes. Foraging habitat requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface. Nesting habitat includes tall grasses, tule patches, or willows. Several CNDDB occurrences are present adjacent to and within 5 miles of the Study Area. However, unclear if the subspecies observed around Suisun Bay is this subspecies. Moderate (Breeding) Suisun song sparrow Melospiza melodia maxillaris --/CSC Brackish water marshes and sloughs with cattails, tules, and pickleweed Song sparrows observed during field reconnaissance survey could be this subspecies. Suitable nesting habitat present. High (Breeding) San Pablo song sparrow Melospiza melodia samuelis --/CSC Tidal marshes in San Pablo Bay. Dense vegetation required for nesting. Study Area outside of range of this subspecies. Low (Breeding) Osprey Pandion haliaetus --/WL Elevated nest sites near fish-filled waters. Fishing grounds must have fish near the water surface. Could potential nest nearby Study Area if proper nesting platforms exist. However, no known properly elevated nesting sites occur within the Study Area. Low (Breeding) Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/CSC/High Priority A wide variety of habitats is occupied, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Most commonly found in open and dry habitat with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts in foliage of riparian forests and other broadleaf woodlands associated with creeks and drainages. Also roosts in buildings, caves, tree hollows, crevices, mines, and bridges. Study Area may provide suitable roosting habitat under Lower Walnut Creek bridges. May forage in Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 5.2 miles from the Study Area. Moderate Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii --/CSC/High Priority Found in all habitats except subalpine and alpine habitats, and may be found at any season throughout its range. Highly associated with caves and cave-like habitats including abandoned mines. Roost in caves, mines, and tunnels with minimal disturbance but can also be found in abandoned open buildings or other human made structures. Suitable roosting habitat may occur under bridges within the Study Area. May forage within Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 6.9 miles from the Study Area. Moderate Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii --/CSC/High Priority Habitats include forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Feeds over a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands. Solitary rooster in tree foliage. May hibernate in leaf litter. Found under tree bark of Eucalyptus trees and also found roosting in leaf litter of Eucalyptus woodlands. Suitable roosting habitat may occur in eucalyptus trees within the Study Area. May forage within Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 9.8 miles from the Study Area. Moderate Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --/--/Medium Priority Solitary rooster in tree foliage. Habitats include woodlands, forests, and riparian habitats with dense foliage. Winters along the coast and in southern California, breeding inland and north of the winter range. During migration can be found throughout California. Suitable roosting habitat may occur in eucalyptus trees within the Study Area. May forage within Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 3.8 miles from the Study Area. Moderate Appendix A Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-8 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/WBWG General Habitat Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens --/CSC Found in forest habitats with moderate canopy, a brushy understory, and suitable nestbuilding materials. Suitable habitat not present within the Study Area. Low Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis --/CSC/ Medium-High Priority Prefer habitats with rugged, rocky terrain up to 8,000 feet elevation. Roosts in rock crevices. Study Area does not provide suitable roosting habitat, but may occasional forage in Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 2.4 miles from the Study Area. Low (Roosting) Suisun shrew Sorex ornatus sinuosus --/CSC Tidal marshes, require dense low cover above the mean tide line for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat within Study Area but known occurrences restricted to north Suisun Bay. Moderate Status Codes: FEDERAL: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) FE = Listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction) by the Federal Government. FT = Listed as Threatened (likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future) by the Federal Government. FP = Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened. FC = Listed as Federal Candidate species. STATE: (California Department of Fish and Game) CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California CC = Candidate for Listing by State of California CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) CSC = Species of Special Concern FP = Fully Protected Species WL = Watch List species SOURCES: CDFW 2018; CDFW 2018b; Jones & Stokes 2004, and 2007; Papenfuss and Parham 2013, Shuford and Gardali 2008; USFWS 2017; USFWS 2018 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Appendix B Special Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-3 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 TABLE B LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE LOWER WALNUT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris --/--/1B.2 Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland between 3-500 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, COL, LAK, MRN, NAP, SBT, SCL, SCR, SMT, SON, SUT, and YOL counties. March-June annual herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence 5.1 miles from the Study Area. Low Slender silver moss Anomobryum julaceum --/--/4.2 Occurs in damp rock and soil outcrops, usually on roadcuts in broadleafed upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, and North Coast coniferous forest between 100-1000 meters. Known from BUT, CCA, HUM, LAX, MPA, SBA, SCR, SHA, and SON counties. N/A moss No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Low Mt. Diablo manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata --/--/1B.3 Occurs in chaparral on sandstone substrate, and in cismontane woodland between 135-650 meters. Known to only be in Contra Costa County. Known from fewer than 20 occurrences. January-March perennial evergreen shrub No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Not present Contra Costa manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata --/--/1B.2 Occurs in chaparral on rocky substrate between 420-1100 meters. Known from CCA county. January-March (April) perennial evergreen shrub No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Not present Big tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa --/--/1B.1 Occurs in valley and foothill grassland (usually clay) between 30-505 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, SJQ, SOL, and STA counties. July-October annual herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Study Area is outside of elevation range of the species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 4.7 miles from Study Area. Low Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-4 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Mt. Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus --/--/1B.2 Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland between 30-840 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, and SOL counties. April-Jun perennial bulbiferous herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Study Area is outside of elevation range of the species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 3.8 miles from Study Area. Low Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.1 Occurs in alkaline areas in valley and foothill grassland between 0-230 meters. Known from ALA, CCA,MNT, SCL, SCR, SLO, SMT, and SOL counties. May-October (November) annual herb The Study Area contains habitat that may support this species. There are three nearby CNDDB occurrences found within annual grassland habitat near adjacent marsh habitat. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 0.04 miles from Study Area found with plant associates that are present within the Study Area. High Pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi --/--/1B.2 Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marshes and swamps, and valley and foothill grassland in vernally mesic soils between 0-420 meters. Known from BUT, COL, GLE, LAK, NAP, SMT, SOL, and SON counties. May-November annual herb The Study Area contains coastal marsh that may support this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 6.8 miles from Study Area north of Suisun Bay. Moderate Soft bird’s-beak Chloropyron molle ssp. molle FE/CR/1B.2 Occurs in coastal salt marsh and swamp between 0-3 meters. Known from CCA, MRN, NAP, SAC, SOL and SON counties. June-November annual herb (hemiparasitic) The Study Area contains coastal marsh that may support this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 0.7 miles from Study Area. High Bolander’s water hemlock Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi --/--/2B.1 Occurs in coastal marshes and swamps, and fresh or brackish water between 0-200 meters. Known from CCA, MRN, SAC, SBA and SOL counties. July-September perennial herb The Study Area contains coastal marsh that may support this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 1.4 miles from Study Area. High Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-5 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Hospital Canyon larkspur Delphinium californicum ssp. interius --/--/1B.2 Occurs in openings in chaparral, on mesic soils in cismontane woodland (mesic), and coastal scrub between 195-1095 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, MER, MNT, SBT, SCL SJQ, and STA counties. April-June perennial herb The Study Area contains marginal and disturbed coastal scrub habitat, but the Study Area is lower in elevation than this species is known to occur at. Nearest known occurrence is 7.1 miles from Study Area. Low Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis --/--/1B.2 Occurs in mesic soils in broadleaf upland forest, closed-coned coniferous forest, chaparral, cistmontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland between 25-425 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, MRN, SCL, SMT, and SON counties. January-March (April) perennial deciduous shrub No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Low Lime ridge eriastrum Eriastrum ertterae --/--/1B.1 Occurs on alkaline or semi-alkaline and sandy soils in openings or edges of chaparral between 200-290 meters. Known from CCA county. June-July annual herb No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Study Area outside of elevation range of species. Low Mt. Diablo buckwheat Eriogonum truncatum --/--/1B.1 Occurs on sandy soils in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland between 2-350 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, and SOL counties. April-September (November-December) annual herb The Study Area contains marginal and disturbed coastal scrub and non-native grassland on disturbed sandy fill soils. Nearest known CNDDB occurrence is 8.3 miles from Study Area, from 1936, and occurs near Mt. Diablo. Also discovered in Antioch at Black Diamond Mines in 2016. Low Jepson’s coyote thistle Eryngium jepsonii --/--/1B.2 Occurs on clay soils in valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools between 3-300 meters. Known from ALA, AMA, CAL, CCA, FRE, NAP, SMT, SOL, STA, TUO, and YOL counties. April-August perennial herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 3.4 miles away from Study Area. Low Contra Costa Wallflower Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum FE/CE/1B.1 Known only from the Antioch Dunes in CCA county with an elevation between 3-20 meters. March-July Highly unlikely that suitable habitat is present within Study Area. Sandy area in the North Reach is highly disturbed and was not historically sand dunes. Antioch Dunes approximately 16 miles from the Study Area. Low San Joaquin spearscale Extriplex joaquiniana --/--/1B.1 Occurs on alkaline soils in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, valley and foothill grassland between 1-835 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, COL, FRE, GLE, MER, MNT, NAP, SBT, SCL, SJQ, SLO, SOL, TUL, and YOL counties. April-October annual herb The Study Area contains disturbed playa and grassland habitat and marsh habitat that may support this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 1.5 miles from the Study Area and occurs in annual grassland habitat above brackish freshwater marsh habitat. Moderate Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-6 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea --/--/1B.2 Occurs often on serpentinite soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, coastal prairie; on heavy clay soils, often on ultramafic soils between 3-410 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, MNT, MRN, SBT, SCL, SFO, SMT, SOL, and SON counties. February-April perennial bulbiferous herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 9.3 miles away from Study Area. Low Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea --/--/1B.2 Occurs usually on rocky, axonal soils; often in partial shade in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland between 60-1300 meters. Known from ALA, CCA MRN, SFO, and SMT counties. March-June perennial herb The Study area contains marginal and disturbed coastal scrub and annual grassland habitat. Study Area does not occur within the elevation range of this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 2.8 miles away from Study Area. Many CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles of the Study Area, most of which occur at the interface of oak woodlands and scrub or grassland habitat. Low Brewer’s western flax Hesperolinon breweri --/--/1B.2 Occurs often on serpentinite soils in chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands, and cismontane woodland between 30-945 meters. Known from CCA, NAP, and SOL counties. May-July annual herb Study Area is lower in elevation than the elevation range of this species. Study Area does not contain serpentinite soils. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 9.7 miles away from Study Area. Low Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia FT/CE/1B.1 Occurs often on clay or sandy soils in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland between 10-220 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, MNT, MRN, SCR, and SOL counties. June-October annual herb The Study Area contains marginal and highly disturbed coastal scrub and grassland habitat at elevations below 10 meters. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 9.8 miles from Study Area where species was introduced, but is thought to be extirpated. Moderate Carquinez goldenbush Isocoma arguta --/--/1B.1 Occurs in valley and foothill grassland on alkaline soils between 1-20 meters. Known from SOL county. August-December perennial shrub Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Historic occurrence along Carquinez Straits shoreline, exact location unknown. Low Northern California black walnut Juglans hindsii --/--/1B.1 Occurs in riparian forest and woodland from 0-440 meters. Known from CCA, LAK, NAP, SAC, SOL, and YOL counties. April-May perennial deciduous tree No suitable habitat within the Study Area. Low Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE/--/1B.1 Occurs on mesic soils in cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools; in playas on alkaline soils between 0-470 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, MEN, MNT, MRN, NAP, SBA, SCL, SOL and SON counties. March-June annual herb Mesic grassland and playa habitat occur within the Study Area, but are highly disturbed and offer only marginal habitat for this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 2.6 miles away from Study Area. Moderate Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-7 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Delta tule pea Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii --/--/1B.2 Occurs in freshwater and brackish marshes and swamps, usually on marsh and slough edges between 0-5 meters. Known from CCA, NAP, SJQ, SOL, SON, and YOL counties. May-July perennial herb Suitable marsh habitat present within the Study Area. Observed on site in 2017 and 2018. High Mason’s lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis masonii --/CR/1B.1 Occurs in brackish or freshwater marshes and swamps, and riparian scrub between 0-10 meters. Many populations ephemeral, exploiting newly deposited or exposed sediments (CNPS, 2016). Known from ALA, CCA, MRN, NAP, SAC, SJQ, AOL, and YOL counties. April-November perennial rhizomatous herb Suitable marsh habitat present within the Study Area. Documented location adjacent to the Study Area in 2004. Observed within the Study Area in 2018. High Delta mudwort Limosella australis --/--/2B.1 Occurs usually on mud banks in freshwater and brackish marshes and swamps, and riparian scrub between 0- 3 meters. Known from CCA, SAC, SJQ, and SOL counties. May-August perennial stoloniferous herb Suitable habitat occurs along tidal channels and sloughs within the marshes of the Study Area. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 5.4 miles away from Study Area. Moderate Hall’s bush mallow Malacothamnus hallii --/--/1B.2 Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub between 10-760 meters. Known from CCA, MER, SCL, SMT, and STA counties. (April) May-September (October) perennial evergreen shrub Study area contains marginal and disturbed coastal scrub habitat below the elevation range of this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 7.1 miles away from Study Area. Low Lime Ridge navarretia Navarretia gowenii --/--/1B.1 Occurs in chaparral between 180-305 meters. Known from CCA and STA counties. May-June annual herb Suitable habitat not present within Study Area. Low Antioch dunes evening-primrose Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii FE/CE/1B.1 Occurs in inland dunes from 0-30 meters. Known from CCA and SAC counties. March-September perennial herb Highly unlikely that suitable habitat is present within Study Area. Sandy area in the North Reach is highly disturbed and was not historically inland dune habitat. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 7.5 miles away from the Study Area Low Bearded popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys hystriculus --/--/1B.1 Occurs on mesic soils in valley and foothill grassland, in vernal pool margins and often in vernal swales between 0-274 meters. Known from NAP, SOL, and YOL counties. April- May annual herb Highly disturbed grassland habitat occurs in the Study Area, but no vernal pools or vernal swales occur. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 7.8 miles away from Study Area in vernal swales and pools in annual grassland. Low Marin knotweed Polygonum marinense --/--/3.1 Occurs in coastal salt or brackish marshes and swamps between 0-10 meters. Known from ALA, HUM, MRN, NAP, SOL and SON counties. (April) May-August (October) annual herb Suitable marsh habitat present within the Study Area that may support this species. Nearest CNDDB occurrence is 5.6 miles away from Study Area from 1998 on the north side of Suisun Bay. Moderate Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-8 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Chaparral ragwort Senecio aphanactis --/--/2B.2 Occurs on alkaline soils in coastal scrub, chaparral, and cismontane woodland between 15-800 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, FRE, LAX, MER, MNT, ORA, RIV, SBA, SBD, SBT, SCL, SCR, SCT, SCZ, SDG, SFO, SLO, SMT, SOL, SRO, TUL, and VEN counties. January-April (May) annual herb Suitable habitat and elevations not present on Study Area. Low Long-styled sand-spurrey Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla --/--/1B.2 Occurs on alkaline soils in meadows and seeps, and marshes and swamps between 0-255 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, NAP, and SOL counties. February-May perennial herb Study Area contains alkaline scalds and gaps in non-tidal salt marsh that provide suitable habitat. Only CNDDB occurrence within 10 miles of the Study Area is a historic occurrence from 1900 1.4 miles away. Moderate Slender-leaved pondweed Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina --/--/2B.2 Occurs in marshes and swamps located in shallow, clear water of lakes and drainage channels between 300- 2150 meters. Known from ALA, BUT, CCA, ELD, LAS, MER, MNO, MOD, MPA, NEV, PLA, SCL, SHA, SIE, SMT, SOL, and SON counties. May-July perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic) Suitable habitat and elevations not present on Study Area. Low Suisun Marsh aster Symphyotrichum lentum --/--/1B.2 Occurs in marshes and swamps (brackish and freshwater) most often seen along sloughs with common reed, tule, blackberry, and cattail between 0-3 meters. Known from CCA, NAP, SAC, SJQ, SOL, and YOL counties. (April) May-November perennial rhizomatous herb Coastal brackish marsh with associated species that may support the Suisun Marsh aster occur within the Study Area. Identified on site in 2004, 2015, and 2018. High Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilium --/--/1B.2 Occurs in marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grassland (on mesic or alkaline soils) between 0- 300 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, COL, LAK, MNT, NAP, SAC, SBT, SCL, SCR, SJQ, SLO, SMT, SOL, SON, and YOL counties. April-June annual herb Study Area contains marsh and highly disturbed grassland habitats that may support this species, however most CNDDB occurrences occur within alkali grassland or vernal pool grassland. There are no CNDDB occurrences on the south shore of Suisun Bay. Two CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles of the Study Area north of Suisun Bay. Low Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum --/--/1B.1 Occurs in valley and foothill grasslands (alkaline hills) between 1-455 meters. Known from ALA, CCA, FRE, GLE, MNT, SCL, SJQ, and SLO counties. May-April annual herb Highly disturbed grasslands on Study Area offer only marginal habitat for this species. Nearest occurrence is 7.9 miles away from Study Area. Low Oval-leaved viburnum Viburnum ellipticum --/--/2B.3 Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest between 215-1400 meters. May-June perennial deciduous herb Suitable habitat not present on Study Area. Not present Sensitive Plant Communities Appendix B Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project B-9 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Common Name Scientific Name Status USFWS/ CDFW/CNPS Habitat and Distribution Information Flowering Phenology/Life Form Habitat Suitability & Local Distribution Potential to Occur Name Global Rank State Rank Potential to Occur Coastal brackish marsh G2 S2.1 Present Northern coastal salt marsh G3 S3.2 Low Northern maritime chaparral G1 S1.2 Absent Status Codes: FEDERAL: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) STATE: (California Department of Fish and Game) FE = Listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction) by the Federal Government. CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California FT = Listed as Threatened (likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future) by the Federal Government. CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California FP = Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened. CC = Candidate for Listing by State of California FC = Listed as Federal Candidate species. CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) CSC = Species of Special Concern FP = Fully Protected Species WL = Watch List species California Rare Plant Rank Rank 1A= Plants presumed extinct in California Rank 1B= Plants rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2= Plants rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere Rank 3= Plants about which more information is needed Rank 4= Plants of limited distribution 0.1 = Plants seriously endangered in California 0.2 = Plants fairly endangered in California 0.3 = Not very Endangered in California County Abbreviations: ALA Alameda GLE Glenn MPA Mariposa PLU Plumas SBA Santa Barbara SON Sonoma ALP Alpine HUM Humboldt MEN Mendocino RIV Riverside SCL Santa Clara STA Stanislaus AMA Amador IMP Imperial MER Merced SAC Sacramento SCR Santa Cruz SUT Sutter BUT Butte INY Inyo MOD Modoc SBT San Benito SCT Santa Catalina Island TEH Tehama CAL Calaveras KRN Kern MNO Mono SBD San Bernardino SCZ Santa Cruz Island TRI Trinity COL Colusa LAK Lake MNT Monterey SDG San Diego SRO Santa Rosa Island TUL Tulare CCA Contra Costa LAS Lassen NAP Napa SFO San Francisco SHA Shasta TUO Tuolumne DNT Del Norte LAX Los Angeles NEV Nevada SJQ San Joaquin SIE Sierra VEN Ventura ELD El Dorado MAD Madera ORA Orange San Luis Obispo SIS Siskiyou YOL Yolo FRE Fresno MRN Marin PLA Placer SMT San Mateo SOL Solano YUB Yuba SOURCES: CDFW 2018; USFWS 2018; CNPS 2018, ESA 2017 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Appendix C Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Rare Plant Survey Report Appendix C Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank LOWER WALNUT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting July 2019 for ESA and Contra Costa County Flood Control District LOWER WALNUT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared by Wood Biological Consulting July 2019 for ESA and Contra Costa County Flood Control District Cover photo: Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii) Wood Biological Consulting PO Box 1569 El Granada, CA 94018 www.wood-biological.com Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project i Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report Page Section 1, Summary ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2, Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Background ........................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Project Purpose ................................................................................................. 2-2 Section 3, Methods ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Background Research ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Reference Population Site Visits........................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Field Survey ....................................................................................................... 3-3 Section 4, Setting ............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Special-Status Plants ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Plant Communities ........................................................................................... 4-18 4.2.1 Upland Plant Communities .................................................................... 4-18 4.2.2 Aquatic Plant Communities ................................................................... 4-21 Section 5, Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 5-1 Section 6, References Cited .............................................................................................. 6-1 Appendices A. Special-Status Species ....................................................................................................A-1 B. Rarity Codes ....................................................................................................................B-1 C. Inventory of Plant Species ............................................................................................. C-1 D. Representative Photographs .......................................................................................... D-1 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Project Location ................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-2 Botanical Survey Area ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 4-1 Rare Plant Locations ....................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-2 Rare Plant Locations (North) ........................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4-3 Rare Plant Locations (South) ........................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-4 Existing Habitats .............................................................................................. 4-19 Table of Contents Page Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project ii Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 List of Tables Table 3-1 Reference Populations of Special-Status Plants ............................................... 3-2 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 1 Summary This report describes the results of surveys that were conducted for special-status plant species with the potential to occur in the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project area, near Martinez, California. It is intended to assist the project proponent in planning and designing the project in a manner that avoids, minimizes, and/or mitigates potentially significant adverse impacts to special-status plant species. The report provides background and site-specific information pertaining to special-status plant species and sensitive natural communities which may present constraints to the proposed activity. The project site encompasses approximately 162 ha (400 ac) of undeveloped land and open water associated with the lower reaches of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, situated east of Interstate 680 and south of Suisun Bay. The proposed project would include channel excavation, fill removal, levee construction, and habitat restoration. Plant communities within the study area include tidal brackish marsh*, non-tidal pickleweed marsh*, creeping wild rye turf*, non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland, scald/playa, seasonal ponds, and submerged aquatic vegetation*. Four of these plant communities (indicated by an asterisk) are sensitive natural communities. A total of 87 special-status plant species have been recorded from the nine 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles including and surrounding the study area. Of these, 63 plant species are considered to have no potential for occurrence at the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils, or geographic location of the study area relative to known occurrences. Habitat exists for 24 species, although some are considered to have low potential to occur due to only marginal habitat suitability within the study area. Surveys occurred during the flowering or identification period for all 13 species with moderate or high potential to occur. Three special- status species were observed in the study area: Mason’s lilaeopsis, Delta tule pea, and Suisun Marsh aster. Project implementation could result in impacts to one or more of these species. 1. Summary Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 2 Introduction This report presents the results of a focused floristic survey for the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (the project) located near Martinez, Contra Costa County, California (Figure 2-1). Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (the District) proposes to restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and from Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary Pacheco Creek, to provide sustainable flood protection, and to create opportunities for future public access through the project area. This section includes an overview of the proposed project, a discussion of the purpose and need of this rare plant survey, and a summary of the special-status plant species and their habitat that have potential to occur within the project vicinity. For the purposes of this report, the “project area” refers to the extent of any potential project activities. The “study area” (Figure 2-2) refers to a subset of the project area that includes lands under District ownership, or where access was otherwise made available for field surveys. The project “work limit” refers to a subset of the project area where any ground disturbance is currently proposed during project construction. Some portions of the project area within the work limit were not accessible at the time of this survey. This includes areas under separate ownership within the North, Middle, and South Reaches as shown in Figure 2-2. This report is intended to assist the District to identify constraints imposed by the presence of special-status plant species and to enable it to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts. This analysis is also intended to assist the District in completing an analysis of environmental effects pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to obtain regulatory permits. 2.1 Project Location The Lower Walnut Creek Project area is located in the Walnut Creek watershed in unincorporated Contra Costa County approximately three miles east of the City of Martinez (Figure 2-1). The Walnut Creek watershed is the largest watershed in Contra Costa County, and one of the largest in the Bay Area, draining approximately 150 square miles. Land use within the project area is primarily publically and privately owned open space, with existing and proposed future industrial land use on adjacent properties. The project area extends along the lower 2.5 miles of Walnut Creek and along 1.5 miles of Pacheco Creek upstream of its confluence with Walnut Creek. The project area consists of the South Reach, located between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad embankment and the confluence of Pacheco and Walnut creeks; the Middle Reach, located between Pacheco Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) embankment; and the North Reach, located between Waterfront Road and Suisun Bay in the area historically called “Pacheco Marsh.” 2. Introduction Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 2-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 2.2 Project Background The proposed Project, will restore and enhance tidal marsh, and enhance seasonal wetlands and upland areas. The project will improve habitat quality, diversity, and connectivity along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, and along the southern Suisun Bay shoreline. The project will breach and lower levees and berms to reintroduce the tides to diked former baylands, construct new setback levees for flood protection, and grade filled areas to create new tidal wetland areas. The project will provide habitat for native and special-status species such as salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, California black rail, and salmonids. The project will restore important tidal marsh habitat for the State-listed Mason’s lilaeopsis, Delta tule pea, and Suisun Marsh aster (observed in the study area). 2.3 Project Purpose The project proposes to restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and from Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary Pacheco Creek, to provide sustainable flood protection, and to create opportunities for future public access through the project area. The project will restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats in Lower Walnut Creek and provide sustainable flood management, while allowing opportunities for public access and recreation. N ort h R eac h Mi ddl e R ea ch Sout h Re ach Ma rt in ez Peyt on M ars h Poin t EdithEcological R ese rve Suis un Bay Lower Wa lnut Cre ek Re sto rat ion P roject . 17037 8.00Figure 2-1Project L oca tio n SO URCE: Pro ject Are a (E SA 2 01 8); Topo Map (E SRI) 0 0.5 MilesProject A rea Lower Wa lnut Cre ek Re sto rat ion P roject . 17037 8.00Figure 2-2Botanical Sur ve y Area SO URCE: bou nd arie s (ES A 20 18 ); a eria l (ES RI) 0 920 Fe et Botanical S urvey A rea North Reach work limit Middle Reach work limitSouth Reach wor k limit Unsurveyed Ar eas in the wor k limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 3 Methods 3.1 Background Research The following project boundaries were used to evaluate habitat suitability and on-site biological resources. Project Area The project area is the extent of any potential project activities (see Figure 2-1). Construction-related activities that may occur within the project area include access, staging and storage of project related materials, vegetation clearing, excavation, grading, soil stabilization, and construction of permanent and temporary facilities. Study Area The study area (Figure 2-2) refers to a subset of the project area where field surveys were completed. The study area includes lands under District ownership, or where access was otherwise made available. Work Limit The work limit is based on project plans provided by ESA and depicts the anticipated extent of any ground disturbance within the Project Area. The work limit is shown in Figure 2-2. Prior to conducting field surveys, standard databases were queried to develop a list of special- status plant species with potential to occur in the study area. Occurrence information was obtained from Calfora (2018), CNDDB (2018), CNPS (2018), and USFWS (2018). The lists of potentially occurring plant species includes those reported from the Vine Hill, Walnut Creek, Briones Valley, Denverton, Honker Bay, Clayton, Fairfield South, Cordelia, and Benicia 7.5- minute USGS quadrangles; the lists are provided in Appendix A. Botanical taxonomy and nomenclature conforms to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Second Edition) (Baldwin et al., 2012). Common names of plant species 1 are derived from Calflora (2018). Plant habitat affinities and local distribution information was obtained from CNPS (2018), CNDDB (2018), and Calflora (2018). Nomenclature for special-status plant species conforms to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2018c, d). Special- status plant community designations conform to the CDFW (2018e). Other sources of information consulted include previous botanical surveys (Jones & Stokes, 2005a), a Biological Assessment, a Habitat Assessment, and wetland delineations prepared for the project (ESA, 2019a, b, c; Jones & Stokes, 2005b). 1 For purposes of this discussion, the term “species” implies all recognized taxa at the species or sub-specific level. 3. Methods Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 3.2 Reference Population Site Visits Prior to conducting surveys of the study area for the 13 special-status plant species with moderate or high potential to occur, known populations of these species were visited, where accessible. The purpose of these site visits was to (a) become familiar with the species in field conditions and reinforce sight recognition, and (b) ensure that the timing of the surveys corresponded with the species’ flowering period or other phenological characteristics that would aid in identification. The ten target species are summarized in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 REFERENCE POPULATIONS OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS Species Flowering period Date of site visit Reference Site Notes Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) May-Oct Waterbird Park, Martinez (CNDDB Occ. #73) Not observed, not accessible Pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi) Mar-Nov Not observed Soft bird’s beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle) June-Nov May 16, 2018 Southampton Marsh, Benicia (CNDDB Occ. #9) Observed Bolander’s water hemlock (Cicuta bolanderi) July-Sep June 2, 2018 Rush Ranch, Solano Co. (CNDDB Occ. #66) Observed San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana) Apr-Oct Not observed Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) June-Oct Not observed Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) Mar-June Not observed Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii) May-July May 16, 2018 Lower Walnut Creek Observed during survey Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) Apr-Nov June 2, 2018 Bay Point, Pittsburg Rush Ranch, Solano Co. Observed Delta mudwort (Limosella australis) May-Aug Not observed Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense) Apr-Oct May 16, 2018 Southampton Marsh, Benicia (CNDDB Occ. #19) Not observed Long-styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla) Feb- May Not observed Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) Apr-Nov April 24, 2018; May 16, 2018 New York Slough, Pittsburg (new occurrence); Lower Walnut Creek Observed 3. Methods Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-3 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 3.3 Field Survey The rare plant survey was floristic in nature, meaning that all plant species encountered were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible to determine their rarity status. The survey methods used conform to the protocols specified by the CDFW (2018e), CNPS (2001), and USFWS (2000). An inventory of all plant species recorded within the study area is provided in Appendix C. Focused surveys were conducted by botanists Chris Rogers and Joe Sanders on May 16, 17, and 24 and June 8, 2018, and repeated by Chris Rogers on October 30 and November 1, 2018. The timing of the surveys corresponded to the flowering season of all species with at least moderate potential to occur in the study area. With one exception, all surveys were conducted on foot by walking systematic or meandering transects affording complete visual coverage of the study area. The exception was the survey on June 8, 2018, which was conducted from a kayak which provided visual access to the intertidal shorelines of Walnut Creek, Pacheco Creek and small slough channels within the study area. Additional botanical observations were made by biologists Stephanie Bishop and David Rodriguez on August 6 and 27, 2015, and September 15, 2015, and as part of vegetation mapping studies conducted as part of the project. The presence or potential for occurrence of special-status plant species within the study area is based on direct observation or an evaluation of the suitability of existing habitats occurring within the study area. Habitat suitability is based on familiarity with the specific habitat requirements (i.e., elevation, geology, soil chemistry and type, vegetation communities, microhabitats), geographic distribution, local occurrence records, and the degree of habitat disturbance or alteration. The criteria for assessing the potential for occurrence of special-status species are summarized below. None Applied to plant species for which suitable habitat is lacking, which are not known to occur locally, or which are thought to be locally extirpated. Absent Applied to plant species for which suitable habitat is present but which would have been detectable at the time surveys were conducted. Possible Applied to plant species for which suitable habitat or key habitat elements are present within the study area. The occurrence of these species is either considered likely, or, at the least, their presence cannot be ruled out based on the present survey. Present Applied to plant species that were observed directly. 3. Methods Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 3-4 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 4 Setting 4.1 Special-Status Plants Special-status plant species include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:2 • Listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or candidates for possible future listing as Threatened or Endangered under the FESA.3 • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).4 A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over- exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.5 A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures.6 • Listed as Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA).7 A plant is Rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens.8 • Meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA.9 Species that may meet the definition of Rare or Endangered include the following: – Species considered by the CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B and 2); – Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information; 2 This definition is provided in CDFG (2009). 3 50 CFR §17.12 4 CFGC § 2050 et seq. 5 CFGC § 2062 6 CFGC § 2067 7 CFGC § 1900, et seq. 8 CFGC § 1901 9 CEQA § 15380[b] and [d] 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 – Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. • Locally significant species are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon locally, such as within a county or region,10 or is designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines11). Examples include a species at the limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type. In addition, plant species have been assigned global and State rarity rankings (for a definition of these rankings, see Appendix B). Species ranked as S1, S2, or S3 are considered to be critically imperiled, imperiled or vulnerable to extinction within the boundaries of the State (CDFW, 2018a). These species may be considered to meet the criteria for listing as endangered, threatened or rare under CESA.12 Species ranked as S4 or S5 are generally considered common enough to be secure and not at risk of extinction. Impacts on special-status plants species, as thusly defined, would be regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA 13 and must be addressed in environmental review documents.14 A total of 87 special-status plant species (including a moss and a lichen) have been recorded from the nine 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles including and surrounding the study area (CNPS, 2018, CNDDB, 2018). The potential for occurrence of 63 of the target species was ruled out due to a lack of suitable habitat, lack of suitable soils, or geographic location of the study area relative to known occurrences. Twenty-four species were considered to have some potential to occur in the study area. Thirteen were considered to have at least moderate or high potential to occur, and were the subject of the focused surveys. Four federally-listed species were evaluated in the Biological Assessment prepared for the proposed project (ESA, 2019). Of these, only soft bird’s beak is considered to have more than low potential to occur in the study area. • Soft bird’s beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle) – Endangered • Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) – Threatened • Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) – Endangered • Antioch dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii) – Endangered In addition, two species are listed under CESA: • Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) – Rare • Antioch dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii) – Endangered 10 CEQA § 15125 (c) 11 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G 12 CEQA § 15380(d) 13 CEQA § 15065 14 CEQA § 15125 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-3 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Of these two, only Mason’s lilaeopsis was considered to have more than low potential to occur in the study area based on prior observations (and was subsequently confirmed at several locations). A description of each of the 13 species with moderate or low potential to occur is provided below. Lists of all special-status species evaluated as part of this analysis is in Appendix A. An explanation of all rarity status codes is provided in Appendix B. A complete inventory of all plant species recorded within the study area is provided in Appendix C. Representative photos are in Appendix D. Congdon’s tarplant Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G3T2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for the species. Description Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is an herbaceous annual member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is prostrate to erect, with ascending to horizontal branches, and ranges in height from 10-71 cm (4-28 in). Leaves and bracts are rigidly spine-tipped. Lower leaves are from 5-20 cm (2-8 in) long, soft-hairy or bristly, deeply divided, and usually lost by the time of flowering. Upper leaves are generally much reduced, entire or few-toothed, and often with axillary leaf clusters. The inflorescence may be open to dense, with heads generally about one-quarter inch wide and often over-topped by the subtending bracts. Ray flowers have yellow ligules and number from 9 to 30 or more, and the numerous disc flowers have yellow anthers. The subspecies differs from pappose tarplant (C. p. ssp. parryi) by the general absence of glandular herbage, especially on the involucral bracts. Another similar species, the common Fitch’s spikeweed, is distinguishable by the presence of obtuse chaff scales with long soft hairs and which are not resinous-thickened. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Congdon’s tarplant is generally found in grasslands of low-lying areas, often alkaline fields, in heavy clay soil, and occasionally in somewhat disturbed conditions. It is known from 93 records from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Luis Obispo counties (CNDDB, 2018); it is presumed extirpated from Santa Cruz and Solano counties. The nearest known occurrences (Occ. #73) include multiple patches located within 1.0 km (0.6 mi) west of the study area at Waterbird Regional Preserve, and a small population (Occ. #101) 2.7 km (1.7 mi) to the east. Suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant is present in grasslands and within the study area. Potential Project-Related Effects Surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this annual species. Congdon’s tarplant was not observed, and is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-4 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 of the North, Middle, and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Pappose tarplant Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: G3T2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for the species. Description Pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryii) is an herbaceous annual member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is prostrate to erect, with ascending to horizontal branches, and ranges in height from 4 to 28 inches. Leaves and bracts are rigidly spine-tipped. Lower leaves are from 2 to 8 inches long, soft-hairy or bristly, deeply divided, and usually lost by the time of flowering. Upper leaves are generally much reduced, entire or few-toothed, and often with axillary leaf clusters. The inflorescence may be open to dense, with heads generally about one- quarter inch wide and often over-topped by the subtending bracts. Ray flowers have yellow ligules and number from 9 to 30 or more, and the numerous disc flowers have yellow anthers. Flowering occurs May through November. The subspecies differs from the closely related Congdon’s tarplant (C. p. ssp. congdonii) by the presence of glandular herbage, especially on the involucral bracts. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Pappose tarplant has been recorded growing in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marshes, and valley and foothill grasslands in vernally mesic, often alkaline sites. It is not reported from Contra Costa County, but occurs in about 20 locations in Solano County. The nearest occurrence is north of Carquinez Strait along Highway 680, 8.9 km (5.5 mi) north of the study area. Suitable grassland habitat for pappose tarplant is present within the study area. Potential Project-Related Effects Surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this annual species. Pappose tarplant was not observed, and is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the North, Middle, and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Soft bird’s beak Status FESA: Endangered; CESA: Rare; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: G2T1/S1 Critical Habitat has been designated for soft bird’s beak in Contra Costa and Solano counties. The nearest Critical Habitat is at Southampton Marsh in Benicia State Park (Unit #5), 9.5 km (5.9 mi) 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-5 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 west-northwest of the study area. A small Critical Habitat unit also is located at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline (Unit #3), 22.9 km (14.2 mi) west of the study area. Description Soft bird's-beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle) is an annual hemiparasite belonging to the broomrape family (Orobanchaceae). It produces few to many gray-green, glandular pubescent stems reaching four to 16 inches in height. Flowers are whitish and are produced July through November. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Soft bird’s beak occurs in coastal salt marshes in Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano counties; it is believed to be extinct in Sonoma and Marin counties. Soft bird’s beak is known from six occurrences in Contra Costa County; the nearest (Occ. # 14) is 2.9 km (1.8 mi) east of the study area on the Concord Naval Weapon Station. The nearest population in Solano County is at Southampton Marsh in Benicia State Park (Occ. #9), 9.5 km (5.9 mi) west-northwest of the study area. An historic occurrence from the 1800’s from the Martinez shoreline (Occ. #4) is presumed extinct. Although soft bird's-beak was not detected during the present survey and is expected to have been recognizable, it is considered to have a moderate potential for occurrence onsite due to the presence of abundant suitable habitat and because it has been recorded from Point Pinole approximately nine miles to the north. Potential Project-Related Effects Surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this annual species. Soft bird’s beak was not observed, and is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh areas within the un- surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. Bolander’s water hemlock Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 2B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G5T4/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for the species. Description Bolander's water hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi) is a perennial member of the carrot family (Apiaceae). It produces erect hollow stems with pinnately compound leaves and serrate leaflets. Inflorescences are umbellate, with clusters of small white flowers. Flowering occurs July through September. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-6 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Bolander's water hemlock occurs in coastal salt and freshwater marshes. It has been recorded from coastal regions of Contra Costa, Marin, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and Solano counties. It is known from six occurrences in Contra Costa County and Solano County, although those nearest to the study area in Martinez and Benicia (Occs. # 2 and 4) are relatively dated observations. It was observed flowering in 2017 at Rush Ranch in Solano County approximately 18.8 km (11.7 mi) north-northeast of the study area (C. Rogers, pers. obs.). Suitable habitat for Bolander’s water hemlock is present in marshes within the study area. Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species. At maturity, Bolander’s water hemlock is a large and conspicuous plant, and easily recognized in its marsh habitat. Surveys within the study area were negative. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh areas within the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. San Joaquin spearscale Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: S2/G2; Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Description San Joaquin spearscale (Exriplex joaquiniana) is a low herbaceous annual in the saltbush family (Chenopodiaceae). It is erect, growing 4-40 inches in height, with striate, sparsely scaly stems. Leaves are ovate to triangular, finely gray-scaly to green above, one quarter to 3 inches long. It is distinguished by its striated stem and fruiting bracts that are triangular, ribbed, and free. Flowers develop April through September. San Joaquin spearscale occurs in chenopod scrub, valley grassland and alkali meadows on highly alkaline soils and is distributed throughout the southern Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the eastern side of the North Coast Range. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence There are 45 records of San Joaquin spearscale from Contra Costa County (CNDDB, 2018). The nearest population (Occ. #113) is 2.7 km (1.7 mi) east of the study area, on the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Additional populations are over 29 km (18 mi) to the east, near Brentwood, or north and east of Suisun Marsh. Suitable habitat for San Joaquin spearscale is in present in the study area in alkali soils supporting non-tidal pickleweed marsh, gaps within grassland, and in scalds. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-7 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species. Although its flowers are not conspicuous, the flowering plants are readily apparent in grassland vegetation. All potential habitats within the study area were systematically covered. Surveys within the study area were negative. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat for San Joaquin spearscale exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Santa Cruz tarplant Status FESA: threatened; CESA: endangered; CRPR: 1B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G1/S1. Critical Habitat has been designated for Santa Cruz tarplant in Santa Cruz, Monterrey and Contra Costa County. A single area in Contra Costa County has been designated as Critical Habitat for the species. The Mezue unit (East Bay Area Unit A) is located in Wildcat Regional Park, approximately 20 km (12.5 mi) west-southwest of the study area. Description Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) is an annual herb belonging to the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It develops from a basal rosette of leaves, 2-10 cm (0.8-3.9 in) long with minutely toothed margins. Plants are strongly scented and densely glandular. Axillary leaf clusters are tipped with yellow tack-shaped glands that exude a sticky tar-like liquid. Flower heads are clustered and spherical, 10–14 mm in diameter, with 8–16 ray flowers 40–90 disk flowers, which have black anthers. Flowering occurs June through October. Santa Cruz tarplant is restricted to coastal prairie, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands, often on clay or sandy soils, at 10-220 m (33-722 ft) in elevation. Its current range includes marine terraces of the northern Monterey Bay in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, historically ranging into Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It is known from 37 historic occurrences, 22 of which are believed to be extant in only Solano and Santa Cruz counties (CNDDB, 2018). All extant occurrences in Contra Costa County are reintroductions. Primary constituent elements of Critical Habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant include a) soils associated with coastal terrace prairies, including the Watsonville, Tierra, Elkhorn, Santa Inez, and Pinto series; b) plant communities that support associated species, including native grasses such as needlegrass and CA oatgrass; native herbaceous species such as other tarplants, Gairdner's yampah, San Francisco popcorn flower, and Santa Cruz clover; and c) physical processes, particularly soils and hydrologic processes, that maintain the soil structure and hydrology that produce the seasonally saturated soils characteristic of Santa Cruz tarplant habitat. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-8 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence In Contra Costa County, Santa Cruz tarplant is known from 13 occurrences, nine of which are presumed extirpated. The nearest records for Santa Cruz tarplant (Occ. #42 and #43) consist of two populations that were introduced in 1987 between San Pablo Reservoir and Briones Reservoir approximately 15.8 km (9.8 mi) to the west-southwest; both of these populations are presumed extirpated. Marginally suitable and highly disturbed coastal scrub and grassland habitat is present within the study area. Potential Project-Related Effects Surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this annual species. Santa Cruz tarplant was not observed, and is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Contra Costa goldfields Status FESA: endangered; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: S1/G1. Critical Habitat has been designated for Contra Costa goldfields in Contra Costa, Solano and Napa counties. The nearest Critical Habitat is located in Franklin Canyon, near Hercules in Franklin Canyon near Hercules (Unit #6), 13.4 km (8.3 mi) east of the study area. Description Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) is a low herbaceous member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is a slender, erect annual with one to several stems from the base reaching 4-12 inches in height. Leaves are linear, 1-3 inches long, entire to pinnately lobes and glabrous. Inflorescences consists of hairy, obconic involucres, with 12-18 fused phyllaries. Inflorescences contain 6-13 yellow ray flowers, which develop from March through June. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Contra Costa goldfields inhabits seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools and mesic grasslands with typically clay or alkaline soils, below 700 feet in elevation. It was once distributed from the North Coast, southern Sacramento Valley, and the San Francisco Bay to the south Coast. It is presently restricted to locations near the Sacramento River Delta in Napa, Solano counties and Contra Costa counties, in the south San Francisco Bay area in Alameda County, and in Monterey County. It is presumed to have been extirpated from Santa Barbara, Mendocino and Santa Clara counties. In Contra Costa County, Contra Costa goldfields is known from four occurrences, only one of which is presumed extant. The remaining population (Occ. #23) occurs 13.4 km (8.3 mi) east of the study area, in Franklin Canyon near Hercules. The majority of extant populations are in Solano County near Cordelia, Fairfield and Travis AFB, over 19 km (12 mi) north of the study 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-9 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 area. Mesic grassland and playa habitat occur within the study area, but are highly disturbed and offer only marginal habitat for this species. Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species. No goldfields were observed. Surveys within the study area were negative, therefore Contra Costa goldfields is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Delta tule pea Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: G5T2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. Description Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii) is a robust perennial vine belonging to the pea family. It has winged stems reaching 2.4 m (8 ft) in length and climbs by tendrils located at the tips of the leaves. The leaves are 2.5-5 cm (1-2 in) long and have 10-16 leaflets. Flowers are bright pink to purple, to 2.5 cm (1 in) long, and are produced May through June. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Delta tule pea is a native species endemic to California and found only in Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties. It is associated with in freshwater and brackish marshes around Suisun Bay, growing from sea level to 4 m (0-13 ft) in elevation. Delta tule pea is known from 85 occurrences in Contra Costa and Solano counties throughout the lower parts of the Sacramento and San Joaquin and Napa rivers. Prior surveys in Lower Walnut Creek recorded observations from the west side of the creek (Occ. #136); from Pt. Edith (Occ. #128), 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to the east of the study area; near the Martinez marina (Occ. #5), 4.0 km (2.5 mi) west-southwest of the study area. The locations within the study area were revisited and remapped (Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3). Many additional patches of the species also were located, ranging from one to a few individuals, and two stands covering a total of 109 m2 (1,174 sf). Twenty-two separate points and polygons were mapped. It was most abundant in the mid marsh zone of the North Reach. It was frequently seen just outboard of the low marsh – mid marsh boundary with narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), and western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis). It is most abundant toward the lower elevations of the mid marsh zone, where it is most reliably found in association with stands of coyote brush, which, as a climbing vine, it uses for support. It was not observed on the State Lands parcel on the western edge of the study area, or in the Middle or South Reaches, or in portions of the study area not subject to tides. Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\17xxxx\D170378.00_Lower_Walnut_Creek_Restoration\03_MXDs_Projects\RarePlant_Fig4-1.mxd, JSANDERS 2/26/2019SOURCE: ESA and Wood Biological Consulting 2018 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. 170378.00Figure 4-1Rare Plant Locations N 0 2,000 Feet Suisun Marsh Aster Delta Tule Pea Mason's Lilaeopsis Mason's Lilaeopsis Delta Tule Pea Suisun Marsh Aster Study Area Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\17xxxx\D170378.00_Lower_Walnut_Creek_Restoration\03_MXDs_Projects\RarePlant_Fig4-2.mxd, JSANDERS 2/26/2019SOURCE: ESA and Wood Biological Consulting 2018 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. 170378.00Figure 4-2Rare Plant Locations (North) N 0 1,000 Feet Suisun Marsh Aster Delta Tule Pea Mason's Lilaeopsis Mason's Lilaeopsis Delta Tule Pea Suisun Marsh Aster Study Area 4-2 4-3 Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\17xxxx\D170378.00_Lower_Walnut_Creek_Restoration\03_MXDs_Projects\RarePlant_Fig4-3.mxd, JSANDERS 2/26/2019SOURCE: ESA and Wood Biological Consulting 2018 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. 170378.00Figure 4-3Rare Plant Locations (South) N 0 1,000 Feet Suisun Marsh Aster Delta Tule Pea Mason's Lilaeopsis Mason's Lilaeopsis Delta Tule Pea Suisun Marsh Aster Study Area 4-2 4-3 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-13 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Potential Project-Related Effects Delta tule pea is present within the study area, and potentially suitable habitat is available throughout the mid marsh zone, primarily along the North Reach. As a perennial species, its spatial extent may be expected to remain relatively stable from year to year, though there is some indication from differences in field mapping between 2015 and 2018 that changes in distribution and abundance may occur. Implementation of the project, specifically components that require excavation of new tidal channels to connect the creek channel with currently non-tidal parts of the flood plain, could result in direct impacts to existing populations. Excavation of new tidal channels within the existing tidal marsh could indirectly reduce or increase suitable mid marsh habitat for Suisun Marsh aster, depending on microhabitat features, thus potentially decreasing or increasing its abundance. Expansion of tidal marsh within existing non-tidal areas could provide habitat for new populations of Delta tule pea to establish. If it is determined that project implementation would impact the species, impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures may be warranted, including re-surveying direct impact areas if project construction begins more than several years following the present survey. The un-surveyed portion of tidal marsh within the North Reach provide suitable habitat for Delta tule pea, and its presence cannot be ruled out in these locations. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. Mason’s Lilaeopsis Status FESA: none; CESA: Rare; CRPR: 1B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. Description Mason's lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) is a diminutive member of the carrot family (Apiaceae). It is a prostrate perennial producing rhizomes and linear, cylindric to flattened leaves 1.3-7.6 cm (0.5-3 in) long. Flowers are white to maroon, 1 mm (0.04 in) long at the end of basal peduncles 2- 20 mm (0.08-0.8 in) long. Flowering occurs June through August. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Mason's lilaeopsis is a native species endemic to California and is found only in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo counties. It forms dense to sparse colonies on exposed muddy streambanks and levees within the intertidal zone. It is associated with freshwater marshes of the Napa, Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, growing from sea level to 10 m (0-33 ft) in elevation. Mason’s lilaeopsis is known from 121 occurrences throughout the lower parts of the Sacramento and San Joaquin and Napa rivers on shorelines of larger channels, small sloughs, and delta islands. Prior surveys in Lower Walnut Creek recorded observations from the east side of the mouth of the creek (Occ. #102), from just upstream of the Waterfront Road Bridge (C. Rogers, pers. obs.). These locations were revisited and found to be absent of Mason’s lilaeopsis, and no 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-14 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 longer provided the microhabitat elements that most reliably support the species. However, the species was observed within the study area at six locations on the south bank of Pacheco Creek, upstream of the confluence with Walnut Creek (see Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3, and photographs in Appendix B). It also was observed at five more locations on the east bank of Walnut Creek adjacent to the Tesoro Refinery, though these are outside of the study area. In all cases, Mason’s lilaeopsis was found at the edge of the vegetated terrace just above high tide, in poorly consolidated mud soils with relatively low cover and competition from larger marsh plants, such as narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), green dock (Rumex conglomeratus), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus robustus), and common bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). Potential Project-Related Effects Mason’s lilaeopsis is present within the study area, and additional potentially suitable habitat is available along portions of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek. The microsite preferences of this species are fairly specific with regard to tidal range, soil exposure, and reduced density of tall marsh vegetation, as described above, so not all areas bordering channels are presently suitable. Based on changes in the distribution of occupied sites in the Lower Walnut Creek area since it was first detected in 1992, it appears that over time, previously occupied sites become less hospitable to Mason’s lilaeopsis and no longer support the species, while other sites become suitable and are occupied. Small-scale disturbances (i.e., bank slumping from either natural processes or from wake-generated waves) that affect the density of marsh vegetation and expose soils along the cut-bank within the intertidal zone may play a role in making available new sites for chance establishment of this species. Therefore, locations mapped as part of this survey should be considered temporary, particularly if project implementation does not occur for several years. Implementation of the project, specifically components that require excavation of new tidal channels to connect the creek channel with currently non-tidal parts of the flood plain, could result in impacts to new populations that may establish in the future. If it is determined that project implementation would impact the species, impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures may be warranted, including re-surveying direct impact areas if project construction begins more than several years following the present survey. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh and mudflat areas within the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. Delta mudwort Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 2B.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G4G5/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-15 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Description Delta mudwort (Limosella australis) is a tufted stoloniferous annual belonging to the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae). It produces green, linear awl-like to cylindrical leaves cm (0.5-1.5 in) long. Flowers are white to lavender-blue, 3 mm (0.12 in) long and develop May through August. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Delta mudwort has been regarded as a rare native species in California, although recent treatments indicate that it may actually have been accidentally imported in the ballast of ships from the east coast of North America. It is found in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, occurring in Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano counties. It has also been recorded from Marin County (Abbot’s Lagoon). It is found on exposed muddy or sandy intertidal flats and brackish marshes, growing from sea level to 3 m (0-10 ft) in elevation. Delta mudwort is known from 25 occurrences in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River delta of Contra Costa County and Solano counties. The nearest population (Occ. #58) 8.7 km (5.4 mi) northeast of the study area, on Ryer Island. Suitable habitat for Delta mudwort occurs along tidal channels and sloughs within the marshes of the Study Area. Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species. Surveys within the study area were negative, therefore Delta mudwort is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh and mudflat areas within the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. Marin knotweed Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 3.1; Global/State rarity ranking: G2Q/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. Description Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinense) is a suberect, much-branched perennial herb with somewhat succulent stems to 0.6 m (2 ft) long. Leaves are oblanceolate to elliptic, sessile, and 1.3-3.8 cm (0.5-1.5 in) long. Flowers are green with a white margin and about 0.3 cm (0.13 in) long. The blooming period is April through October. A distinguishing feature of the species is its olive brown fruits; fruits are required for positive identification. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Marin knotweed occurs infrequently in coastal salt marshes in the San Francisco Bay region. It has been recorded from Alameda, Humboldt, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, Solano and Sonoma counties. The greatest number of records by far is from Marin County. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-16 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Marin knotweed is known from 32 occurrences, including one at Southampton Marsh in Benicia State Park (Occ. #19), 9.5 km (5.9 mi) west-northwest of the study area, and one population (Occ. #15) on the Napa River near American Canyon, 19.2 km (11.9 mi) northwest of the study area. Suitable habitat for Marin knotweed occurs within the marshes of the Study Area. Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species. Surveys within the study area were negative, therefore Marin knotweed is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh areas within the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. Long-styled sand spurrey Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: G5T2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species Description Long-styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla) is a stout perennial herb. Fleshy leaves are in axillary clusters, with conspicuous narrowly triangular stipules. Flowers are I glandular-hairy inflorescences, with fused sepals and white or pink to rosy or blue petals. Seeds are red-brown, generally winged, smooth or tubercled or otherwise sculptured. Flowering occurs from February to May. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Long-styled sand spurrey is known from 22 occurrences, 12 of which are in Contra Costa and Solano counties. The nearest populations are a historic record (Occ. #16) from the Martinez shoreline where it has not been observed since, and an unconfirmed observation (Occ. #15) in Wildcat Marsh, (27.7km) (17.2 mi) west of the study area. Most recent records of extant populations are situated near Clifton Court Forebay and the Byron Airport area, over 45 km (28 mi) southeast of the study area. Within the study area, alkaline scalds and gaps in non-tidal salt marsh provide suitable habitat for long-styled sand spurrey. Potential Project-Related Effects Protocol surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur in the study area were performed during the flowering period of this species, and during the period when distinctive seeds used to distinguish species of the genus were mature. Only the common annual salt marsh sand spurry (Spergularia marina) was observed. Therefore, surveys for long-styled sand spurrey were negative, and it is presumed not to occur in the study area. Impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures are not warranted for the study area. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-17 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 un-surveyed portions of the Middle and South Reaches, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted when these areas become accessible. Suisun Marsh aster Status FESA: none; CESA: none; CRPR: 1B.2; Global/State rarity ranking: G2/S2; Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. Description Suisun Marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum 15) is a perennial, rhizomatous herb belonging to the sunflower family (Asteracea). It produces stems up to 16 m (5 ft) tall, with sessile basal and cauline leaves up to 15 cm (6 in) long. Flowers are violet and occur in heads at the tips of branches. Flowering occurs May through November. Suisun marsh aster is a native species endemic to California and found only in Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Solano counties. It is associated with in freshwater and brackish marshes around Suisun Bay, growing from sea level to 3 m (0-10 ft) in elevation. Habitat Suitability and Potential Occurrence Suisun marsh aster is a native species endemic to California and found only in Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Solano counties. It is associated with in freshwater and brackish marshes around Suisun Bay, growing from sea level to 3 m (0-10 ft) in elevation. Suisun Marsh aster is known from 104 occurrences in Contra Costa and Solano counties throughout the lower parts of the Sacramento and San Joaquin and Napa rivers. Prior surveys in Lower Walnut Creek recorded observations from the west side of the creek (Occ. #134); from Pt. Edith (Occ. #202), 2.3 km (1.4 mi) to the east of the study area; and at Southampton Marsh in Benicia State Park (Occ. #17), 9.5 km (5.9 mi) west-northwest of the study area. The locations within the study area were revisited and remapped. Many additional patches of the species also were located, ranging from a few individuals to stands covering several hundred square meters (up to ten thousand square feet), and comprised of thousands of flowering stems. Thirty-three separate points and polygons were mapped, totaling 0.28 ha (0.69 ac). It was most abundant in the mid marsh zone of the North Reach (see Figure 4-2, and photographs in Appendix B). It was frequently seen just outboard of the low marsh – mid marsh boundary with narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), and western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis). It is most abundant toward the lower elevations of the mid marsh zone, where it is associaed with pickleweed, fat hen (Atriplex prostrata), coyote brush, and perennial pepperweed. It was also observed on the State Lands parcel on the western edge of the study area in coastal scrub along the edge of a muted tidal channel. No Suisun marsh aster was observed in the Middle or South Reaches where the width of the flood plain above the low marsh zone is narrower, or in portions of the study area not subject to tides. 15 Formerly known as Aster lentus. 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-18 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Potential Project-Related Effects Suisun marsh aster is present within the study area, and potentially suitable habitat is available throughout the mid marsh zone, primarily along the North Reach. As a perennial rhizomatous species, its spatial extent is not expected change dramatically from year to year. Therefore, the locations mapped as part of this survey should provide a valid baseline for its distribution for several years. Implementation of the project, specifically components that require excavation of new tidal channels to connect the creek channel with currently non-tidal parts of the flood plain, could result in direct impacts to existing populations. Excavation of new tidal channels within the existing tidal marsh could indirectly reduce or increase suitable mid marsh habitat for Suisun Marsh aster, depending on microhabitat features, thus potentially decreasing or increasing its abundance. Expansion of tidal marsh within existing non-tidal areas could provide habitat for new populations of Suisun Marsh aster to establish. If it is determined that project implementation would impact the species, impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures may be warranted, including re-surveying direct impact areas if project construction begins more than several years following the present survey. Potentially suitable habitat exists in tidal marsh areas within the un-surveyed portions of the North Reach, and its presence there cannot be ruled out. Additional surveys are warranted in these areas. 4.2 Plant Communities Plant communities in the study area have been mapped and described in detail in a separate report (ESA, 2019), and are summarized below. Plant community classification generally follows Sawyer et al (2009) and CDFW (2018a). The study area supports upland, aquatic and non-tidal wetland plant communities. Four of these are considered sensitive natural communities: tidal brackish marsh, pickleweed marsh, creeping wild rye turf, and submerged aquatic vegetation (CDFW, 2018b). Plant communities are depicted in Figure 4-4. 4.2.1 Upland Plant Communities Ruderal/Non-native Grassland The upland areas of the Study Area are dominated by ruderal vegetation and non-native grassland. Ruderal and non-native grassland habitats are most prevalent in areas subject to frequent and often severe vegetation and soil disturbances including disked or fallow fields, construction sites, levees, vehicle parking lots, and railroad or other public utility rights of way. This habitat occurs mostly in the North Reach, but also occurs along the levees in the Middle and South Reach. It is characterized by a dense growth of non-native grass species and ruderal vegetation dominated by non-native forbs. Plant species that are common to this habitat include annual non-native grasses, perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), black mustard (Brassica nigra), short pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Non-native annual grasses dominating this Area on ConcoProperty Mapped bySalix Consulting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project.170378.0044-4Figure4-44ExistingHabitatsSOURCE: ESA 2017, 2018; LSA 2012; Salix, 2016; NAIP 2016* Wetland creeping wild rye occurs in small areas along the north edge of Pacheco Marsh.0980FeetUplandseucalyptuscoastal scrubcreeping wild ryetrail/road/parkingruderal/non-native grasslandWetlandslow marshmid/high marshmuted marshpickleweed marshseasonal wetlandcreeping wild rye *Watersscald/playaseasonal pondtidal channelBrackishTidal MarshNon-Tidal Wetlands4-4 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-20 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-21 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 habitat include slender oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis). The ruderal areas contain many other invasive forbs including ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Coastal Scrub Coastal scrub habitat occurs in small patches in the North Reach. This coastal scrub habitat has developed on disturbed areas and includes native shrubs, primarily coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), but also may include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and non-native tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). Creeping Wild Rye Turf There are also some nearly monotypic stands of native creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides) within the North Reach and South Reach. These areas conform to the Leymus triticoides 16 (creeping rye grass turfs) alliance, which is considered a sensitive natural community (CDFW, 2018b). 4.2.2 Aquatic Plant Communities Tidal Brackish Marsh Tidal brackish marsh, found throughout all three reaches in the Study Area, is typical of brackish tidal marsh in Suisun Bay and contains low, mid, and high marsh zones. Low Marsh Zone The low marsh zone consists of the marsh directly adjacent to Lower Walnut Creek. Low marsh generally occurs between elevations 2.1 and 5.5 ft. NAVD, or approximately MLLW +1 ft. to mean high water (MHW), according to typical vegetation elevation zones in Suisun Marsh (USBR, 2013). Typical vegetation within the low marsh zone includes California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), common bulrush (S. acutus), and broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia). These areas conform to the several vegetation alliances (hardstem and California bulrush marshes) which are considered sensitive natural communities where they do not also contain invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) (CDFW, 2018b). Mid Marsh Zone The mid marsh zone is inland of the low marsh zone and occur over a large area from the mouth of Walnut Creek to Waterfront Road. South of Waterfront Road only a narrow band of mid marsh exists. Mid marsh generally occurs between 5.5 and 6.2 ft. NAVD, or between MHW and mean higher high water (MHHW). Two species that generally occur within the mid marsh, but also occur in 16 Leymus triticoides is now treated as Elymus triticoides (Baldwin, et al, 2012). 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-22 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 low marsh include salt marsh bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) and common reed. Native pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) and invasive perennial pepperweed also occur and can be dominant species within the mid marsh zone. Other species co-occur with these dominant species in the mid marsh zone including non-native fat-hen (Atriplex prostrata). This vegetation zone conforms to the Bolboschoenus maritimus-Sarcocornia pacifica 17 (salt marsh bulrush marshes) vegetation alliance, and is considered a sensitive natural community (CDFW, 2018b). High Marsh Zone The high marsh zone is inland of the mid marsh zone and, similar to the mid marsh zone, occurs over a large area from the mouth of Walnut Creek to Waterfront Road and as a narrow band south of Waterfront Road. High marsh generally occurs between elevation 6.2 and 7.2 ft. NAVD, or between MHHW and Extreme HHW. Vegetation within the high marsh zone is dominated by pickleweed and invasive perennial pepperweed. Many other species are found at the upper elevations of the high marsh and at the edge of the transition zone including native salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and gumplant (Grindelia stricta). Plant diversity is greater in the mid and high marsh zones than in the low marsh within the Study Area. Some other native species encountered intermittently within the mid and high marsh include western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis glutinosa), and marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata). This vegetation zone conforms to various Sarcocornia pacifica vegetation alliances (pickleweed mats), all of which are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2018b). Pickleweed Marsh Non-tidal pickleweed marsh occurs in all three reaches in the Study Area. Pickleweed marsh is dominated by pickleweed and contains varying densities of this plant. With a slight increase in elevation, pickleweed intergrades into areas composed of an assortment of hydrophytic species including, natives saltgrass, alkali heath, and non-natives fat-hen, perennial pepperweed, brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), and rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). This vegetation zone conforms to various Sarcocornia pacifica vegetation alliances (pickleweed mats), all of which are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2018b). Seasonal Wetland Only a couple of seasonal wetlands exist in the Study Area and are dominated by invasive perennial pepperweed and stinkwort with other native and non-native vegetation. The seasonal wetlands within the Study Area are somewhat disturbed from human and dirt bike traffic, so 17 Sarcocornia pacifica is now treated as Salicornia pacifica (Baldwin, et al, 2012). 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-23 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 wildlife use of these areas is likely limited, but they may provide foraging, refuge, or nesting habitat for common birds or mammals. Scald/Playa Scald/playa habitats occur throughout the North, Middle, and South Reaches and contain little or no vegetation, but the scald edges are generally surrounded by pickleweed or other salt tolerant vegetation. Some of the scalds pond seasonally, while others only become saturated during seasonal rains. The scalds contain sandy substrate and maintain high summer salt concentrations that prevent vegetation growth. Seasonal Pond Seasonal ponds occur in small quantities in the North, Middle, and South Reaches of the Study Area. Vegetation is typically absent or limited to a few emergent species, such as alkali bulrush and pickleweed. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The perennially open water channels within the study area (i.e. below the intertidal zone) support Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), ranging from small isolated patches to extensive underwater “meadows”. Near the mouth of Walnut Creek and in Pacheco Creek, Sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) was observed. This plant community conforms to the Stuckenia pectinata (pondweed mats) alliance and is considered a sensitive natural community (CDFW, 2018b). SAV also is a vegetated shallows¸ which is among the set of “special aquatic sites” that are covered under the Clean Water Act Section 404 guidelines.18 18 Code of Federal Regulations 230.43 (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-230/subpart-E). 4. Setting Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4-24 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 5-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 5 Conclusions Three special-status plant species were observed during multiple appropriately-timed site surveys following CDFW, CNPS and USFWS survey guidelines. Populations of two of these species, delta tule pea and Suisun Marsh aster, are concentrated in the North Reach of the study area. Additional stands of Suisun Marsh aster are located on the muted tidal portion of the State Lands parcel. Mason’s lilaeopsis was observed at several locations within the study area along Pacheco Creek, and additional sites just outside of the study area on the east bank of Walnut Creek. Project implementation has the potential of directly or indirectly impacting portions of existing populations of these species through habitat loss, hydrological modification and redistribution of vegetation associated with tidal channels. Project implementation also is expected to create new tidal marsh areas which will become potential habitat for these species. Ten additional special-status plant species with moderate or high potential to occur in the study area were not observed during the protocol surveys. These species are presumed absent from the study area. A portion of the project footprint was not surveyed due to access limitations. Based on appearance from District lands and from aerial imagery, potentially suitable habitat for several of these species is present in the un-surveyed portions of the North, Middle, and South Reaches. Presence of special-status plants cannot be ruled out of these un-surveyed areas. Four sensitive natural communities also were observed as part of these and other biological resources surveys conducted for the project: tidal brackish marsh, pickleweed marsh, creeping wild rye turf, and submerged aquatic vegetation. 5. Conclusions Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 5-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 6-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 SECTION 6 References Cited Calflora. 2018. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria. [web application]. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018a. California Natural Community List. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. October 15. 94 pp. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. ———. 2018b. California Sensitive Natural Communities. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. October 15. 60 pp. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. ———. 2018c. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. August 6. 12 pp. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline. ———. 2018d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. November. 140 pp. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline. ———. 2018e. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March 18. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 26 December 2018]. ———. 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines. Revised June 2. Available: https://cnps.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2018. Query of the Vine Hill, Walnut Creek, Briones Valley, Denverton, Honker Bay, Clayton, Fairfield South, Cordelia, and Benicia USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. RareFind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Version 5.2.14. ESA. 2019a. Biological Assessment, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. July 2019. 6. References Cited Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 6-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 ———. 2019b., Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. March 2019. ———. 2019c. Habitat Assessment, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. Prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. July 2019. Jones & Stokes. 2005a. Botanical Report for the Lower Walnut Creek Channel Restoration Project, Concord, California. Prepared for Public Works Department, Contra Costa County. January. ———. 2005b. Final Delineation of Waters of the United States, including Wetlands, for the Lower Walnut Creek Channel Restoration Project, Concord, California. Prepared for Natural Resource Management. January. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (2nd edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp. Available: http://vegetation.cnps.org/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. IPaC Trust Resource Report of Federally Endangered and Threatened Species in the vicinity of the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project [Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-0578]. ———. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. January. Available: http://www.fws.gov/ sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/Listed_plant_survey_ guidelines.pdf. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Appendix A Special-status Species Appendix A. Special-status Species Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project A-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck PDBOR01070 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Anomobryum julaceum slender silver moss NBMUS80010 None None G5?S2 4.2 Arctostaphylos auriculata Mt. Diablo manzanita PDERI04040 None None G2 S2 1B.3 Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata Contra Costa manzanita PDERI04273 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita PDERI04110 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Atriplex persistens vernal pool smallscale PDCHE042P0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant PDAST1C011 None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.1 Calochortus pulchellus Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern PMLIL0D160 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Campanula exigua chaparral harebell PDCAM020A0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Castilleja affinis var. neglecta Tiburon paintbrush PDSCR0D013 Endangered Threatened G4G5T1T2 S1S2 1B.2 Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant PDAST4R0P2 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum hispid salty bird's-beak PDSCR0J0D1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Chloropyron molle ssp. molle soft salty bird's-beak PDSCR0J0D2 Endangered Rare G2T1 S1 1B.2 Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Vine Hill (3812211)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Walnut Creek (3712281)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Briones Valley (3712282)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Denverton (3812128)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Honker Bay (3812118)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Clayton (3712188)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fairfield South (3812221)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Cordelia (3812222)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Benicia (3812212))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Ferns<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gymnosperms<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monocots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Dicots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lichens<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Bryophytes) Query Criteria: Report Printed on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 Page 1 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated December, 30 2018 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 6/30/2019 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi Bolander's water-hemlock PDAPI0M051 None None G5T4 S2 2B.1 Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle PDAST2E050 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Suisun thistle PDAST2E1G1 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Cordylanthus nidularius Mt. Diablo bird's-beak PDSCR0J0F0 None Rare G1 S1 1B.1 Delphinium californicum ssp. interius Hospital Canyon larkspur PDRAN0B0A2 None None G3T3 S3 1B.2 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood PDTHY03010 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia PDCAM060C0 None None GU S2 2B.2 Eriastrum ertterae Lime Ridge eriastrum PDPLM030F0 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Eriogonum truncatum Mt. Diablo buckwheat PDPGN085Z0 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote-thistle PDAPI0Z130 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Contra Costa wallflower PDBRA16052 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Fissidens pauperculus minute pocket moss NBMUS2W0U0 None None G3?S2 1B.2 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia NBMUS32330 None None G2 S2 1B.3 Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella PDAST4M020 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Hesperolinon breweri Brewer's western flax PDLIN01030 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Isocoma arguta Carquinez goldenbush PDAST57050 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea PDFAB250D2 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Report Printed on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated December, 30 2018 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 6/30/2019 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Legenere limosa legenere PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis PDAPI19030 None Rare G2 S2 1B.1 Limosella australis Delta mudwort PDSCR10030 None None G4G5 S2 2B.1 Madia radiata showy golden madia PDAST650E0 None None G3 S3 1B.1 Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow PDMAL0Q0F0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Meconella oregana Oregon meconella PDPAP0G030 None None G2G3 S2 1B.1 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris PDAST6E0D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Navarretia gowenii Lime Ridge navarretia PDPLM0C120 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia PDPLM0C0E1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Antioch Dunes evening-primrose PDONA0C0B4 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 Phacelia phacelioides Mt. Diablo phacelia PDHYD0C3Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Plagiobothrys hystriculus bearded popcornflower PDBOR0V0H0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Polygonum marinense Marin knotweed PDPGN0L1C0 None None G2Q S2 3.1 Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass PMPOA53110 None None G3 S2 1B.2 Sanicula saxatilis rock sanicle PDAPI1Z0H0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.2 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2 Sidalcea keckii Keck's checkerbloom PDMAL110D0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1 Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla long-styled sand-spurrey PDCAR0W062 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewelflower PDBRA2G012 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Streptanthus hispidus Mt. Diablo jewelflower PDBRA2G0M0 None None G2 S2 1B.3 Report Printed on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated December, 30 2018 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 6/30/2019 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina slender-leaved pondweed PMPOT03091 None None G5T5 S2S3 2B.2 Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster PDASTE8470 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover PDFAB40040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella NBMUS7S010 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Tropidocarpum capparideum caper-fruited tropidocarpum PDBRA2R010 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum PDCPR07080 None None G4G5 S3?2B.3 Record Count: 67 Report Printed on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 4Commercial Version -- Dated December, 30 2018 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 6/30/2019 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database B-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Appendix B Rarity Codes Appendix B. Rarity Codes B-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank EXPLANATION OF SENSITIVITY STATUS CODES ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES FE = federally listed as Endangered FT = federally listed as Threatened FPE = federally proposed for listing as Endangered FPT = federally proposed for listing as Threatened FPD = federally proposed for delisting FC = federal candidate; former Category 1 candidates FSC = federal species of concern; receives no legal protection. Use of the term does not necessarily mean that a species will eventually be proposed for listing. CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES SE = state-listed as Endangered ST = state-listed as Threatened SR = state-listed as Rare SCE = state candidate for listing as Endangered SCT = state candidate for listing as Threatened CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DESIGNATIONS (CNPS) List 1: Plants of highest priority List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere List 3: Plants about which additional data are needed List 4: Plants of limited distribution CNPS R-E-D Codes R (Rarity) 1 = Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. 2 = Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such low numbers that it is seldom reported. ? = More data are needed E (Endangerment) 1 = Not endangered 2 = Endangered in a portion of its range 3 = Endangered throughout its range ? = More data are needed CNPS R-E-D Codes (continued) D (Distribution) 1 = More or less widespread outside California 2 = Rare outside California 3 = Endemic to California ? = More data are needed OTHER CODES AFS: American Fisheries Society categories of risk for marine, estuarine and diadromous fish stocks. Audubon: Watch List: Bird species facing population declines and/or threats such as loss of breeding and wintering grounds, or species with limited geographic ranges. BLM: Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management. Includes species under review by FWS or NMFS, species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing may become necessary, species with small and widely dispersed populations, or species inhabiting refugia or other unique habitats. CDF: Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Includes species that warrant special protection during timber operations. DFG: CSC: California species of Special Concern. DFG: Special Animal: Species included by the Department of Fish and Game in their special species lists. DFG: Fully Protected: Species protected under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code. FS: Sensitive: USDA Forest Service. Species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. FWS: BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern: migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond listed species) that represent the FWS’s highest conservation priorities. FWS: MNBMC: US Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern. Species considered to be of concern in the U.S. due to documented or apparent population declines, small or restricted populations, or dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. USMC Watch List: US Bird Conservation Watch List. WBWB: High Priority: The Western Bat Working Group. Species imperiled or at high risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats. Appendix B. Rarity Codes B-4 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Appendix C Inventory of Plant Species Appendix C. Inventory of Plant Species Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea blue elderberry Aizoaceae - Fig-Marigold Family Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot fig Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum little ice plant Sesuvium verrucosum sea-purslane Anacardiaceae - Sumac Family Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Apiaceae - Carrot Family Apium graveolens celery Conium maculatum poison-hemlock Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis 1 Oenanthe sarmentosa Pacific oenanthe Apocynaceae - Dogbane Family Vinca major big periwinkle Arecaceae - Palm Family Washingtonia filifera Washington fan palm Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Achillea millefolium yarrow Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Baccharis glutinosa marsh baccharis Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 1 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Centaurea melitensis tocalote Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle Cotula coronopifolia brassbuttons Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Erigeron canadensis horseweed Euthamia occidentalis western goldenrod Grindelia stricta var. angustifolia marsh gumplant Helenium puberulum sneezeweed Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue Jaumea carnosa jaumea Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Pluchea odorata salt marsh fleabane Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum cudweed Silybum marianum milkthistle Sonchus asper ssp. asper prickly sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster 2 Tragopogon porrifolius purple salsify Boraginaceae - Borage Family Heliotropium curassavicum salt heliotrope Brassicaceae - Mustard Family Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 2 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed Raphanus sativus wild radish Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Spergularia marina salt-marsh sand-spurry Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family Atriplex lentiformis big saltbush Atriplex prostrata fat-hen Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush Salicornia pacifica pickleweed Salsola soda oppositeleaf Russian thistle Convolvulaceae - Morning-glory Family Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Cressa truxillensis alkali weed Cuscuta salina saltmarsh dodder Crassulaceae - Stonecrop Family Crassula connata pygmyweed Cyperaceae - Sedge Family Isolepis cernua low bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus common tule Schoenoplectus americanus three-square Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Dipsacaceae - Teasel Family Dipsacus fullonum common teasel * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 3 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Fabaceae - Legume Family Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish clover Acmispon glaber California broom Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea 2 Lotus corniculatus broadleaf bird's-foot trefoil Medicago polymorpha burclover Melilotus indicus sourclover Vicia villosa ssp. villosa hairy vetch Fagaceae - Oak Family Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Quercus lobata valley oak Frankeniaceae - Frankenia Family Frankenia salina alkali heath Geraniaceae - Geranium Family Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree Geranium dissectum cut-leaved geranium Hydrocharitaceae - Waterweed Family Elodea sp. waterweed Iridaceae - Iris Family Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris Juncaceae - Rush Family Juncus balticus wire rush Juncus bufonius var. bufonius toad rush Juncus effusus var. pacificus Pacific bog rush * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 4 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Juncus xiphioides iris-leaved rush Lamiaceae - Mint Family Mentha aquatica water mint Stachys albens white hedge nettle Trichostema lanceolatum vinegar weed Liliaceae - Lily Family Asparagus officinalis ssp. officinalis cultivated asparagus AG Lythraceae - Loosesstrife Family Lythrum californicum common loosestrife Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Malvaceae - Mallow Family Malva nicaeensis bull mallow Malvella leprosa alkali mallow Myrsinaceae - Myrsine family Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel Myrtaceae - Myrtle Family Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian blue gum Onagraceae - Evening Primrose Family Epilobium ciliatum northern willowherb Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri Hooker's evening-primrose Plantaginaceae - Plantain Family Plantago coronopus cut-leaved plantain Poaceae - Grass Family Agrostis avenacea hairy-flower bentgrass * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 5 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Arundo donax giant reed Avena barbata slender wild oats Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass Distichlis spicata saltgrass Elymus glaucus blue wildrye Elymus triticoides creeping wildrye Festuca myuros rattail fescue Festuca perennis perennial ryegrass Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum foxtail barley Parapholis incurva sickle grass Phragmites australis common reed Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbitsfoot grass Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Persicaria lapathifolium willow weed Polygonum aviculare ssp. depressum common knotweed Rumex conglomeratus whorled dock Rumex crispus curly dock Potamogetonaceae - Pondweed Family Ruppia maritima ditch-grass * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 6 of 7 Sort By : Family Jan 24, 2019 Common NameScientific Name Note Plant List For Lower Walnut Creek Stuckenia pectinata fennel-leaved pondweed Rosaceae - Rose Family Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica silverweed Rosa californica California rose Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Rubus ulmifolius var. inermis evergreen thornless blackberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Rubiaceae - Madder Family Galium aparine goose grass Scrophulariaceae - Figwort Family Scrophularia californica California figwort Tamaricaceae - Tamarisk Family Tamarix ramosissima saltcedar Typhaceae - Cattail Family Typha latifolia broadleaf cattail Urticaceae - Nettle Family Urtica dioica stinging nettle * = Species not indigenous to CA 1 = federal or State listed Species 2 = other special-status species 3 = CALIPC Listed Invasive Species AG = agricultural species HORT = horticultural species Footnotes: alCBiotaTM Page 7 of 7 Appendix C. Inventory of Plant Species Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-10 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Page intentionally left blank Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-1 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 Appendix D Representative Photographs Appendix D. Representative Photographs Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-2 Wood Biological Consulting / ESA / 170378 Rare Plant Survey Report July 2019 This page intentionally left blank Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 1. Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii). Photo taken May 17, 2018. 2. Delta tule pea climbing on coyote brush. Photo taken May 17, 2018. Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 3. Mason’s Lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) growing in small dense patch at edge of Pacheco Creek terrace. Photo taken June 8, 2018. 4. Mason’s lilaeopsis leaves and small white flowers. Photo taken June 8, 2018. Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 5. Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) in Lower Walnut Creek marsh. Photo taken October 20, 2018. 6. Suisun marsh aster growing in coyote brush thicket. Photo taken October 20, 2018. Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 7. Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) with common reed (Phragmites australis). Photo taken November 1, 2018. 8. Submerged aquatic vegetation consisting of Sago or pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) at mouth of Walnut Creek. Photo taken June 8, 2018. Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 9. Low marsh along Pacheco Creek. Photo taken May 24, 2018. 10. Narrow tidal slough channel off main stem of Lower Walnut Creek, in dense low marsh of hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 11. Interface between low marsh (background) and mid-marsh (foreground). Photo taken May 17, 2018. 12. Extensive non-tidal pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) marsh in Pacheco Marsh. Photo taken May 17, 2018. Appendix D Wood Biological Consulting 13. Creeping wild rye turf, (Elymus triticoides). Photo taken May 17, 2018. 14. Upland non-native grassland with ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), and black mustard (Brassica nigra) in background. Photo taken May 17, 2018. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-1 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 Appendix D Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum Appendix D Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-2 ESA / 170378 Habitat Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank 983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210 Memorandum Project #4207-01 To: Michelle Orr, ESA From: Ron Duke October 25, 2018 Subject: Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Technical Memorandum Background Purpose The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is proposing the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (LWC project) to: (1) restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay; and (2) provide sustainable flood protection that extends upstream from Suisun Bay along Walnut Creek and its tributary Pacheco Creek (ESA 2017). The purposes of this technical memorandum are to update the existing science on salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes) (SMHM) habitat use and to apply the current science to predict the project’s impacts and benefits to the SMHM. Distribution The SMHM is found only in saline and brackish wetlands of the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. The southern subspecies (R. r. raviventris) is primarily restricted to the area along both sides of San Francisco Bay, from San Mateo County and Alameda County south to Santa Clara County. The historical range of the species included tidal marshes within the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, east to the Collinsville-Antioch area. Agriculture and urbanization has claimed much of the former historical tidal marshes, resulting in a 79% reduction in the amount of tidal marshes in these areas (Goals Project 1999). At present, the northern subspecies (R. r. halicoetes) occurs along Suisun and San Pablo Bays north of Point Pinole in Contra Costa County, and in Point Pedro in Marin County. The southern subspecies is found in marshes in Corte Madera, Richmond, and South Bay (primarily south of the San Mateo–Hayward Bridge on State Route 92). 2 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Habitat and Biology The SMHM has evolved to a life in tidal marshes and the associated upland transitional zones of San Francisco Bay. This species has adapted well to the managed marshes surrounding the bay, especially in the diked marshes of Suisun Bay. Specifically, it has evolved to depend mainly on dense pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) as its primary cover and food source but also uses other vegetation (e.g., saltgrass [Distichlis spicata], bulrush [Schoenoplectus spp. and Bolboschoenus spp.]) typically found in the salt and brackish marshes of this region. In natural systems, SMHM can be found in the middle tidal marsh and upland transitional zones, as well as in managed marshes. Upland refugia during high tide events and vegetation structure (i.e., room to climb above the tides or managed flooding) are essential habitat components for the SMHM. Although its primary habitat (especially in the South Bay) was thought to consist of pickleweed-dominated areas in the upper regions of tidal marshes, the SMHM is also found in diked and muted tidal marshes comprised mainly of pickleweed. More recently, this species has been found in dense vegetation within brackish marshes in the South Bay, specifically tri-corner bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) marshes that are mature and have a thick, well-developed layer of thatch (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2006, 2010). As discussed below, recent work on the northern subspecies (R. r. halocoetes) shows substantially less or no preference for pickleweed-dominated areas. Threats Historically, the marshes in San Francisco Bay were a complex mosaic of vegetation zones, generally consisting of low marsh adjacent to mudflats dominated by cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), high marsh plains dominated by pickleweed, and broad transitions of peripheral halophytes (i.e., salt-tolerant plants that cannot endure as much tidal inundation) into upland habitats, with narrower transitional zones on natural levees along larger channels within the marshes. Most of the tidal marshes around San Francisco Bay, and especially in the South Bay, were eliminated; the remaining marshes have lost the upper portion of their pickleweed zones as well as the higher zone of peripheral halophytes (Shellhammer 1982, Shellhammer and Duke 2004). Most of the tidal marshes in the South Bay are small, isolated swaths along the backshores of levees or other hardened structures that promote predation, inhibit further high marsh development, and are threatened by sea level rise (Shellhammer 1989). Similarly, most of the tidal marshes do not contain higher order tidal channels and therefore lack a configuration of natural levees supporting shrubs (e.g., gum plant [Grindelia spp.] and other peripheral halophytes) that could provide escape cover for SMHM. Shellhammer and Duke (2004) note that most of the marshes of the South Bay are de facto corridors; they are likely not wide enough to support viable populations but are broad enough to function as dispersal corridors. A database of all SMHM studies was compiled by H. Shellhammer at H. T. Harvey & Associates (Shellhammer and Duke 2004). Trapping records from permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) were reviewed and compiled. The database, which includes 198 trapping projects (estimated 95% of all such projects and studies) representing 134,204 trap nights (TN) completed through 2003, shows that 37% of all trapping projects (i.e., 73 of 198 projects, or 49,481 of 134,204 TN) captured no SMHM. The average capture efficiency (C.E., or total 3 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES effort in TN divided by the number of mice captured) of all trapping projects was 0.013. In terms of unit effort, it took an average of 79 TN to capture one harvest mouse. For projects in which at least one SMHM was captured, approximately 64% (153 of 198) had a C.E. equal to or less than 0.019; it took 77 TN to capture a single SMHM. There were few projects where numerous harvest mice were captured (i.e., only 8 projects had a C.E. of 0.06 or more). Despite the species’ apparently low populations, the SMHM is known to rapidly colonize restored areas. Multiple trapping reports in the database indicated that this species quickly moves into areas of appropriate habitat from nearby inhabited areas. Restored habitats at the Concord Naval Weapons Station were recolonized within 2 years (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1996). More extensive work in the Suisun Marsh over the last 10 years has shown that the diked and tidal marshes of the Suisun Bay support a robust SMHM population; this research is described below. Current Science on SMHM Habitat Use Distribution of the SMHM in the Vicinity of the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site The tidal and non-tidal marshes of Suisun Bay have been known to support SMHM for more than a century (Dixon 1908). Trapping efforts in the tidal marshes in the vicinity have historically been infrequent, and generally related to evaluation of impacts and potential damage to these marshes. Figure 1 depicts the distribution of most of the trapping efforts that were conducted in the area, as compiled from public records (Shellhammer and Duke 2004, Shellhammer 2005 ). An extensive trapping effort was undertaken after the 1988 Shell Oil Spill as part of an extensive study of the spill’s effects implemented under the Shell Oil Spill Assessment and Recovery Monitoring Environmental Effects Program (Shell Oil program) (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1989a). Those trapping efforts detected SMHM in the Peyton Slough Marsh to the west of the LWC project area. The SMHM was detected in numerous locations, including along trap lines in areas abutting the northwest quadrant of the North Reach of the LWC project area, and near the remnant channel where the culverts will be improved to expand tidal connection to the western quadrants (Figure 2). The Shell Oil program trapping also detected SMHM in the Point Edith Ecological Reserve immediately east of the LWC project (Figure 3), as well as in the Hastings Slough Marsh slightly farther to the east (Figure 1). Additionally, SMHM was found in several other locations along the edges and islands of the Suisun Bay. The vegetation in these brackish tidal marshes consists of a mixture of bulrushes, pickleweed, and other marsh plants. The Shell Oil program trapping also detected SMHM along the fringes of what was previously known as McNabney or Shell Marsh and is now referred to as the Waterbird Regional Reserve (Figure 1). This marsh was the most substantially affected by the 1988 oil spill and subsequent clean-up efforts; however, Lower Walnut Creek was also heavily oiled by the spill. Although there have been no recent studies in the vicinity, the brackish marshes to the east and west of the North Reach of the LWC project have long supported robust SMHM populations. Fisler’s landmark work on the species (Fisler 1965) included collecting numerous specimens from an area referred to as Martinez Marsh, which was 2 miles west of Martinez and coincides with the current location of Peyton Slough Marsh. 1988 / 5 1997 / 01997 / 8 2001 / 0 1989 / 9 1995 / 0 1980 / 0 1990 / 1 1988 / 61994 / 81990 / 1 1990 / 0 1980 / 0 1980 / 0 1997 / 7 1988 / 51988 / 5 1988 / 5 1980 / 6 1980 / 0 1988 / 22 1988 / 22 1988 / 22 1971 / 12 1988 / 37 1971 / 12 1979 / 19 1998 / 13 Figure 1. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Trapping Records October 2018N:\Projects4200\4207-01\Reports\Figure 1 SMHM Trapping Records.mxdLower Walnut Creek Restoration (4207-01) Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Trapping Records Captures (Date / Captures) No Captures 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet Background: Digital Glode Aerial (8/28/17) Suisun BaySuisun Bay CCaarrqquuiinneezzSSttrraaiittB e micia - M a rtin e z Brid g e HWY68 0 W at erf ro nt Rd Figure 2. Peyton Slough Marsh Trapping October 2018Lower Walnut Creek Restoration (4207-01) Legend SMHM Capture Sites Transect Lines 900 0 900450 Feet Background: Digital Glode Aerial (8/28/17) PP aa cc hh ee cc oo CC rr ee ee kk W a te rfro n tR d CC aa rr qq uu iinn ee zz SS ttrr aa iittFigure 3. Point Edith Marsh Trapping October 2018Lower Walnut Creek Restoration (4207-01) Legend SMHM Capture Sites Transect Lines 1,100 0 1,100550 Feet Background: Digital Glode Aerial (8/28/17) 7 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES The area between the North and Middle Reaches of the LWC project area has been trapped occasionally with mixed results. The drainage ditches to the south of Waterfront Road were trapped as part of an investigation related to an oil spill from the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners pipeline on Dec. 12, 2000 (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2001) (Figure 1). No SMHM were discovered, although some harvest mice that were trapped had intermediate traits and were therefore not assigned to species; Dr. Howard Shellhammer determined that none of these individuals were SMHM. The seasonal wetland between Waterfront Road and the Acme Landfill was trapped in the late 1980s and a few SMHM were present (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1989b) (Figure 1). West of the Tosco oil refinery, SMHM were also found in the marshes along Waterfront Road (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997a) (Figure 1). Farther east, SMHM are known from the brackish marshes of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, including those near Middle Point (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1992, 1997b). Extensive SMHM trapping has been undertaken recently in the Suisun Marsh across Suisun Bay from the project site. That trapping, conducted by CDFW and researchers from the University of California, Davis, has revealed a robust population of SMHM in both tidal and managed brackish marshes (Smith et al. 2017, 2018). Diked managed marshes in the Suisun Marsh provide high-quality habitat, with densities of SMHM that are comparable to the tidal marshes, and habitat use is similar between the diked and tidal marshes. Within these Suisun Marsh areas, there are tall pickleweed areas intermixed with bulrushes, fat hen (Atriplex prostrata), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus ssp. ater), and alkali heath (Frankenia salina) (Goals Project 1999, as cited in Smith et al. 2018). Distribution and Habitat Use of SMHM in the Suisun Bay Marsh As described above, there have been extensive trapping efforts in the tidal marshes and managed wetlands of Suisun Marsh in recent years. Smith et al. (2014) conducted extensive trapping and radio-telemetry work, which focused on the movements of SMHM during high tide events and compared the species’ movements in tidal versus non-tidal wetlands of the Suisun Marsh. Individual SMHM tended to stay within their home ranges, and mostly moved vertically within the vegetation in response to high tides and/or managed flooding of diked marshes. Moreover, there seems to be little preference for pickleweed-dominated habitats within SMHM populations occupying the Suisun Marsh. This observation is based on both habitat occupation (i.e., little or no preference for pickleweed over more brackish marsh species), and on dietary preferences. Food preference tests conducted by Smith showed that SMHM ate a wide variety of plants and seeds, rarely showing preference, but consumed what was available (Smith 2014, 2017). Thus the brackish marshes of the Suisun Bay, including the vast diked marshes, provide extensive high quality habitat for the SMHM. Smith reported annual average densities of 31.5 to 35 individuals per hectare in managed and tidal marshes, respectively, which indicated a population of approximately 750,000 individuals in the Suisun Marsh (Smith 2017). Earlier work at the Concord Naval Weapons Station (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1992) had also demonstrated that the SMHM was widespread in brackish marshes and showed some preference for pickleweed-dominated habitats; however, they were widespread in areas with relatively high cover values for salt grass, invasive perennial 8 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and Baltic rush. The 1992 study also noted that other habitat components, including vegetative cover and structure, were important to SMHM. The subsequent, extensive work of Smith et al. (2017) was far more definitive, combining radio-telemetry with food studies and involving approximately 10,000 hours of effort. This radio-telemetry work also allowed for the detection of numerous SMHM nests in a variety of settings, including those constructed up in vegetation, on the ground, and in cracks in dry mud or soil. There was little preference for vegetation type detected in the choice of nesting locations (Smith 2017). There were areas that seemed to be avoided by SMHM. These areas contained sparse pickleweed and other low vegetation and/or consisted primarily of bare ground or scalds. Additionally, by using radio-telemetry, it became clear that bare areas, including levees, were crossed consistently and regularly as were areas of open water (e.g., sloughs) thus really did not present barriers for SMHM movement. While the width and constitution of the barriers were not necessarily compared, it is clear that SMHM move more readily throughout the marsh environments than previously thought. Proposed Project’s Effects on the SMHM Potential SMHM Use of Existing Habitats within the Project Area The existing diked habitats within the South Reach of the LWC project are comparatively poor for the SMHM. While mapped as wetlands, the area is a mixture of sparse, low pickleweed, grasses, and barren, seasonally-ponded areas. The lack of vegetative cover for most of the diked habitats in the South Reach limits their SMHM habitat value. The adjoining tidal marsh along Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek in the South Reach is a mixture of freshwater and brackish marsh plant species, which possibly could support small numbers of SMHM, especially those that may move into the area from more suitable habitat downstream. The Middle Reach is similar to the South Reach; in the diked areas there is a mixture of sparse, low pickleweed, grasses, and barren, seasonally-ponded areas. Diked sections along Pacheco Creek are similar to those of the South Reach. Diked sections along Lower Walnut Creek, while still marginal habitat, show some improvement in habitat quality toward the north end of the Middle Reach. Patches of pickleweed are larger and denser, and the overall vegetative cover is higher and more continuous, which are factors that improve the SMHM habitat quality. The habitat quality of the adjoining tidal marshes along Pacheco Creek and Lower Walnut Creek similarly improves in the downstream direction; the marsh conditions transition from predominantly freshwater to more brackish. These brackish areas have a higher likelihood of supporting SMHM. Near the north end of the Middle Reach, the habitat improves somewhat in the adjacent Acme Landfill seasonal wetland where SMHM were trapped in the late 1980s. However, anecdotally the habitat in that area may have declined due to repeated flooding and lack of drainage. Portions of the North Reach provide much better habitat for the SMHM. Specifically, there are currently deep, dense stands of pickleweed within the southeast and southwest quadrants of the North Reach. Although these 9 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES areas are somewhat isolated from each other by the current access road and are subject to flooding during heavy rainfall years, they provide some of the best potential habitat for SMHM on the LWC project site. Other areas within the northeast quadrant also provide suitable habitat, including patches of pickleweed, grasses, and other species providing relatively dense cover. The areas of the northwest quadrant proposed for restoration have no habitat value for the SMHM, except perhaps for occasional dispersal or grassland foraging. Lower Walnut Creek on the east side of the North Reach provides suitable brackish marsh habitat for the species; it is similar to the tidal marshes to the east and west of the site but may be slightly less brackish due to freshwater discharges from the Walnut Creek watershed. The brackish tidal marshes along Lower Walnut Creek, especially in the Middle and North Reaches of the project area, likely support good populations of SMHM on the basis of the species being reported in similar brackish marshes on both sides of Suisun Bay. Projected Habitats and Habitat Values Post-restoration Within the South Reach, the newly created tidal marsh will have vegetation similar to that of the outboard tidal marshes along Lower Walnut Creek (i.e., transitioning from freshwater to brackish marsh). Lowering and breaching the outboard levee, creating a set-back levee, and preserving and enhancing the existing seasonal wetlands at the south end of the reach will create habitats more likely to support SMHM. In particular, the upper edges of the marsh, which will be at somewhat higher elevations from grading onto the new levee side slopes, should provide a border of brackish/salt marsh vegetation that will provide more continuous potential habitat for SMHM. The created marshes should provide dense vegetative cover (where it is currently sparse) and sufficient structure to support use by the SMHM. Although freshwater portions of the habitat may not be used as extensively as more brackish areas, there will be an overall enhancement of the habitat. Conditions for the SMHM in the Middle Reach will also improve, albeit less so for the more freshwater areas upstream along Pacheco Creek compared to the downstream areas along Lower Walnut Creek. As with the South Reach, marshes in the Middle Reach will be a combination of tidal brackish-freshwater dominated habitats, with fringes of pickleweed and brackish marsh plant species at higher elevations. Similar to the South Reach, there will be an overall enhancement of habitat, with dense tidal marshes replacing sparsely-vegetated, non-tidal marshes. The tidal marsh to upland ecotones (transitional zones) in the North Reach and the value of these transitions to SMHM is somewhat more complex, but will provide the best overall improvements of the habitats for the mouse. While the southern portions of the North Reach currently provide good habitat within the large patches of diked pickleweed marsh, these areas are currently subject to uncontrolled flooding during high-rainfall years. Opening these areas to the tides will introduce brackish flows comprised of freshwater outfall from Lower Walnut Creek and incoming bay waters. However, the elevation range in the southeast quadrant is high enough relative to the tidal elevations of the site (i.e., roughly the mean high water elevation and above) so that much of the existing pickleweed marsh is expected to be maintained and will be mixed with brackish marsh habitat similar to that within existing tidal marshes. These conditions will provide quality habitat for the SMHM, especially when combined with the planned expansion of the transitional zones. The southeastern quadrant is even more likely to remain dominated by pickleweed, as the muted tidal regime should help the pickleweed flourish, and lowering 10 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES the levees on the west side of the site should provide additional tidal flooding and better drainage. The new tidal marsh habitats created in the northwest quadrant will create quality SMHM habitat where there is currently none. Projected SMHM Use of Restored Habitats The proposed restoration will increase the habitat value of the site for the SMHM, as well as expanding the overall acreage of suitable and high-quality habitat. The existing relatively low-quality habitat within the diked wetlands of the South and Middle Reaches will be converted to tidal brackish marshes of the type known to support SMHM. Some habitats within the South Reach will likely be more freshwater due to the incoming flows from Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creeks; however, these areas will likely mix with the brackish conditions in the existing tidal marshes adjoining the restoration site. The restoration at the Pacheco Marsh sites is expected to expand brackish tidal marshes along the two creeks, but given the tidal elevations of existing pickleweed habitats in the diked areas, the brackish marshes will likely continue to intersperse with the pickleweed-dominated areas that are found in the tidal marshes to the east and west of the Pacheco Marsh. The muted tidal areas on the west side of the site (fed by the remnant Walnut Creek) will likely support a mixture of habitats somewhat more saline and will also be suitable for the mouse. Moreover, lowering levees along the site and excavating for new marsh habitat in the northwest quadrant will expand the total acreage of suitable marsh for SMHM and create additional connectivity with the SMHM-occupied marshes to the east and west. Resiliency of the Project to Sea-level Rise The planned creation and enhancement of transitional zone habitats that adjoin the tidal marshes throughout most of the restoration zones will provide high-tide refugia for the SMHM during extreme tides and/or high flows, and room for the marshes to migrate upslope with sea-level rise. Although SMHM can move up in vegetation in response to flooding and/or tidal events, these transitional zones are still considered important for the mouse, especially in extreme events (Shellhammer 1989). Additionally, they are recommended in the Recovery Plan for Tidal Marshes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) and the updated Baylands Wetlands Ecosystem Goals (Goals Project 2015). References Dixon, J. 1908. A new harvest mouse from the salt marshes of San Francisco Bay, California, p. 197. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 21:197-198. ESA. 2017. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Project Study Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. ESA, San Francisco, CA. 101 pp. Fisler, G. G. 1965. Adaptation and speciation in harvest mice of the marshes of San Francisco Bay. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 77:1-108. 11 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco, CA/Oakland, CA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board: 209 p. Goals Project. 2015. The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Science Update 2015 prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1989a. Salt Marsh Harvest Mice in Tidal Marshes of Peyton Slough and Suisun Bay and in Shell Marsh. Pilot and Reconnaissance Study for the Shell Oil Spill Assessment and Recovery Monitoring Environmental Effects Program. Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc. H. T. Harvey & Associates, Los Gatos CA. Project 439-02. 70pp. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1989b. Acme Wetlands Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Surveys. Prepared for CH2MHill, San Jose, CA. Project 513-03. H. T. Harvey & Associates, Los Gatos, CA. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1992. Concord Naval Weapons Station Small Mammal Characterization. October 20. Alviso, California. Prepared for PRC Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1996. Concord Naval Weapons Station Small Mammal Characterization. H. T. Harvey & Associates. Los Gatos, CA. Report to PRC Environmental Management, San Francisco CA. 17pp. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Tosco Pipeline Spill Site Assessment of Wildlife Use. July 28. Los Gatos, California. Prepared for Montgomery Watson. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. Naval Weapons Station, Concord Small Mammal Characterization. November 25. Los Gatos, California. Prepared for Tetra Tech EM. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2001. Pacheco Creek at Waterfront Road Release Site, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Trapping. July 3. San Jose, California. Prepared for Levine Fricke. H. T. Harvey & Associates, Los Gatos CA. Project 1913-01. 10 pp. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2006. Marsh studies in South San Francisco Bay: 2005-2008. California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Survey Report, 2006. Prepared for the City of San Jose. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2010. Lower Coyote Creek Flood Control Project Reach 1A Marsh Management Area salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring report for 2009. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Shellhammer, H. S. 1982. Reithrodontomys raviventris. Mammalian Species 169(1-3). 12 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Shellhammer, H. S. 1989. Salt marsh harvest mice, urban development, and rising sea levels. Conservation Biology 3(1):59-65. Shellhammer H. S. and R. Duke. 2004. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Habitat in the South San Francisco Bay: an analysis of habitat fragmentation and escape cover. San Francisco Estuary Institute. 26 pp+maps. Shellhammer, H. S. 2005. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Data Base and Maps. San Francisco Estuary Institute. https://www.sfei.org/content/salt-marsh-harvest-mouse-database-and-maps Smith, K. R. 2014. Emerging Perspectives on Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Conservation and Management – Ducks, Dikes and Demographics. Presentation at the Bay-Delta Science Conference, Sacramento CA. http://scienceconf2014.deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2014-10-30-306PM1- SMITH.pdf Smith, K. R. 2017. The Ecology of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice in Managed and Tidal Wetlands. Presentation at the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Symposium, U. C. Davis. May 2017. Smith, K. R., L. Barthman-Thompson, W. R. Gould, K. E. Mabry. 2014. Effects of Natural and Anthropogenic Change on Habitat Use and Movement of Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. PLoS ONE 9(10): e108739. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108739. Smith, K. R., L. Barthman-Thompson, M. K. Riley, and S. Estrella. 2017. Mice in the Anthropocene: Refuge in the build environment for the critically endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. Presentation at the 12th International Mammalogical Congress. Smith, K. R, Riley, M. K, Barthman–Thompson, I. Woo, M. J. Statham, S. Estrella, and D. A. Kelt. 2018. Towards Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 16(2). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2w06369x. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project C-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 1 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 May 28, 2019 Paul Detjens, CCCFCWCD Michelle Orr, Environmental Science Associates Michael G. Burns, PG, CEG, CHG and Melissa Carter, PE Environmental Science Associates Updated Soil Quality Assessment Report Introduction The Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project), led by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (District), proposes to restore and enhance tidal wetlands along the southern shore of Suisun Bay and from Suisun Bay upstream along Walnut Creek and its tributary Pacheco Creek, to provide sustainable flood protection, and to create opportunities for future public access through the Project area. The proposed project is described in ESA’s report titled Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Project Study Report, dated December 2017 (ESA, 2017). The Project area consists of the North Reach, located between Waterfront Road and Suisun Bay in the area historically called “Pacheco Marsh”; the Middle Reach, located between Pacheco Creek and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) embankment; and the South Reach, located between the BNSF Railroad embankment and the confluence of Pacheco and Walnut Creeks (see Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of this assessment is to consolidate the available site-specific soil and sediment (soil) testing data from investigations conducted within the footprint of the proposed project and compare those soil testing results to reuse guidelines and background levels, as available. The testing data was consolidated from the following reports:  ESA, 2017, Analytical Report, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, September 11  US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2009, laboratory analytical results based on Draft Field Sampling Plan, Lower Walnut Creek Flood Control, Contra Costa County, November 2008  Ninyo & Moore, 2007, Sediment Sampling along Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek, Concord, California, May 11  Jonas & Associates, 2002, Site Characterization Report, Praxis Property, Martinez, California, Contra Costa County, Public Works Department, January 22  ENGEO and Advanced Biological Testing, 1994, Final Report, Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments from the Lower Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel, April 20 !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. §¨¦680 W a te rfro n t R d Solano W ay Central Ave Water b i r d Way Service Rd Driveway Waterbird W ay SB22 SB23SB7SB8 SB24 SB9 SB25 SB21 SB20 SB6 SB5 SB19 SB10 SB26 SB11 SB4 SB3 SB12 SB27 SB18 SB13 SB2 SB1 SB14 SB15SB16 SB17 SW1 B-1 B-5 B-4 B-2 B-3 HA-5 HA-4 HA-3 HA-1 HA-2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 BG 1 ACME1 ACME2 ACME3 ACME4 ACME5 ACME6 ACME7 Baker1 Baker2 Baker3 Baker4 BG2 WC-S1 WC-S2 WC-S3 WC-S4 Path: \\esa\esa\GIS\GIS\Projects\17xxxx\D170378.00_Lower_Walnut_Creek_Restoration\03_MXDs_Projects\Soil Quality Locations - District Land Alternative.mxd, gahern 3/14/2019Figure 1 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project . D170378.00 Soil Sampling Locations - District Land Alternative ¯0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 Miles Soil Sample Locations Status !.Exceeds Guidance Criteria !.Meets Guidance Criteria Exceeds Guidance Criteria Cut & Fill Elevations 6 - 8 4 - 6 2 - 4 0 - 2 -2 - 0 -4 - -2 -6 - -4 -8 - -6 < -8 North Reach - District Lands Middle Reach South Reach > 8 !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. §¨¦680 W a te rfro n t R d Solano W ay Central Ave Water b i r d Way Service Rd Driveway Waterbird W ay SB22 SB23SB7SB8 SB24 SB9 SB25 SB21 SB20 SB6 SB5 SB19 SB10 SB26 SB11 SB4 SB3 SB12 SB27 SB18 SB13 SB2 SB1 SB14 SB15SB16 SB17 SW1 B-1 B-5 B-4 B-2 B-3 HA-5 HA-4 HA-3 HA-1 HA-2 WC-S1 WC-S2 WC-S3 WC-S4 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 BG 1 ACME1 ACME2 ACME3 ACME4 ACME5 ACME6 ACME7 Baker1 Baker2 Baker3 Baker4 BG2 Figure 2 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project . D170378.00 Soil Sampling Locations - Expanded Land Alternative ¯0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05 MilesPath: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\17xxxx\D170378.00_Lower_Walnut_Creek_Restoration\03_MXDs_Projects\Soil Quality Locations_Expanded Alternative.mxd, gahern 3/14/2019Soil Sample Locations Status !.Exceeds Guidance Criteria !.Meets Guidance Criteria Exceeds Guidance Criteria Cut & FIll Elevations 6 - 8 4 - 6 2 - 4 0 - 2 -2 - 0 -4 - -2 -6 - -4 -8 - -6 North Reach - Expanded Middle Reach South Reach < -8 > 8 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 4 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 The above-listed investigations analyzed soil for a suite of various chemicals. All of the investigations analyzed soil for metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. Some of the investigations did not analyze for the entire suite of other listed chemicals, as summarized below in Table 1. One set of bioassay testing was performed, also as listed below. Finally, the USACE sampling event included the collection and analyses of samples considered to represent local background. In addition, the Engeo samples were collected from within the Lower Walnut Creek channel, which would not be disturbed as a part of the proposed project. Instead, the Engeo samples represent the “background” level of chemicals in sediment being washed down to channel from inland areas. Table 1. Summary of Analytical Testing ESA, 2017 USACE, 2009 Ninyo & Moore, 2007 Jonas, 2002 ENGEO, 1994 Metals X X X X X Petroleum hydrocarbons X X X X Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) X ?? X Organochlorine Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) X X X Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) X X Organophosphorous pesticides & herbicides X Dioxins and furans X Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) X Phthalate esters X Organotins X X Other inorganics X X Bioassay X The locations of the soil samples are shown on Figure 1 – District Land Alternative, and Figure 2 – Expanded Alternative, which show the overall project boundary and the subset of that area where soil movement and/or relocation is proposed. Overall, the soil sample locations are more concentrated in the North Reach and more limited in and adjacent to the South and Middle Reaches, reflecting the nature and extent of the earthwork needed to restore each reach of the project. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, a majority of the grading within the Project area is located in the North Reach, whereas the grading in the South and Middle Reaches is limited to removing existing levees, creating new setback levees, raising existing access roads, and excavating tidal channels. The purpose of this soil quality assessment is to evaluate if the soil that may be moved and reused within the proposed project footprint is suitable for reuse. Note that at this time, soil quality data for the Suisun Property parcel at the far northwest corner of the proposed project is not available. It is assumed that any soil quality issues that are inconsistent with habitat restoration of the Suisun Property parcel will be resolved as part of a separate effort between the current land-owner a third party. It is also important to note that the proposed project is a net zero import-export project. In other words, the existing soil at the site would be rearranged to create tidal channels and levees but no soil would be brought on to the site and no soil would be exported offsite. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 5 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Comparison Methodology To evaluate the suitability of the existing site soils for reuse in a wetlands habitat setting, the testing results were compared to beneficial reuse guidelines or background levels published by the sources cited below.  Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February  US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals and DDT  RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May  USACE, 2009, Analytical results for samples considered to represent background levels The above-listed guidelines are focused on the beneficial reuse of soil or background levels. However, guidelines or background levels have not been developed for all of the tested chemicals. To provide some guidance for chemicals without beneficial reuse guidelines, the May 2016 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) were used for petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH] as gasoline, diesel, or motor oil), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), where detected. ESLs are screening levels use by regulatory agencies throughout the state to assess whether further investigation and possibly cleanup is needed at sites where hazardous materials are suspected to have been spilled. ESLs are risk-based levels largely based on human health and are therefore not directly applicable to an ecological habitat. Nonetheless, the use of ESLs provides at least some comparative guidance as to whether a given chemical is present in soil at levels that might be unsuitable for a wetland habitat. The chemical testing results are first compared to background levels, where available. If the concentration of a chemical is below background levels, then the soil at that location is considered suitable for reuse relative to that chemical. Note that in some cases, background levels have not been developed for some chemicals. If a chemical concentration is above background levels or no background level is available, then that chemical is compared to the guidelines listed above. If the chemical concentration is below the guidelines, then the soil at that location is considered suitable for reuse relative to that chemical. If the chemical concentration for that chemical is above one or more of the guidelines, then the soil at that location may be considered unsuitable for reuse due to that chemical. However, as discussed further below, the exceedance of a guideline level at one or a few sample locations due to the presence of one chemical does not necessarily mean the soil for the entire project site is unsuitable. As the project site is graded and recontoured, the soil at one location with an exceedance would be blended in with the rest of the soil at the project site and the overall concentrations of that given chemical will likely decrease to below the guideline. Testing Results The analytical testing results are tabulated on the following tables, along with guidelines and background levels, if available. Concentrations that exceeded background and guidance levels are in bold text. Note that tables are not provided for those suites of chemicals where there were no detections, as discussed further below. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 6 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 2 Summary of Metals Sampling Results, ESA, 2017 All Samples within the North Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 HA1 HA2 HA2 HA3 HA4 HA5 Chemical Upper 5 feet 6.5-7 / 9.9.5 feet Upper 5 feet 4-4.5 / 8-8.5 feet Upper 5 feet 3.5-4 / 8.5-9 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet 6.3-6.8 / 8.2- 8.7 feet Upper 5 feet 7-7.5 / 9.5-10 feet Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet Surface Foundatio n Antimony 0.36 -- 0.36 -- 0.46 -- 0.13 0.17 -- 0.16 -- 0.67 0.40 0.59 0.57 0.74 0.66 0.64 0.54 -- -- 78 -- Arsenic 6.6 -- 7.3 -- 9.6 -- 5.0 5.4 -- 11 -- 10 8.5 11 12 16 14 13 12 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium 83 -- 96 -- 120 -- 45 54 -- 38 -- 72 80 76 74 81 100 81 47 -- -- 330 -- Beryllium 0.34 -- 0.38 -- 0.49 -- 0.20 0.19 -- 0.19 -- 0.49 0.40 0.46 0.41 0.49 0.59 0.46 0.24 -- -- 40 -- Cadmium 0.25 -- 0.20 -- 0.30 -- ND 0.067 -- 0.080 -- 0.31 0.28 0.31 0.091 0.31 0.59 0.22 ND 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 53 -- 51 -- 66 -- 52 48 -- 170 -- 63 56 67 59 62 78 70 47 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt 8.0 -- 11 -- 13 -- 13 13 -- 14 -- 9.5 11 13 7.0 11 14 10 5.0 -- -- 13 -- Copper 34 -- 33 -- 44 -- 10 14 -- 15 -- 47 38 49 33 57 68 41 36 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 12 -- 19 -- 19 -- 3.9 4.2 -- 5.5 -- 21 16 24 12 23 21 17 19 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury 0.078 0.15 / 0.27 0.090 0.12 / 0.12 0.15 0.31 / 0.28 0.019 0.023 0.044 / 0.25 0.058 0.30 / 0.12 0.23 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.27 0.24 0.17 0.18 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenum 0.73 -- 0.54 -- 0.67 -- ND ND -- 0.29 -- 0.97 0.59 1.0 1.3 0.94 0.74 1.7 0.85 -- -- -- -- Nickel 50 -- 57 -- 77 -- 63 65 -- 160 -- 57 63 61 45 59 85 60 34 230 230 38 112 Selenium 0.27 0.31 / 0.30 0.25 0.28 / 0.27 0.36 0.41 / 0.27 ND ND 0.22 / 0.39 ND 0.34 / 0.42 0.38 0.31 0.41 0.36 0.42 0.50 0.53 0.25 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver 0.16 -- 0.11 -- 0.14 -- ND ND -- 0.062 -- 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.090 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium ND -- 0.11 -- 0.13 -- ND ND -- ND -- 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14 ND -- -- -- -- Vanadium 53 -- 52 -- 68 -- 50 45 -- 44 -- 63 56 62 67 65 78 73 50 -- -- -- -- Zinc 64 -- 64 -- 86 -- 48 49 -- 40 -- 92 81 98 60 98 120 83 46 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and plants) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May -- = not analyzed or not established ND = Not detected above reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 7 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 3 Summary of Metals Sampling Results – USACE, 2009 Group LWC-Acme Acme Background LWC-Baker Baker Background Guidelines and Background Boring 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 BG1 01 01 02 03 03 04 04 BG2 BG2 Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) Chemical / Depth in Feet 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 5.0 0.5 4.5 Surface Foundation Antimony 0.72 0.30 0.53 0.20 0.62 0.41 0.66 0.33 <0.9 <0.8 <0.7 <0.7 <0.7 <0.7 0.22 <0.7 0.21 -- -- 78 -- Arsenic 10.2 8.2 9.8 10.2 7.8 11.3 9.5 8.1 7.3 7.7 6.5 10.0 4.6 6.7 11.2 5.7 2.7 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium 282 186 278 325 339 326 267 203 134 227 192 134 161 313 153 180 91.2 -- -- 330 -- Beryllium 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.51 0.72 0.76 0.60 0.52 0.48 0.65 0.44 0.16 0.26 0.74 0.31 0.43 0.11 -- -- 40 -- Cadmium 0.25 0.46 0.33 0.11 0.68 0.64 0.25 0.63 0.34 0.53 0.43 0.21 0.23 0.31 0.33 0.20 0.11 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 68.6 60.9 62.5 34.8 60.1 58.7 56.6 56.7 78.4 68.0 57.2 80.1 33.4 69.5 60.6 52.7 21.8 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt 13.8 18.2 17.1 13.1 14.9 17.1 13.0 14.2 11.0 13.5 13.7 7.2 7.4 14.3 11.2 11.5 5.3 -- -- 13 -- Copper 57.7 58.6 49.5 42.0 46.4 41.9 40.5 41.6 48.0 46.5 38.0 50.5 24.5 45.6 34.4 33.5 11.9 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 50.0 29.5 41.7 17.5 32.8 18.5 59.0 20.0 20.7 18.8 20.5 14.5 12.6 18.7 20.1 15.4 7.2 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury 0.14 0.23 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.09 1 0.11 0.096 0.082 0.045 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenu m 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.86 0.83 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.0 0.71 0.95 1.6 0.64 0.74 0.60 0.77 0.53 -- -- -- -- Nickel 74.3 100 89.1 36.6 74.1 74.9 68.2 66.2 72.0 73.1 59.8 53.6 32.6 70.5 73.2 61.4 19.9 230 230 38 112 Selenium 0.58 0.82 0.96 0.78 0.67 0.63 0.51 1.3 1.3 0.96 0.65 0.95 0.43 1.0 0.75 0.58 <0.7 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium <3.1 <3.5 <2.7 <2.6 <3.2 <3.1 <3.2 <3.7 <3.5 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 -- -- -- -- Vanadium 78.3 87.2 63.2 60.2 65.5 61.6 75.9 58.0 81.2 64.4 66.8 76.7 37.3 70.6 46.2 52.3 29.7 -- -- -- -- Zinc 122 184 125 98.6 118 89.3 103 117 94.0 88.0 77.0 71.3 50.6 93.3 71.3 78.2 33.0 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and pla nts) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 8 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 4 Summary of Metals Sampling Results – Ninyo & Moore, 2007 All Samples just east of North Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) Chemical WC-S1 WC-S2 WC-S3 Surface Foundation Antimony <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- 78 -- Arsenic 3.1 3.1 5.1 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium 62 52 150 -- -- 330 -- Beryllium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- 40 -- Cadmium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 31 20 37 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt 6.7 2.8 9.6 -- -- 13 -- Copper 22 13 24 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 40 3.1 13 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury 0.10 0.14 <0.10 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Nickel 32 16 44 230 230 38 112 Selenium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Vanadium 32 24 39 -- -- -- -- Zinc 58 21 54 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All samples collected within the upper 5 feet All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and pla nts) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 9 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 5a Summary of Metals Sampling Results – Jonas, 2002 All Samples within the North Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 SB9 SB10 SB11 SB12 SB13 SB14 Chemical Composites of 0.5-1 and 3.5-4 feet Surface Foundation Antimony <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- 78 -- Arsenic 2.4 3.5 5.7 7.2 4.8 2.7 5.2 3.9 10 7.1 5.0 6.6 5.0 3.3 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium 84 110 110 59 42 93 29 30 61 51 72 100 100 63 -- -- 330 -- Beryllium <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 -- -- 40 -- Cadmium <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 16 26 47 45 30 36 26 32 43 45 40 36 32 30 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt 6.3 7.8 12 8.1 8.8 13 4.2 5.9 8.4 7.2 8.9 12 8.3 6.1 -- -- 13 -- Copper 11 22 48 43 16 26 8.9 18 54 45 31 35 29 21 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 14 23 21 15 3.4 4.2 3.4 6.3 31 17 12 18 15 12 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury 0.057 0.063 0.18 0.22 0.076 <0.050 <0.05 0 0.088 0.37 0.28 0.13 0.14 0.096 0.095 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenum <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Nickel 21 32 52 43 41 61 23 31 42 36 45 42 37 29 230 230 38 112 Selenium <2.0 <2.0 2.4 <2.0 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Vanadium 19 29 51 47 40 44 29 33 46 45 42 40 36 36 -- -- -- -- Zinc 34 53 73 51 31 47 25 39 72 59 65 70 51 41 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and plants) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 10 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 5b Summary of Metals Sampling Results – Jonas, 2002 All Samples within the North Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) SB15 SB16 SB17 SB18 SB19 SB20 SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24 SB25 SB26 SB27 Chemical Composites of 0.5-1, 2.5-3, 4.5-5, & 9.5-10 Surface Foundation Antimony <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- 78 -- Arsenic <1.0 1.8 <1.0 4.7 2.8 8.7 8.1 4.5 5.2 1.5 11 1.9 1.2 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium 27 97 56 56 52 40 44 51 44 34 36 34 59 -- -- 330 -- Beryllium <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 -- -- 40 -- Cadmium <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 29 31 30 43 47 38 42 38 31 37 30 39 37 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt 6.8 6.4 5.4 9.3 7.9 6.8 7.0 8.3 11 6.8 8.8 6.7 6.3 -- -- 13 -- Copper 17 32 25 43 35 40 26 32 31 21 28 22 23 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 7.2 11 15 12 14 12 11 10 11 9.3 8.9 8.4 8.1 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury <0.05 0 0.058 0.057 0.29 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.72 0.16 0.14 0.10 0.094 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenum 2.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Nickel 31 35 31 42 41 31 35 34 38 30 27 31 33 230 230 38 112 Selenium <2.0 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 3.1 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.4 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -- -- -- -- Vanadium 34 32 32 47 46 46 53 51 47 42 37 41 40 -- -- -- -- Zinc 34 46 53 52 62 57 42 42 44 37 54 38 45 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and plants) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 11 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 6 Summary of Metals Sampling Results - ENGEO, 1994 Chemical North Reach Middle Reach Middle and South Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Surface Foundation Antimony -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 78 -- Arsenic 9.11 4.64 6.93 8.01 7.36 5.55 40.0 40.0 18 15.3 Barium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 330 -- Beryllium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 -- Cadmium 0.521 0.325 0.435 0.469 0.521 0.481 0.250 0.620 32 0.33 Chromium 71.5 45.6 60.8 54.7 56.9 47.6 119 320 -- 112 Cobalt -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 -- Copper 54.9 29.7 44.8 43.0 43.6 36.0 50.0 150 70 68.1 Lead 29.6 26.5 34.5 31.4 34.8 36.0 200 200 120 43.2 Mercury 6.2 3.00 4.71 4.64 4.7 4.0 1.18 1.18 -- 0.43 Molybdenum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nickel 66.8 37.8 58.0 53.4 55.2 49.7 230 230 38 112 Selenium <0.213 <0.113 <0.186 <0.182 <0.196 <0.170 -- -- 0.52 0.64 Silver <0.170 <0.090 <0.151 <0.147 <0.157 <0.137 0.280 2.00 560 0.58 Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Vanadium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Zinc 114 65.6 97.9 86.6 95.7 87.4 1,200 1,200 120 158 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and plants) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 12 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 7 Summary of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sampling Results – ESA, 2017, and Ninyo & Moore, 2007 All Samples within the North Reach B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B2 B3 B3 B3 B4 B4 B4 B4 B5 B5 B5 HA1 HA2 HA2 HA3 HA4 HA4 HA5 HA5 Environmental Screening Levels (a) ESA Samples Upper 5 feet 6.5 feet 9-9.5 feet Upper 5 feet 4-4.5 feet 8-8.5 feet Upper 5 feet 3.5-4 feet 8.5-9 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet 6.3- 6.8 feet 6.3- 6.8 feet Upper 5 feet 7-7.5 feet 9.5-10 feet Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet Upper 1 foot Upper 5 feet TPH-Gasoline <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 TPH – Diesel <1.0 2.6 <1.0 1.4 1.1 3.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.9 5.5 3.8 1.3 <1.0 1.4 4.4 1.7 1.0 1.8 <1.0 <1.0 230 TPH – Motor Oil 5.5 9.4 <5.0 7.2 7.4 6.2 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 < 5.0 12 11 18 140 12 6.0 6.8 9.1 21 7.7 11 8.7 10 <5.0 5,100 All Samples within the North Reach Ninyo & Moore Samples WC-S1 WC-S2 WC-S3 TPH-Gasoline <1.8 <0.98 <0.96 100 TPH – Diesel 2.4 <1.0 3.7 230 TPH – Motor Oil 3.1 2.2 8.1 5,100 Benzene <0.0089 <0.0049 <0.0048 0.044 Toluene <0.0089 <0.0049 <0.0048 2.9 Ethylbenzene <0.0089 <0.0049 <0.0048 1.4 Xylenes <0.018 <0.0098 <0.0096 2.3 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million (a) SF RWQCB, 2016, Environmental Screening Levels, February <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 13 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 8 Summary of Organics Sampling Results – USACE, 2009 Group LWC-Acme Acme Background LWC-Baker Baker Background Boring 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 BG1 01 01 02 03 03 04 04 BG2 BG2 Environmental Screening Levels (a) Chemical / Depth in Feet 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 5.0 0.5 4.5 Surface Benzene <7.7 <18.0 1.1 J <6.4 <16.0 1.3 J 1.0 J 2.4 J <8.9 <7.5 1.4 J <7.4 2.4 J <6.8 <6.8 1.0 J 1.3 J 44 Toluene <7.7 <18.0 <6.8 <6.4 <16.0 <7.6 >7.9 <18.0 <8.9 <7.5 <7.4 <7.4 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.6 2,900 Ethylbenzene <7.7 <18.0 <6.8 <6.4 <16.0 <7.6 >7.9 <18.0 <8.9 <7.5 <7.4 <7.4 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.6 1,400 Xylenes <7.7 <18.0 <6.8 <6.4 <16.0 <7.6 >7.9 <18.0 <8.9 <7.5 <7.4 <7.4 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.6 2,300 Bromoform <7.7 <18.0 1.7 J <6.4 <16.0 <7.6 >7.9 <18.0 <8.9 <7.5 <7.4 <7.4 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.6 1,700 Chloromethane <7.7 <18.0 5.9 J <6.4 <16.0 <7.6 >7.9 <18.0 <8.9 <7.5 <7.4 <7.4 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.8 <6.6 29,000 Notes: All concentrations in micrograms per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per billion Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) SF RWQCB, 2016, Environmental Screening Levels, February (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 14 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 9 Summary of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sampling Results – Jonas, 2002, and ENGEO, 1994 All Samples within the North Reach Jonas Samples SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 SB7 SB8 SB9 SB10 SB11 SB12 SB13 SB14 Environmental Screening Levels (a) TPH-Gasoline <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 TPH – Diesel 6.0 3.5 8.9 11 5.9 17 - 81 3.0 5.0 2.2 - 26 9.7 2.2 8.7 - 18 2.3 to 27 8.9 230 TPH – Motor Oil <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - 120 <50 <50 <50 - 67 <50 <50 <50 - 140 <50 – 51 <50 5,100 Benzene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.044 Toluene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 2.9 Ethylbenzene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 1.4 Xylenes <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 2.3 MTBE <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 42 All Samples within the North Reach Jonas Samples SB15 SB16 SB17 SB18 SB19 SB20 SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24 SB25 SB26 SB27 TPH-Gasoline <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 TPH – Diesel 8.2 2.7 9.5 2.4 11 11 3.4 - 62 9.6 3.5 - 19 2.1 10 8.9 7.9 - 70 230 TPH – Motor Oil <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - 120 <50 <50 - 51 <50 <50 <50 <50 - 86 5,100 Benzene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.044 Toluene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 2.9 Ethylbenzene <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 1.4 Xylenes <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 2.3 MTBE <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 42 All Samples just east of North Reach ENGEO Samples Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 TRPH 146 72.7 100 102 83.8 99.3 230; 5,100 Notes: All concentrations in milligrams per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per million TRPH = total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (a) SF RWQCB, 2016, Environmental Screening Levels, February <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 15 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 10 Summary of Phthalate Esters Sampling Results - ENGEO, 1994 All Samples within North Reach Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) TEL / PEL (c) Chemical Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Surface Foundation Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 204 49.9 120 124 187 228 -- -- -- 182 / 2,647 Butylbenzyl phthalate ND ND ND ND ND ND -- -- -- -- Di-n-butyl phthalate ND ND 169 182 180 165 -- -- -- -- Diethyl phthalate ND ND ND ND ND ND -- -- -- -- Dimethyl phthalate ND ND ND ND ND ND -- -- -- -- Di-n-octyl phthalate 204 49.9 289 367 393 477 -- -- -- -- Notes: All concentrations in micrograms per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per billion Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and plants) (c) Threshold Effects Levels (TELs) are levels below which biological effects are unlikely and Probable Effects Levels (PELs) above which biological effects are likely, a cited in RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May ND = not detected -- = not analyzed or not established Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 16 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Table 11 Summary of Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs Sampling Results – USACE, 2009 LWC-Acme Acme Background LWC-Baker Baker Background Boring 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 BG1 01 01 02 03 03 04 04 BG2 BG2 Wetland Beneficial Use Guidelines (a) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (b) San Francisco Bay Sediments Ambient Concentrations (c) Chemical / Depth in Feet 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 4.0 0.5 5.0 0.5 4.5 Surface Foundation DDD <77.0 <88.0 9.3 J <64.0 <79.0 <76.0 <79.0 <92.0 <89.0 <75.0 <74.0 <74.0 <68.0 12 J <68.0 <68.0 <66.0 250 250 -- 7.0 DDE <77.0 <88.0 4.4 J <64.0 <79.0 <76.0 <79.0 <92.0 <89.0 <75.0 <74.0 <74.0 4.6 J <68.0 <68.0 <68.0 <66.0 250 250 -- 7.0 DDT <77.0 <88.0 8.7 J <64.0 <79.0 <76.0 <79.0 <92.0 <89.0 <75.0 <74.0 <74.0 5.4 J <68.0 6.8 J 6.4 J <66.0 250 250 -- 7.0 Chlordane <77.0 <88.0 <68.0 <64.0 <79.0 <76.0 <79.0 <92.0 <89.0 <75.0 <74.0 <74.0 <68.0 <68.0 3.3 J 3.4 J <66.0 69.2 69.2 -- 0.44 Dieldrin <77.0 <88.0 3.0 J <64.0 <79.0 <76.0 <79.0 <92.0 <89.0 <75.0 <74.0 <74.0 <68.0 <68.0 <68.0 2.7 J <66.0 -- -- -- 0.44 PCBs <770 <880 <680 640 790 760 790 920 890 750 740 740 680 680 680 680 680 600 600 -- 14.8 Notes: All concentrations in micrograms per kilogram, approximately equivalent to parts per billion Results in bold exceed background and one or more guidance levels (a) Germano, 2004, An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development, February (b) US EPA, 2005 thru 2007, Ecological Screening Levels, various metals (screening is lowest among soil invertebrates and pla nts) (c) RWQCB, 2000, Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May (J) = Estimated concentration below the reporting limit -- = not analyzed or not established <## = not detected above the cited reporting limit Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 17 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Metals As listed above on Table 1, all five sampling investigations included testing for metals. Overall, the large majority of the testing results were below background levels, indicating the soil is suitable for reuse in a wetlands habitat. A few sample results for a few chemicals exceeded background and guidance levels, as discussed below. There were no exceedance results in the 2007 Ninyo & Moore samplings. Cadmium and Mercury As listed on Tables 2, 3 and 6, cadmium exceeded background and guidance levels in 12 samples out of the 64 samples tested for cadmium, as listed on all of the tables. As listed on Table 6, mercury exceeded background and guidance levels in 6 out of the 69 samples tested for mercury, as listed on all of the tables. However, as shown on Figures 1 and 2, many of these samples are located within the active Lower Walnut Creek channel (i.e., Sites 1 through 6 that include five of the six ENGEO samples that exceeded cadmium guidelines and all six of the ENGEO samples that exceeded guidelines for mercury), suggesting that the creek flow and sedimentation processes in the channel results in the accumulation of cadmium and mercury. Although the channel for Lower Walnut Creek is within the overall project boundary, the channel deposits are not proposed for reuse or dredging. Thus, only seven out of 58 samples have exceedances for cadmium. In addition, and as listed in Table 3, the cadmium exceedances are only slightly above background levels. For the soil at the seven remaining cadmium exceedances, the reworking of soil within the project area would result in reducing the concentrations of the smaller number of samples with cadmium concentration exceedances to below background and guidance levels. Therefore, the soil within the project area is considered suitable for reuse relative to cadmium and mercury. Cobalt As listed on Table 2, six of the total of 64 samples equaled (four results) or exceeded (two) the cobalt ecological screening level of 13 mg/kg by just 1 mg/kg, as listed on all tables. Note that background levels have not been developed for cobalt. The Kearney Foundation conducted a study of background concentrations of various major and trace elements, including cobalt, throughout the state of California (Kearney, 1996). Naturally occurring background cobalt concentrations ranged from 2.7 to 46.9 mg/kg, with a mean concentration of 14.9 mg/kg. This suggests that the concentrations of cobalt detected in the project site soils are typical of background levels and the soil is suitable for reuse. Selenium As listed on Tables 3, 5a, and 5b, selenium exceeded background and guidance levels in 14 out of the 69 samples tested for selenium, as listed on all of the tables. Selenium is known to naturally accumulate in wetland habitats. Note that the samples with selenium exceedances in the 2002 Jonas data set have a relatively higher reporting limit of 2.0 mg/kg, compared to all of the other data sets with reporting limits of 1.0 mg/kg or less. This suggests that the Jonas data set was not as sensitive, and perhaps not at accurate compared to the other data sets. The USACE data set has a lower reporting limit, suggesting greater sensitivity. In any case, the reworking of soil within the project area would result in reducing the selenium concentrations of the smaller number of samples with exceedances to below background and guidance levels. Therefore, the soil within the project footprint is considered suitable for reuse relative to selenium. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 18 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Zinc As listed on Table 3, one of the total of 64 samples equaled or exceeded the zinc ecological screening level of 120 mg/kg and various background levels, as listed on all tables. Given that only one sample exceeded guideline and background levels, the reworking of soil within the project area would result in reducing the zinc concentration in the one sample with an exceedance to below background and guidance levels. Therefore, the soil within the area is considered suitable for reuse relative to zinc. Petroleum Hydrocarbons As listed above on Table 1, four of the five sampling investigations included testing for petroleum hydrocarbons, quantified as TPH as gasoline, diesel, and motor. The USACE sampling investigation included testing for volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), which are components of petroleum fuels. As listed on Tables 6 and 7, TPH as gasoline was not detected above reporting limits. TPH as diesel and TPH as motor oil were detected in many samples at concentrations up to 81 and 140, respectively. No reuse guidelines have been developed for petroleum hydrocarbons. The ESLs for diesel and motor oil are 230 and 5,100 mg/kg, respectively, for a residential setting. As previously discussed, ESLs are risk-based levels based on human health and are therefore not directly applicable to an ecological habitat. Nonetheless, the use of ESLs provides some comparative guidance as to whether a given chemical is present in soil at levels that might be deleterious to a wetland habitat. Given that the detections are below the residential TPH ESLs, the soil is considered suitable for reuse in a wetlands habitat. Note that Tables 6, 7, and 8 also include some testing results for BTEX, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). BTEX and MTBE are components of fuels. All of the BTEX and MTBE testing results were below reporting limits, also indicating the soil is suitable for reuse. Table 7 includes the 1994 ENGEO testing result for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) that used an analytical method that combines diesel and motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbons. As listed, all of the test results are below both the diesel and motor soil ESLs, indicating the soil is suitable for reuse. Phthalate esters As listed above on Table 1, one sampling investigation included testing for phthalate esters (e.g., plasticizers); the results are listed on Table 10. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and di-n-octyl phthalate were detected above reporting limits in most of the samples. Guidelines have been developed only for bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Threshold Effects Levels (TELs) are levels below which biological effects are unlikely and Probable Effects Levels (PELs) above which biological effects are likely (RWQCB, 2000). Four of the samples had concentrations above the TEL; all of the sample results were below the PEL. However, as previously discussed, all of these ENGEO samples are located within the Lower Walnut Creek channel, which is not proposed for reuse or dredging. Organochlorine Pesticides, PCBs, Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Organotins Some sampling investigations included testing for organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and organotins. These chemicals were not detected above reporting limits in any of Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 19 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 the samples, with one exception. Dieldrin, an organochlorine pesticide, was detected in on sample at an estimated concentration of 3.0 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg), well below the reporting limit of 68 ug/kg. An estimated detection means that the laboratory analysis detected a trace amount of the constituent but the concentration is an uncertain estimate. Given that dieldrin was detected in only one sample, the reworking of soil within the project area would result in reducing the diedrin concentration in the one sample to below background and guidance levels. Therefore, the soil within the area is considered suitable for reuse. Other Organic and Inorganic Compounds Various other tests were conducted for naturally occurring organic and inorganic chemicals, including sulfate, sulfides, nitrate, ammonia, and total organic carbon. These naturally occurring organic and inorganic chemicals do not have beneficial reuse guidelines, are naturally occurring, and are not considered to be able to adversely affect the wetland habitat. Bioassay The 1994 ENGEO investigation included liquid/suspended-particulate bioassay testing and solid phase bioassay testing. As previously discussed, all of the ENGEO samples are dredge sediment samples located within the Lower Walnut Creek channel, which is not proposed for reuse or dredging. The investigation was conducted for a separate project to evaluate whether ocean disposal of the dredged sediments would be acceptable or whether the dredged sediments would require disposal in upland areas that have a higher tolerance level. The liquid/suspended-particulate bioassay tests were conducted by mixing dredged sediments with seawater from Bodega Bay and using the elutriate. This seawater would be more saline than the Suisun Bay water that would periodically inundate portions of the proposed project area. Bay mussels (Mytilus edulis) were added to the elutriate and the rate of abnormal versus normal development of larvae that resulted were counted. The soil-phase bioassay tests were conducted on the whole sediment by adding a small amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius) that burrows into the sediment and counting the survival rate. Similar to the liquid/suspended- particulate bioassay tests above, Bodega Bay seawater was added over the sediments. The results if the bioassay tests indicated that there are a few locations where the channel sediments would not be suitable for ocean disposal of the sediments. The results indicated that all of the sediments could be deposited in upland areas, such as the footprint of the proposed project. Discussion The testing results indicated some sample locations that exceeded guidelines for a few chemical compounds. Almost all of the exceedances are for metals; wetland areas are known to accumulate metals. Consequently, given the location of the proposed restoration project along the Carquinez Straight, Suisun Bay, Lower Walnut Creek, and Pacheco Creek, this area would be expected to naturally accumulate metals over time; the presence of metals at elevated levels is expected. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 20 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 However, the number of samples with concentrations that exceed background and guidance levels relative to the total number of samples collected and analyzed indicates a relatively low rate of exceedances, largely ten percent or less of the total number of samples. This indicates that while anthropomorphic activities have likely slightly increased the concentrations of a few metals above background or guidance levels in a few locations, the overall dataset shows the large majority of soil has metals concentrations that are below background and guidance levels. Consequently, the reworking of onsite soil within the project area would blend soil with the exceedances with other onsite soil, resulting in reducing overall concentrations to below guidance and background levels. The bioassay test results also indicated that the soil would be suitable for upland disposal. As shown on Figures 1 and 2, the locations of samples with chemical concentrations that exceed guideline and background levels are located within both cut and fill areas in no particular pattern. As previously discussed, the proposed project is a net zero import-export project, meaning that soil will be moved around but not removed from the site. More importantly, the soil excavated from the cut areas would be placed on fill areas increasing the elevation at those locations. This would result in relocating soil, including some soil with exceedances, to higher elevation locations further above areas to be periodically flooded by tidal action. By reducing the exposure of some soil to tidal action, the project would also result in reducing the potential for tidal water to mobilize metals, thereby leaving the metals onsite and reducing their ability to migrate offsite. The reworking of soil on this site in a manner that results in a net zero import-export of soil also avoids consuming the capacity of offsite landfills with material that, while slightly above some background and guidance levels, is well below hazardous waste levels. For example, the hazardous waste level (Total Threshold Limit Concentration) for selenium is 100 mg/kg, well above the maximum reported onsite concentration of 3.1 mg/kg. In other words, the few soil samples with concentrations above background or guidance levels are not hazardous waste. Finally, given the relatively low number of and sporadic distribution of guidance level exceedances in soil, the risk to the visiting public would also be low. The proposed design of the trails would prevent exposure of the public to onsite soil because the trails are proposed to constructed of 4 inches of decomposed granite on top of 6 inches of aggregate base (sand/gravel mix). The 10-inch thick trails would isolate the few soil exceedances from the public. During the construction activities, construction workers would be in contact with the soil. However, the chemicals detected above guidance levels are relatively immobile. Unlike volatile compounds such as gasoline, the detected chemicals would not present a respiratory hazard. The exposure route would be dermal (touch) or ingestion (eat). During construction activities, construction workers that may directly or indirectly be exposed to onsite soil or groundwater would perform work in accordance with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) regulations. All site construction activities associated with exposure to onsite soil or groundwater would be required to be conducted in compliance with a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to protect workers and the environment from site contaminants. The site specific HASP would be prepared according to Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 5192 and Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120. The HASP would include provisions for personal protective equipment to be worn by workers during site redevelopment activities. The District would be required to provide this Soil Quality Assessment report to the contractors to inform the preparation of their HASP. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project 21 ESA /D170378 Soil Quality Assessment May 2019 Given the sampling results and the discussion above, the soil is considered suitable for reuse for the proposed project. References ENGEO. 1994. Final Report: Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments from the Lower Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. April 20, 1994. Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA, 2017a). 2017. Analytical Report, Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. September 11, 2017. Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA, 2017b). 2017. Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Project Study Report. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. December 2017. Germano. 2004. An Evaluation of Existing Sediment Screening Guidelines for Wetland Creation/Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Area Along with a Proposed Approach for Alternative Guideline Development. February 2004. Jonas and Associates. Inc. 2002. “Site Characterization Report”. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department. January 22, 2002. Kearney. 1996. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. March 1996. Ninyo & Moore. 2007. Sediment Sampling along Walnut Creek and Grayson Creek, Concord, California. Report prepared for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. May 11, 2007. RWQCB. 2000. Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines, May 25. US EPA. 2005 thru 2007. Ecological Screening Levels, various metals and DDT, available at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-soil-screening-level-eco-ssl-guidance-and-documents Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-1 ESA / D170378 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-1 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 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 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) or its Contractors under the supervision of the District will be responsible for implementing the following measures. The District will be responsible for monitoring to ensure the following measures are effectively implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-2 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The project would result in vehicle emissions and fugitive dust during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures The following applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented by construction contractors to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and equipment exhaust:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-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.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph within the project area.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  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.  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.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the District (or its designee) regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Prior to and during construction Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District); Construction Contractor BAAQMD and District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-3 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The project would result in potential impacts on western pond turtle. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures  A qualified biologist will provide Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAT) to field management and construction personnel. Communication efforts and training will take place during preconstruction meetings so that construction personnel are aware of their responsibilities and the importance of compliance. WEAT will identify the types of sensitive resources located in the project area and the measures required to avoid impacts on these resources. Materials covered in the training program will include environmental rules and regulations for the specific project and requirements for limiting activities to the construction right-of-way and avoiding demarcated sensitive resource areas. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District  If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor will ensure the new personnel receive WEAT before starting work. A sign-in sheet of those contractor individuals who have received the training will be maintained by the project proponent. A representative will be appointed during the WEAT to be the contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a listed species or who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped individual. The representative's name and telephone number will be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) before the initiation of ground disturbance. Prior to and during construction District and Construction Contractor District and USFWS  If individuals of listed wildlife species may be present and subject to potential injury or mortality from construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys. If a listed wildlife species is discovered, construction activities will not begin in the immediate vicinity of the individual until USFWS and/or CDFW is contacted and the individual has been allowed to leave the construction area.  Minimum qualifications for a qualified biologist will be a four-year college degree in biology or related field and demonstrated experience with the species of concern.  Any special-status species observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW so the observations can be added to the CNDDB. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW  All vehicle operators will limit speed to 15 mph within the project area. Prior to and during construction District, Construction Contractor, and Qualified Biologist District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-4 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-1: cont.  Because the work area is larger than 1 acre, the project proponent would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit requirements (State Water Resources Control Board Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The objectives of the SWPPP will be to (1) identify pollutant sources associated with construction activity and project operations that may affect the quality of stormwater and (2) identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction. The project proponents and/or their contractor(s) will develop and implement a spill prevention and control plan as part of the SWPPP to minimize effects of spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction of the project. Implementation of this measure will comply with state and federal water quality regulations. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and during operation of the project and will be made available upon request to representatives of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). The SWPPP will include but is not limited to: a) A description of potential pollutants to stormwater from erosion. b) Management of dredged sediments and hazardous materials present on site during construction (including vehicle and equipment fuels). c) Details of how the sediment and erosion control practices comply with state and federal water quality regulations. d) A description of potential pollutants to stormwater resulting from operation of the project.  The SWPPP will include a hazardous materials management plan (HMMP). The plan will describe the actions that will be taken in the event of a spill. The plan also will incorporate preventive measures to be implemented (such as vehicle and equipment staging, cleaning, maintenance, and refueling) and contaminant (including fuel) management and storage. In the event of a contaminant spill, work at the site immediately will cease until the contractor has contained and mitigated the spill. The contractor will immediately prevent further contamination, notify appropriate authorities, and mitigate damage as appropriate. Adequate spill containment materials, such as oil diapers Prior to and during construction District and Construction Contractor District and Regional Water Board Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-5 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-1: cont. and hydrocarbon cleanup kits, will be available on site at all times. Containers for storage, transportation, and disposal of contaminated absorbent materials will be provided on the project site.  Do not use any hazardous material in excess of reportable quantities, as specified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 355, Subpart J, Section 355.50, unless approved in advance by the Office of Emergency Services (OES), and will provide to the OES in the annual compliance report a list of hazardous materials contained at a project site in reportable quantities. Prior to and during construction District and Construction Contractor District Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Pond Turtle  Preconstruction surveys for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to clearing and grubbing, equipment staging, excavation or other construction-related activity or vegetation management activities requiring the use of heavy equipment (e.g., bobcat), within 150 feet of Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek, as specified below: o Prior to conducting preconstruction surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for western pond turtle and identify nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities. The animal shall be relocated to equivalent or better western pond turtle habitat relative to where it was found. o Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 5 days prior to, and again immediately prior to activities described in the first bullet, above, to identify any presence of western pond turtle. o The qualified biologist shall monitor areas described in the first bullet above, to identify and relocate western pond turtle as necessary. If western pond turtle is observed within the construction area, the qualified biologist shall relocate the individual according to the relocation plan above. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-6 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-2: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status birds. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures above. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds, Except Rails (see Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for rails) Project staging, project construction, vegetation removal (e.g., clearing and grubbing), vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, or tree trimming shall be performed outside of the bird nesting season (February 1st through August 31st) to avoid impacts to nesting birds; if these activities must be performed during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre- construction survey in the project construction and staging areas for nesting birds and verify the presence or absence of nesting birds no more than 14 calendar days prior to construction activities or after any construction breaks of 14 calendar days or more. Surveys shall be performed for the project construction and staging areas and suitable habitat within 250 feet of the project construction and staging areas in order to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 500 feet of the project construction and staging areas to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nest. If nesting birds and raptors do not occur within 250 and 500 feet of the Project area, respectively, then no further action is required if construction begins within 14 calendar days. If active nests are located during the pre-construction bird nesting surveys, no-disturbance buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist. Typically, these buffer distances are between 50 feet and 250 feet for passerines and between 300 feet and 500 feet for raptors. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity and if an obstruction, such as a building or structure, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. Reduced buffers may be allowed if a full-time qualified biologist is present to monitor the nest and has authority to halt construction if bird behavior indicates continued activities could lead to nest failure. Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction-related activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. Prior to and during construction District and Qualified Biologist District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-7 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-3: The project would result in potential impacts on California black rail and Ridgway’s rail. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Construction-related Mitigation Measures above. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail  To minimize or avoid the loss of individual California black rail and Ridgway’s rail, construction activities, including vegetation management activities requiring heavy equipment, adjacent to tidal marsh areas (within 500 feet [150 meters] or a distance determined in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shall be avoided during the breeding season from February 1 through August 31. Prior to and during construction District and Construction Contractor District, USFWS, and CDFW  If areas within or adjacent to rail habitat cannot be avoided during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), protocol-level surveys shall be conducted to determine rail nesting locations. The surveys will focus on potential habitat that could be disturbed by construction activities during the breeding season to ensure that rails are not breeding in these locations. Survey methods for rails will follow the Site-Specific Protocol for Monitoring Marsh Birds, which was developed for use by USFWS and partners to improve bay-wide monitoring accuracy by standardizing surveys and increasing the ability to share data (Wood et al. 2017). Surveys are concentrated during the approximate period of peak detectability, January 15 to March 25 and are structured to efficiently sample an area in three rounds of surveys by broadcasting calls of target species during specific periods of each survey round. Call broadcast increase the probability of detection compared to passive surveys when no call broadcasting is employed. This protocol has since been adopted by Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) and Point Blue Conservation Science to survey Ridgway’s rails at sites throughout San Francisco Bay Estuary. The survey protocol for Ridgway’s rail is summarized below. o Previously used survey locations (points) should be used when available to maintain consistency with past survey results. Adjacent points should be at least 200 meters apart along transects in or adjacent to areas representative of the marsh. Points should be located to minimize disturbances to marsh vegetation. Up to 8 points can be located on a transect. Prior to and during construction District and Qualified Biologist District, USFWS Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-8 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-3: cont. o At each transect, three surveys (rounds) are to be conducted, with the first round of surveys initiated between January 15 and February 6, the second round performed February 7 to February 28, and the third round March 1 to March 25. Surveys should be spaced at least one week apart and the period between March 25 to April 15 can be used to complete surveys delayed by logistical or weather issues. A Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is required to conduct active surveys. o Each point on a transect will be surveyed for 10 minutes each round. A recording of calls available from USFWS is broadcast at each point. The recording consists of 5 minutes of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of Ridgway’s rail vocalizations, followed by 30 seconds of silence, followed by a 30-second recording of California black rail, followed by 3.5 minutes of silence.  If no breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are detected during surveys, or if their breeding territories can be avoided by 500 feet (150 meters), then project activities may proceed at that location.  If protocol surveys determine that breeding Ridgway’s rails or black rails are present in the project area, the following measures would apply to project activities conducted during their breeding season (February 1- August 31): o A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with experience recognizing Ridgway’s rail and black rail vocalizations will be on site during construction activities occurring within 500 feet (150 meters) of suitable rail breeding habitat. o All biologists accessing the tidal marsh will be trained in Ridgway’s rail and black rail biology and vocalizations, and will be familiar with both species of rail and their nests. Prior to and during construction District, Qualified Biologist, USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW o If a Ridgway’s rail or black rail vocalizes or flushes within 10 meters, it is possible that a nest or young are nearby. If an alarmed bird or nest is detected, work will be stopped, and workers will leave the immediate area carefully and quickly. An alternate route will be selected that avoids this area, and the location of the sighting will be recorded to inform future activities in the area. o All crews working in the marsh during rail breeding season will be trained and supervised by a USFWS- and CDFW-approved rail biologist. During construction District, Construction Contractor, USFWS- and CDFW-approved rail biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-9 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-3: cont. o If any activities will be conducted during the rail breeding season in Ridgway’s rail- or black rail-occupied marshes, biologists will have maps or GPS locations of the most current occurrences on the site and will proceed cautiously and minimize time spent in areas where rails were detected. Prior to and during construction District and Qualified Biologist District o All personnel walking in the marsh will be required to limit time spent within 50 meters of an identified Ridgway’s rail or black rail calling center to half an hour or less. Prior to, during, and post- construction District, Construction Contractor, and qualified biologist District  For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rail or black rail, the following measures will be implemented: o Only herbicides to be used will be EPA-certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. o Vegetation management activities will be limited to areas outside of tidal marsh and non-tidal pickleweed marsh habitats. Prior to, during, and post- construction District and Vegetation Management Contractor District Impact BIO-4: The project would result in potential impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1 above. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun shrew  A USFWS and CDFW-approved biologist, with knowledge and experience with salt marsh harvest mouse habitat requirements, will conduct pre-construction surveys for the species and identify and mark suitable salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat prior to project initiation. Prior to construction District, USFWS- and CDFW- approved biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW  Ground disturbance to suitable salt marsh harvest mouse habitat (including, but not limited to pickleweed, and emergent salt marsh vegetation including bulrush and cattails) will be avoided to the extent feasible. Where salt marsh harvest mouse habitat cannot be avoided - such as for channel excavation, access routes and grading, or anywhere else that vegetation could be trampled or crushed by work activities - vegetation will be removed from the ground disturbance work area plus a 10-foot buffer around the area, as well as any access routes within salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, utilizing mechanized hand tools or by another method approved by the USFWS and CDFW. Vegetation height shall be maintained at or below 5 inches above ground. Vegetation removal in salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be conducted under the supervision of the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist. Prior to construction District, USFWS- and CDFW- approved biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-10 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-4: cont.  To protect salt marsh harvest mouse from construction-related traffic, access roads, haul routes, and staging areas within 200 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will be bordered by temporary exclusion fencing. The fence should be made of a smooth material that does not allow salt marsh harvest mouse to climb or pass through, of a minimum above-ground height of 30 inches, and the bottom should be buried to a depth of at least 6 inches so that mice cannot crawl under the fence. Any supports for the salt marsh harvest mouse exclusion fencing (e.g., t-posts) will be placed on the inside of the project area. The last 5 feet of the fence shall be angled away from the road to direct wildlife away from the road. A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse experience will be on site during fence installation and will check the fence alignment prior to vegetation clearing and fence installation to ensure no salt marsh harvest mice are present.  Salt marsh harvest mouse marsh habitat that must be accessed by mini-excavators or other vehicles to complete project construction (e.g., excavating connector channels to Lower Walnut Creek) will be protected through use of low ground pressure (LGP) equipment, wooden or PVC marsh mats, or other method approved by USFWS and CDFW following vegetation removal (see 3rd bullet, above). Prior to and during construction District, Construction Contractor, USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse experience District, USFWS, and CDFW  Construction activities related to restoration and recreational infrastructure, as well as ongoing Operations and Maintenance activities will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Extreme high tides would be in excess of six feet as predicted for the nearest tide gauge, Point Chicago tide gauge.  All construction equipment and materials will be staged on existing roadways and away from suitable wetland habitats when not in use. Prior to and during construction; During Operations and Maintenance District, Construction Contractor District  Vegetation shall be removed from all non-marsh areas of disturbance (driving roads, grading and stockpiling areas) to discourage presence of salt marsh harvest mouse. Prior to and during construction District, Construction contractor District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-11 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-4: cont.  A USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience will be on site during construction activities occurring in suitable habitat. The biologist will document compliance with the project permit conditions and avoidance and conservation measures. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has the authority to stop project activities if any of the requirements associated with these measures is not being fulfilled. If salt marsh harvest mouse is observed in the work area, construction activities will cease in the immediate vicinity of the salt marsh harvest mouse. The individual will be allowed to leave the area before work is resumed. If the individual does not move on its own volition, the USFWS-approved biologist would contact USFWS (and CDFW if appropriate) for further guidance on how to proceed. During Construction District, USFWS- and CDFW- approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience District, USFWS, and CDFW  If the USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist has requested work stoppage because of take of any of the listed species, or if a dead or injured salt marsh harvest mouse is observed, the USFWS and CDFW will be notified within one day by email or telephone. During Construction District, USFWS- and CDFW- approved biologist with previous salt marsh harvest mouse monitoring and/or surveying experience District, USFW, and CDFW  For vegetation management activities in suitable habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, the following measures shall be implemented: o Only herbicides to be used will be EPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. o Work in upland habitat within 100 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew habitat will be scheduled to avoid extreme high tides when there is potential for salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew to move to higher, drier grounds, such as ruderal and grassland habitats. Extreme high tides would be in excess of six feet as predicted for the nearest tide gauge, Port Chicago tide gauge. Prior to, during, and after construction District, and Vegetation Management Contractor; Construction contractor District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-12 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-5: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status plants. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Special-Status Plant Protection To ensure protection of special-status plants, the following measures will be implemented.  Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a properly-timed special-status plant survey for Suisun marsh aster, delta tule pea, soft bird’s beak, Mason’s lilaeopsis, Bolander’s water hemlock, delta mudwort, Congdon’s tarplant, pappose tarplant, Marin knotweed, San Joaquin spearscale, Santa Cruz tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields and long-styled sand spurrey within the species’ suitable habitat within the un-surveyed portions within the project work limits. This includes portions of the State Lands Commission parcel and the Suisun Properties parcel in the North Reach, the Acme landfill parcel in the Middle Reach, and the Conco parcel in the South Reach. The survey will follow the CDFW Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities.  If special-status plant species occur within the project work limits, then the biologist will establish an adequate buffer area for each plant population to exclude activities that directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the special-status plant species.  A qualified biologist will oversee installation of a temporary, plastic mesh-type construction fence (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent) at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall around any established buffer areas to prevent encroachment by construction vehicles and personnel. The qualified biologist will determine the exact location of the fencing. The fencing will be strung tightly on posts set at maximum intervals of 10 feet (3 meters) and will be checked and maintained weekly until all construction is complete. The buffer zone established by the fencing will be marked by a sign stating: o “This is habitat of [list rare plant(s)], and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by [the ESA of 1973, as amended/CESA/California Native Plant Protection Act].” Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District  No construction activity, including grading, shall be allowed until condition number 3 is satisfied. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-13 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-5: cont.  If direct impacts cannot be avoided, the District shall prepare a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) salvage and replant plants at the same location following construction; 2) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable off-site location with long-term assurance of site protection; 3) collect seeds or other propagules for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District  If indirect impacts to special-status plants due to restoration-related introduction of tidal hydrology to non-tidal areas cannot be avoided, the District shall prepare a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) if the special-status plant population is likely to survive the hydrologic modification (based on an assessment by the District’s biologist), monitor the at-risk special- status plant population over 5 years after the hydrologic modification, along with a reference population, to verify that there have been no adverse indirect impacts to the population. If at any point within the 5-years of monitoring, the population is determined to be at risk from project impacts based on monitoring results, then implement (2); 2) if the special-status plant population is not likely to survive the hydrologic modification, then: 1) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable location on site; or 2) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable off-site location with long-term assurance of site protection; or 3) collect seeds or other propagules for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or, 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District  The success criterion for any seeded, planted, and/or relocated plants shall be full replacement at a 1:1 ratio after five years. Monitoring surveys of the seeded, planted, or transplanted individuals shall be conducted for a minimum of five years, to ensure that the success criterion can be achieved at year 5. If it appears the success criterion would not be met after five years, contingency measures may be applied. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to: additional seeding and planting; altering or implementing weed management activities; or, introducing or altering other management activities. Post- construction District and Vegetation Management Contractor District  Any special-status plant species observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW and submitted to the CNDDB. Prior to construction District and Qualified Biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-14 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-6: The project would result in potential impacts on special-status fish. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Construction Work Window for Special- Status Fish To minimize or avoid the loss of individual special-status fish species, in water work shall be limited to September 1 – November 30. If in water work cannot be avoided during this period, measures outlined in Mitigation Measures BIO-8 and BIO-9 shall also be implemented. During construction District and Construction Contractor District Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat Prior to the start of construction of the tidal connector channels, the District shall isolate the work area from Lower Walnut and Pacheco Creeks using a silt curtain with a floating boom installed at the confluence of the new tidal channels and the creeks. Installation of the silt curtain shall contain turbidity and sediment resulting from construction activity, exclude fish from access to the active construction area, and allow water to pass between the connector channels and the creeks with the tides. The curtain shall span the width of the connector channel and shall be at least 6 feet tall to maintain a fish barrier at high tide. The curtain will consist of permeable filter fabric supported by a line of floats on the water surface and a line of weights on the channel bottom. The curtain shall be monitored and maintained regularly. Prior to construction District and Construction Contractor District Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Fish and Marine Mammal Protection During Pile Driving Prior to the start of any in-water construction that would require pile driving, the project sponsor shall prepare a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-approved sound attenuation monitoring plan to protect fish and marine mammals, and the approved plan shall be implemented during construction. This plan shall provide detail on the sound attenuation system, detail methods used to monitor and verify sound levels during pile driving activities (if required based on projected in- water noise levels), and describe best management practices to reduce impact pile-driving in the aquatic environment to an intensity level less than 183 dB (sound exposure level, SEL) impulse noise level for fish at a distance of 33 feet, and 160 dB (root mean square pressure level, RMS) impulse noise level or 120 dB (RMS) continuous noise level for marine mammals at a distance of 1,640 feet. The plan shall incorporate, but not be limited to, the following best management practices:  All in-water construction shall be conducted within the established environmental work window between June 1 and November 30, designed to avoid potential impacts to fish species. Prior to and during construction District and Construction contractor District, NMFS Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-15 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-6: cont.  To the extent feasible vibratory pile drivers shall be used for the installation of all support piles. Vibratory pile driving shall be conducted following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “Proposed Procedures for Permitting Projects that will Not Adversely Affect Selected Listed Species in California.” USFWS and NMFS completed Section 7 consultation on this document, which establishes general procedures for minimizing impacts to natural resources associated with projects in or adjacent to jurisdictional waters.  A soft start technique to impact hammer pile driving shall be implemented, at the start of each work day or after a break in impact hammer driving of 30 minutes or more, to give fish and marine mammals an opportunity to vacate the area.  If during the use of an impact hammer, established NMFS pile driving thresholds are exceeded, a bubble curtain or other sound attenuation method as described in the NMFS-approved sound attenuation monitoring plan shall be utilized to reduce sound levels below the criteria described above. If NMFS sound level criteria are still exceeded with the use of attenuation methods, a NMFS- approved biological monitor shall be available to conduct surveys before and during pile driving to inspect the work zone and adjacent waters for marine mammals. The monitor shall be present as specified by the NMFS during impact pile driving and ensure that: o The safety zones established in the sound monitoring plan for the protection of marine mammals are maintained. o Work activities are halted when a marine mammal enters a safety zone and resumed only after the animal has been gone from the area for a minimum of 15 minutes Impact BIO-7: The project would result in potential impacts on sensitive natural communities. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Mitigation Measures above. See Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat above. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters  The District’s construction contractor(s) shall implement the following general avoidance and minimization measures to protect sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and waters during construction: Prior to and during construction District and Construction Contractor District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-16 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-7: cont.  Work areas shall be delineated with stakes and flagging prior to construction to avoid sensitive natural resources outside of the project area. Any construction-related disturbance outside of these boundaries, including driving, parking, temporary access, sampling or testing, or storage of materials, shall be prohibited without explicit approval of the District and biologist.  The introduction of exotic plant species shall be avoided through physical or chemical removal and prevention. Measures to prevent the introduction of exotic plants into the project site via vehicular sources shall include vehicle cleaning for vehicles coming to the site and leaving the site. Earthmoving equipment shall be cleaned prior to transport to the project area. Weed-free rice straw or other certified weed-free straw shall be used for erosion control.  Construction equipment shall not be stored in sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or waters.  Only herbicides to be used will be USEPA certified for use in/adjacent to aquatic environments. Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Develop and Implement a Restoration Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program The District will develop and submit a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan to be implemented during the monitoring period to assure desired outcomes. The plan will be submitted to the CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and BCDC prior to the start of construction. Elements of this plan shall be based upon final project design and construction documents. The plan shall include description of protocols for monitoring vegetation and geomorphology to evaluate project performance, monitoring schedule, performance criteria and thresholds that would trigger adaptive management actions, and reporting. An annual report shall be prepared and provided to the above-listed regulatory agencies in each year that post-construction monitoring is conducted. Prior to and post- construction District District, BCDC, Regional Water Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and CDFW Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-17 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Biological Resources (cont.) Impact BIO-7: cont. Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Protection of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Fish Habitat Prior to the start of construction or other habitat restoration and conversion activities, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (e.g., sago pondweed) at the shoreline of the North Reach. Locations of SAV shall be mapped in GIS, and the biologist shall establish an adequate buffer area to exclude activities that would directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the SAV. Buffers shall be shown on maps and construction drawings to ensure avoidance. If construction work cannot avoid the SAV buffers, a biologist will be on site during in-water work to ensure that the SAV is avoided. No construction activity, including grading, will be allowed until the above steps are completed. If direct impacts cannot be avoided, the District shall consult with the CDFW to devise a plan for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) salvage and replant native SAV at the same location following construction; 2) salvage and relocate the native SAV to a suitable off-site location with long-term assurance of site protection; 3) collect seeds or other propagules of native SAV for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or 4) payment of fees in lieu of preservation of individual native SAV plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere. In the event that non-native species of SAV are impacted during construction, impacts would be offset using native species such as sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata). Any native SAV observed during surveys will be reported to the USFWS and CDFW. Prior to construction District and USFWS-approved biologist District, USFWS, and CDFW Impact BIO-8: The project would result in potential impacts on wetlands and other waters. See Mitigation Measure BIO-1: General Mitigation Measures and BIO-10: General Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities, Wetlands, and Waters above. Impact BIO-9: The project would result in potential construction-related impacts on movement of native resident or migratory fish species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. See Mitigation Measures BIO-1: General Mitigation Measures, BIO-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds, Except Rails, BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and Ridgway’s Rail, BIO-7: Construction Work Window for Special Status Fish , and BIO-8: Protect Water Quality for Fish Habitat above. Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-18 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The project would result in potential impacts on archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Training and Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources Prior to authorization to proceed, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist will conduct a training program for all construction and field workers involved in site disturbance. On-site personnel shall attend a mandatory pre-project training that will outline the general archaeological sensitivity of the area and the procedures to follow in the event an archaeological resource and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered. Prior to construction District and Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist District If prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the contractor shall notify the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District). Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Should any cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the proposed Project, the District shall consult with the Commission. The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on state lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the California State Lands Commission. During construction District, Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist, and Construction Contractor District The District shall retain a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist to inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resource as defined by CEQA, construction shall cease in an area determined by the archaeologist until a mitigation plan has been prepared, approved by the District, and implemented to the satisfaction of the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resource is prehistoric). In consultation with the District, the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resources is prehistoric) shall determine when construction can commence. During construction District and Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist District, Native American representative Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-19 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Cultural Resources (cont.) Impact CUL-1: cont. The mitigation plan shall recommend preservation in place, as a preference, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, which shall be reviewed and approved by the District (and Native American representative) prior to any excavation at the resource. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. Impact CUL-2: The project would result in potential impacts on archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the contractor shall notify the District. The District shall contact the Contra Costa County Coroner. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be contacted within 24 hours if the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American. The NAHC will then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn would make recommendations to the District for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated funerary objects. During construction District and Construction contractor, Contra Costa County Coroner District, Contra Costa County Coroner, and NAHC Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-20 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The project would result in potential impacts exposure of public and workers to hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prepare and Implement a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan The project proponent or its contractor(s) shall develop and implement a Hazardous Materials Dewatering and Management Plan establishing procedures to manage potentially contaminated fluids encountered as part of the construction of the project to minimize potential impacts to the public or environment from hazardous materials. The Plan shall identify proper protocols to test and handle potentially hazardous materials. The Plan shall identify potential licensed disposal facilities and their acceptance criteria; the chemicals to be analyzed to comply with those acceptance criteria, which shall include at a minimum TPH as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil, and BTEX compounds. The Plan shall identify the proper protocols for the following three dewatering fluid disposal options:  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be discharged to the CCCSD under their Special Discharge Permit, providing the contaminant concentrations are within the Special Discharge Permit acceptance criteria and coverage under this permit is acquired prior to the discharge. The detected levels of diesel and motor oil were within the acceptance criteria of 10,000 ug/L diesel or motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbons acceptance criteria of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Special Discharge Permit (Special Limitations for Groundwater Remediation Projects).  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be pumped into trucks or portable storage containers and transported to an off-site licensed disposal facility permitted to accept the waste.  Groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons could be treated on site under the RWQCB’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater (RWQCB Order No. R2-2017-0048, NPDES Permit No. CAG912002). The pumped groundwater would be pumped into a settling tank to drop the sediments out of solution, and pumped through a treatment system (e.g., granular activated carbon [GAC] to decrease the concentration of TPH as diesel to less than 50 ug/L and TPH as motor oil to less than 100 ug/L. The effluent would be analytically tested to verify that treatment has achieved the effluent limitations. Upon successful treatment, the water could be discharged to the ground. Prior to and during construction District, Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, and Construction Contractor District, Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-21 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TCR-1: The project would result in potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. See Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Training and Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources above. Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project D-22 ESA / D170378 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019 This page intentionally left blank RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Matthew Caruso, Henry P. Giovannetti, Haleigh Parkinson, Katherine Denise Russo, Vine Hill Hardware, Inc. dba Bill's Ace Hardware, and Brian Dale Wilson. DENY late claim filed by Karla-Monique Veal. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Matthew Caruso: Property claim for lost personal property in the amount of $330.02 Henry P. Giovannetti: Property claim for damages arising out of pet adoption in the amount of $748.25 Haleigh Parkinson: Property claim for damage to vehicle due to motor vehicle accident in undisclosed amount. Katherine Denise Russo: Personal injury claim for emotional distress arising out of incarceration in the amount of $250,000 Vine Hill Hardware, Inc. dba Bill’s Ace Hardware: Property claim for damage to vehicle due to roadway in the amount of $15,338. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Brian Dale Wilson: Personal injury claim for damages arising out of motor vehicle accident in the amount of $10,000,000 Karla-Monique Veal: Request that Board of Supervisors accept a late claim for alleged employment discrimination. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for October 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. District V has nothing to report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Joellen Bergamini 925.335.1906 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for October 2019 ATTACHMENTS District II October 2019 Report District III October 2019 Report District I October 2019 Report District IV October 2019 Report Supervisor John Gioia October – 2019 Monthly Meeting Statement Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc.). Supervisor Gioia did not seek reimbursement from the County f or any meetings that he attended in his capacity as a County Supervisor during the month of October, 2019. Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report October 2019 Date Meeting Location 1 Re-entry Solutions Group Richmond 7 TWIC Martinez 7 Family & Human Services Martinez 7 SWAT San Ramon 8 Board of Supervisors Martinez 9 CCCERA Concord 9 Exchange Club Danville 10 East Bay EDA Hayward 12 San Ramon Library Commission San Ramon 16 CCTA Walnut Creek 17 East Bay EDA Pleasanton 17 STAND! Event Concord 18 GIVE presentation Lafayette 21 Alamo Liaison Danville 21 Internal Ops Martinez 21 Census Meeting Martinez 22 Board of Supervisors Martinez 23 CCCERA Concord 24 CCCTA Concord 24 SR Town Hall on Aging Danville 24 Discovery Counseling Event Danville 28 TVTC San Ramon 29 Philanthropy Breakfast Pleasant Hill Date Meeting Name Location 2-Oct Constituent Meeting Brentwood 2-Oct Interview for Sustainability Commission Brentwood 2-Oct Mental Health Commission Martinez 3-Oct Legislative Committee Meeting Martinez 3-Oct Meeting with the Bowlby Group Martinez 4-Oct Mayors Conference Antioch 7-Oct Meeting with Concord Airport & Singapore Concord 8-Oct Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 8-Oct Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Martinez 8-Oct Meeting with Fire Chief Broschard Martinez 9-Oct Hidden Untapped Talent Event Antioch 9-Oct Phone Meeting with First 5 Executive Director, Sean Casey Martinez 9-Oct Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez 9-Oct Phone Meeting with County Staff Martinez 10-Oct NAMI Contra Costa "3rd of Its Kind" Event Walnut Creek 10-Oct Meeting with Cecchini Ranch, Town of Discovery Bay and County Staff Brentwood 13-Oct APTA Annual Conference New York 14-Oct APTA Annual Conference New York 15-Oct APTA Annual Conference New York 17-Oct Meeting with the Office of the Sheriff Brentwood 17-Oct Phone Meeting with Fire Chief Meyer Brentwood 18-Oct Phone Meeting with Delta Counties Coalition Brentwood 21-Oct Internal Operations Committee Meeting Martinez 21-Oct 2020 Census Meeting Martinez 22-Oct Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 23-Oct First 5 Special Meeting Pleasant Hill 23-Oct St. Mary's Project Event Moraga 24-Oct Elevating Woman in East County Event Antioch 24-Oct Meeting with Embarcadero Group, Town of Discovery Bay, East CC Fire, County Staff Brentwood 25-Oct 2020 Census Meeting Martinez 28-Oct Meeting with County Probation Department Brentwood 28-Oct Meeting with La Clinica Brentwood 28-Oct East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Meeting Pittsburg 29-Oct JFK Philanthropy Summit 2019 Pleasant Hill Supervisor Diane Burgis - October 2019 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). 29-Oct Meeting with Oakley City Manager, Bryan Montgomery Brentwood 30-Oct Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez 30-Oct Meeting with Seneca Family of Agencies Martinez 30-Oct Tri Delta Transit Meeting Antioch 31-Oct Meeting with Supervisor Andersen Martinez 31-Oct Meeting with the Bowlby Group Martinez * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Purpose Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Meeting Conference Conference Conference Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Community Outreach Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Supervisor Diane Burgis - October 2019 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff October 2019 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 10/02/19 ABAG Reginal Planning Committee San Francisco Decisions on agenda items 10/03/19 Legislation Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 10/07/19 Finance Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 10/08/19 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 10/11/19 ABAG Administrative Committee San Francisco Decisions on agenda items 10/16/19 CCTA Board Meeting Walnut Grove Decisions on agenda items 10/22/19 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 10/24/19 BAAQMD Mobile Source Committee San Francisco Decisions on agenda items APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Ronda Boler, (925)957-2806 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Donald L. Bouchet For His Years Of Service On The Treasury Oversight Committee AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/641 Donald Bouchet Service Recognition 11 19 19 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2019/641 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2019/641 x x ___________________ JOHN GIOIA Chair, District I Supervisor ______________________________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN DIANE BURGIS District II Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy Contra Costa County, California In the matter of recognizing the contributions of Donald L. Bouchet for his extraordinary service to the citizens of Contra Costa County and to the Office of the County Treasurer -Tax Collector. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Treasury Oversight Committee in April of 1995 per California Government Code 27131 (Amended in 2004 ); WHEREAS, the responsibilities of the Committee were to:  Annually review the County’s Investment P olicy and cause an annual audit to be conducted to determine the county treasurer’s compliance with the Policy;  Quarterly monitor the County Investment Pool’s performance and report on the Pool’s performance to the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors set the terms for members of the Committee at four years, and made appointments to the Committee for the first time on April 15, 1996. WHEREAS, Mr. Bouchet was appointed by the Board of Supervisors as one of the first appointees to serve on the Committe e; WHEREAS, Mr. Bouchet was appointed to represent the Board of Supervisors on the Committee, and occupied this position since its inception; WHEREAS, Mr. Bouchet served on the Committee for more than 23 years, some of which he also served as the Committee chair or vice chair; WHEREAS, Mr. Bouchet regularly participated in Committee meetings and contributed significantly to the carrying out of its responsibilities; WHEREAS, Mr. Bouchet resigned from the Treasury Oversight Committee on September 20 of 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby recognize and commend Donald L. Bouchet for his extraordinary service to the County and to the Office of the County Treasurer-Tax Collector. Passed by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors members present this 19 day of November 2019. C.8, PR.3 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Sonia Bustamante, (510) 231-8686 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Proclaim November 17 through November 23 as United Against Hate Week AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/638 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2019/638 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2019/638 Proclaim United Against Hate Week in Contra Costa County    WHEREAS, the United States is a nation of immigrants, whose strength comes from  our diversity; and  WHEREAS, the Constitution enshrines equality on all individuals, regardless of race,  gender, orientation, religion, ancestry, or political views; and  WHEREAS, recent federal policies and rhetoric have generated a toxic environment  that encourages the propagation of racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic,  anti-semitic and other bigoted views by emboldened hate groups and individuals; and  WHEREAS, deep divisions within our country allow for the festering of extreme  ideology, further strengthening a cycle of mistrust and suspicion fueled by fear, anxiety, and  insecurity; and  WHEREAS, the number of hate crimes across the United States has increased  dramatically over the past couple of years; and  WHEREAS, 2018 was the inaugural year of United Against Hate Week designed to engaged communities, in an annual week of action, in creating the support systems to respond when hate happens and prevent  incidents of hate in the future; and  WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is deeply committed to inclusivity and equity; and  WHEREAS, The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has previously declared  Contra Costa County a Welcoming County, recognizing that a community is strongest  when everyone feels welcomed, and brings immigrants, refugees, and the broader  community together to develop inclusive policies, programs, and initiatives that build  welcoming and loving communities; and  WHEREAS, Contra Costa County Stands United Against Hate and desires to state our  shared values and reiterate our commitment to inclusivity; and  WHEREAS, education, compassion, and cooperation are key to understanding and  embracing differences between people; and  WHEREAS, sponsoring a United Against Hate Week is an important step in bridging  divisions and healing communities.    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby  proclaim the week of November 17, 2019 through November 23, 2019 as United Against Hate Week in  Contra Costa County.  ___________________ JOHN GIOIA Chair, District I Supervisor   ______________________________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN DIANE BURGIS District II Supervisor District III Supervisor   ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV 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:    November  19, 2019    David J. Twa,    By: ____________________________________, Deputy C.9, PR.2 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/640 recognizing Contra Costa Television (CCTV) on its 25 th Anniversary. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Susan Shiu/925-313-1183 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Susan Shiu, Communication and Media Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Contra Costa Television (CCTV) on their 25th Anniversary AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/640 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2019/640 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2019/640 Recognizing Contra Costa Television (CCTV) on its 25 th Anniversary WHEREAS, CCTV live streams in high definition on its website and social media platform to the world, surrounding bay area counties, and over 350,000 homes in Contra Costa County on the Comcast and Astound cable systems; and WHEREAS, CCTV airs the Board of Supervisors and Special District meetings, community meetings, events of countywide interest, local sports and locally originated programming, thus playing a key role in transparent and open government; and WHEREAS, CCTV currently broadcasts six channels--CCTV, City Channel, Ed TV, Community Access, Hercules Community TV, and Delta TV. The Contra Costa Television network provides public, education and government access services for users in Contra Costa County in the cities of Antioch, Clayton, Danville, Hercules, Martinez, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and San Ramon; and WHEREAS, CCTV, in partnership with the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department and local chapters of the League of Women Voters, provides the only locally produced voter education for broadcast and internet streaming with the Election Preview programs; and WHEREAS, CCTV has been recognized for award winning programming, in particular Veterans’ Voices, serving as the voice of veterans in the county. CCTV also won the Western Alliance Video Excellence award in 2018 and 2016, and the California State Association of Counties 2015 Merit Award; and WHEREAS, CCTV serves the community with news about jobs, programs, events, and public safety and emergency information, and supports the video technology and production needs of County departments; and WHEREAS, CCTV adopted the slogan “Making Television Part of the Solution” and, for 25 years, the government cable television channel the has helped communicate County services and programs to the community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby recognize and honor CCTV on its 25 th anniversary and award-winning commitment to public, educational, and government access. ___________________ JOHN GIOIA Chair, District I Supervisor ______________________________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN DIANE BURGIS District II Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy C.10, PR.1 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Gayle Israel 957-8860 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring Rachel Hurd as San Ramon Citizen of the Year AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/649 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2019/649 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2019/649 Honoring Rachel Hurd as San Ramon Citizen of the Year Whereas, Rachel Hurd was elected to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board of Education in November 2006 and is currently serving her third term; and prior to being elected to the Board, Rachel was an experienced parent leader in the local community, serving in a variety of capacities at her children’s schools and at the district level; and Whereas, Rachel’s local volunteering began at Country Club Elementary, working in the classroom and serving on the PTA, School Site Council and Ed Fund, her involvement expanded to the district through participation on the San Ramon Valley Council of PTAs and on various school district committees; and Whereas, In 2002, Rachel, along with five other parents, another school board member and a member of the special education administration founded the PTA Special Needs Committee, which has continued to provide information and support to parents and staff so they can help children with special needs succeed; and Whereas, During Rachel’s tenure on the Board, she has been a voice for continued improvement in the quality of the educational experience the district offers to all of its students; she co-chaired the campaign for the district’s successful May 2009 parcel tax renewal election; and was on the campaign leadership team for the district’s successful 2012 facilities bond and 2015 parcel tax renewal; and Whereas, Rachel serves on the TRAFFIX Board of Directors and is a board liaison to the Special Education Community Advisory Committee, the district’s negotiating team, the district’s Climate Committee, the SRV Council of PTA’s, and the SRV Council of PTAs legislative Committee; and Whereas, Rachel is employed part-time as the Executive Director for Leadership San Ramon Valley, a local non-profit organization that provides a 10-month community engagement/leadership development course for residents and employees of the San Ramon Valley; Rachel continues to volunteer for the Council of PTA’s as an advisor and member of a number of committees; she serves as a leader in Decoding Dyslexia CA, a statewide grassroots movement working to raise awareness about dyslexia and how schools address the needs of struggling readers; and Whereas, Rachel Hurd has made numerous positive and significant differences to local education, and valuable contributions to the San Ramon Community. that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor Rachel Hurd For her long-standing dedication to education and to the San Ramon Valley. ___________________ JOHN GIOIA Chair, District I Supervisor ______________________________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN DIANE BURGIS District II Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy C.11 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND that adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-33 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-33 calling a special election for voter approval of a 35-year countywide transportation transaction and use tax and consolidating the special election with the statewide primary election on March 30, 2020. 3. DIRECT staff from the Department of Conservation and Development to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and as appropriate post the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has committed to reimburse the County for all costs of conducting this election. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: John Cunningham (925) 674-7833 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Scott Konopasek, Brian Balbas, Steve Kowalewski, Tim Haile C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Adoption of an Ordinance Calling for a Special Election for a Local Sales Tax for Transportation Improvements and Growth Management BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 2019-33 (Attachment 1) calls a special election for the purpose of submitting a 35-year countywide transportation transaction and use tax (sales tax) to the voters of Contra Costa County, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 180201 et seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code section 7291, as requested by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority). The ordinance also consolidates the special election with the statewide primary election on March 3, 2020. Over the past several months, the Authority has undertaken actions necessary to have a measure placed on the March 2020 primary election ballot that would establish an additional one-half of one percent sales tax for transportation purposes to meet the growing needs of Contra Costa County. If the tax passes, the revenues will supplement an existing one-half of one percent local transportation sales tax implemented by Measure C in 1988, which was extended until March 31, 2034 by Measure J in 2004. As required by Public Utilities Code section 180206, the Authority prepared a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), entitled "A Transformative Plan For Contra Costa's Future, 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan", that sets forth the use of the approximately $3.6 billion expected to be derived from the 35-year sales tax. The proposed TEP also includes a revised Growth Management Program (GMP), a new Complete Streets Policy, a new Road Traffic Safety Policy, a new Transit Policy, and a new Advance Mitigation Program to help the Authority achieve its goals to reduce future congestion, manage the impacts of growth, and expand alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. The Authority approved the final language for the TEP on August 28, 2019 and released the TEP for approval by city/town councils and the County Board of Supervisors. By October 22, 2019 the TEP was approved by the city/town councils of all nineteen of the cities/towns in Contra Costa County and the County Board of Supervisors (the Board approved the TEP on September 24, 2019). Following approval of the TEP by the governing boards of Contra Costa County and its cities/towns, the Authority approved the TEP on October 30, 2019 by Authority Ordinance 19-02. Ordinance 19-02 and the associated TEP are attached to this report (Attachment 2). At the same time, it adopted Authority Ordinance No. 19-03 (Attachment 4), which establishes a transportation sales tax for the period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2055, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the voters. Through Authority Resolution 19-55-P, the Authority also requested that the Board of Supervisors call and consolidate an election for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified voters seeking approval of the sales tax. Public Utilities Code Section 180201 and 180203 requires the election to be called by a county ordinance. At least five days must elapse between introduction and adoption of the ordinance. On November 12, 2019, the Board introduced the ordinance, waived its reading and fixed adoption of the ordinance for November 19, 2019. The Board’s action today adopts the ordinance. The Board’s adoption of this ordinance is a ministerial activity that is exempt from CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(1)). The Notice of Exemption is Attachment #3 to this report. The sample ballot mailed to the voters will contain the full proposition, as set forth in Section III of Ordinance 2019-33, and the voter information handbook will include the entire TEP and Authority Ordinance No. 19-03, which establishes the sales tax. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 180203(a) and Authority Resolution 19-55-P, the Authority will reimburse the County for all costs of conducting the election, including those relating to consolidation of the election. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not take the recommended actions, the Authority’s proposed 35-year countywide transportation sales tax will not be submitted to the voters as a measure on the March 3, 2020 ballot. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: CCC - Ord 2019-33 (CCTA_TEP))33 Attachment 2: CCTA Ordinance 19-02 Adopting the 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan Attachment 3: CC County NOE - CCTA_TEP_Election MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2019-33 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-33 (Calling of Special Election for Voter Approval to Augment Local Sales Tax for Transportation Purposes) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance calls a special election, at the request of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the Authority), for the purpose of submitting to the voters for approval an additional one-half of one percent sales tax for the transportation projects and programs described in the tax ordinance and county transportation expenditure plan adopted by the Authority on October 30, 2019. SECTION II. RECITALS AND FINDINGS. This ordinance is made with reference to the following recitals and findings: Local highway and transportation improvements in Contra Costa County are needed to address countywide mobility needs and alleviate traffic congestion that threatens the economic viability of the area and adversely impacts the quality of life in the County. To manage current and future local transportation maintenance and improvement needs, local jurisdictions need to develop and implement local funding programs that go significantly beyond current federal and state funding, which is inadequate to resolve these problems. It is in the public interest, under the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act (Public Utilities Code Section 180000 and following), to allow the voters in Contra Costa County to implement a new retail transactions and use tax (sales tax) ordinance to raise additional local revenues for a transportation expenditure plan that funds transportation improvements and maintenance and meets local transportation needs in a timely manner. In 1988, voters in Contra Costa County passed Measure C, which created a one- half cent sales tax for 20 years to support transportation programs and projects. In 2004, voters approved Measure J, which extended the transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the previous expiration date. On August 28, 2019, the Authority authorized the release of a proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan , A Transformative Plan for Contra Costa's Future, ORDINANCE NO. 2019-33 1 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan, to the County, cities and towns to consider, among other matters, establishing an additional countywide one-half of one percent sales tax for 35 years to increase the funding of transportation projects, subject to approval by the qualified electors on the March 3, 2020 ballot. All of Contra Costa County's nineteen cities and towns representing 1 00 percent of the incorporated area population, and the County Board of Supervisors, have approved the Transportation Expenditure Plan prior to its final approval by the Authority Board. On October 30, 2019, the Authority Board approved the Transportation Expenditure Plan and requested that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors call a special election for the purpose of submitting Authority Ordinance No. 19-03, authorizing the additional one-half of one percent sales tax, to voters on the March 3, 2020 ballot. SECTION Ill. CALL OF SPECIAL ELECTION. At the request of the Authority, pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 180201 and 180203, the Board of Supervisors hereby calls a special election for the purpose of submitting the following proposition to the voters of the incorporated and unincorporated territory of Contra Costa County for approval: "To: • Reduce congestion and fix bottlenecks on highways and major roads; • Make commutes faster and more predictable; • Improve the frequency, reliability, accessibility, cleanliness, and safety of buses, ferries, and BART; • Improve air quality; • Repave roads; shall the measure implementing a Transportation Expenditure Plan, levying a 1/2¢ sales tax, providing an estimated $103,000,000 for local transportation annually for 35 years that the State cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, and funds directly benefiting Contra Costa County residents, be adopted?" SECTION IV. CONSOLIDATION. As requested by the Authority in Authority Resolution 19-55-P, the election shall be consolidated with the statewide primary election to be held on Tuesday, March 3, 2020. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-33 2 SECTION V. CONDUCT OF ELECTION. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180203(b), the County Clerk (Elections Clerk) shall conduct this election in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of special elections by a county. SECTION VI. SAMPLE BALLOT AND VOTER HANDBOOK. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180203( c), the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall contain the full proposition, as set forth in Section Ill of this ordinance, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire adopted county transportation expenditure plan and the tax ordinance (Authority Ordinance No. 19-03) referred to in Section II of this ordinance. SECTION VII. ELECTION COST. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 180203(a) and Authority Resolution 19-55-P, the Authority shall reimburse the County for all costs of conducting this election, including those relating to consolidation of the election. SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon passage and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the EAST BAY TIMES, a newspaper published in this county. PASSED on November 19 , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: ____________________________________________________________ _____ Deputy Clerk TLG: H:\2019\Conservation and Development/CCTA tax election ordinance.doc ORDINANCE NO. 2019-33 3 Board Chair [SEAL] October 31, 2019CONTRA COSTA transportation authority ORDINANCE 19-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ADOPTING THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN ORIGINAL WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is considering the countywide imposition of a one-half of one cent sales tax for transportation purposes for a period of 35 years, effective on July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2055; and WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 180206 requires preparation and adoption of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from a transactions and use tax, together with other federal, state, and regional funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the transactions and use tax is to be imposed; and WHEREAS, the Authority Is required to receive approval of the TEP from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the City/Town Councils representing both a majority of the Cities/Towns in Contra Costa County and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, the Authority conducted extensive consultations with local governments and conducted outreach to a wide variety of Interest groups and the public in order to develop a TEP proposing a potential mix of projects and programs to be funded by the proposed sales tax; and WHEREAS, the Authority circulated the TEP and received approval of the TEP from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the City/Town Councils representing all Cities/Towns in Contra Costa County and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: 1) ADOPTION. The Authority adopts the TEP, which Is set forth In the text of Exhibit 1 to this ordinance, incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set forth at this point. The Authority also adopts a TEP summary by subregion as Exhibit 2 to this ordinance; incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set forth at this point, which is not part of the TEP and may be Ordinance 19-02 October 30, 2019 Page 2 of6 revised by an amendment to this ordinance. The graphical representation ofthe text serves as illustrations and are not a substantive part ofthe TEP. The revenues received by the Authority from this ordinance, after deduction of required California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) costs for performing the functions specified in PUC Section 180204, and for th e administration of the TEP commencing with PUC Section 180200, shall be used for transportation projects and programs coun t ywide as set forth in the TEP and in a manner consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) d eveloped by the Authority; 2) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSES . In the allocation of all revenues made available from the transactions and use tax, th e Authority shall make every effort to maximize state, fede ral and reg i onal transportat ion . The Authority may amend the TEP, in accordance with Section 3, as needed, to maximize the t r ansportation funding to Contra Costa County. The revenue s shall be allocated in accordance with the TEP; 3) AMENDMENTS. A. Amendments to the ordinance. 1. This ordinance may be amended to further its purposes. The Au t hority shall establish a process for proposed ordinance amendment(s) which ensures that the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) participate in proposed ordinance amendment(s). Upon complet ion of that process , amendment{s) to this ordinance must be passed by a roll call vote entered in the minutes and must have two-th irds of the Authority Board concurring w ith the proposed amendment(s). 2 . In the event that a local jurisdiction does not agree with the Authority's amendments(s), the jurisdiction's policy decision-making body must, by a majority vote, determine to formally notify the Authority of its intent, in writing via registered mail, to obtain an ov e rride of th e Authority's amendment(s). The appealing jurisdiction will have 45 days from the date the Authority Board adopts the proposed amendment(s) to obtain resolutions supporting its appeal for an override of the amendment(s) from a majority of the Cities/Towns representing a majority of the population residing within the incorporated areas of Contra Costa County and from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. If a jurisdiction does not obtain the necessary Ordinance 19-02 October 30, 2019 Page 3 of6 resolutions supporting its appeal, the Authority's amendment(s) to the ordinance will stand. B. Amendments to the TEP. 1. The Authority may review and propose amendments to the TEP and the Growth Management Program (GMP) to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. Affected RTPCs and the Public Oversight Committee (POC) will participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s). Upon completion of this process, amendment(s) to the TEP must be passed by a roll call vote entered In the minutes and must have a supermajority (66%) vote of the Authority Board to approve an amendment. Any amendment to the TEP that is administrative or less than $50 million will require a 45 -day period to comment on the proposed amendment. Any amendments to expenditure categories that total $50 million or greater, whether submitted as one amendment or a series of related amendments, will require the following: a. The need for such amendment shall be properly demonstrated in a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Authority Board; b. The Authority shall make a presentation at the earliest possible POC and RTPC meetings outlining the details of the proposed amendment and allow for POC and RTPC input; c. No fewer than two special public information and comment sessions shall be held and publicized by the Authority within 90 days following the initial Authority Board meeting; d. The proposed amendment will be given a 90-day public comment period; and e. The proposed amendment shall be voted on during a regularly scheduled Authority Board meeting. The Authority shall notify the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the City/Town Councils of each City/Town in Contra Costa County and the RTPCs and provide each entity with a copy of the proposed amendment(s). Pursuant to PUC Section 180207, proposed amendment(s) shall become Ordinance 19-02 October 30, 2019 Page4 of6 effective 45 days after notice Is given, unless appealed under the process outlined in the following paragraph. The Authority shall hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment(s) within this 45 -day period . In the event that a local jurisdiction does not agree with the Authority's amendments(s), the jurisdiction's policy decision -making body must, by a majority vote, determine to appeal and shall, within 45 days after notice is given by the Authority, formally notify the Authority of its intent, in writing via registered mall, to obtain an override of the Authority's amendment(s). The appealing jurisdiction will have 45 days from the date of its determination to appeal the proposed amendment(s) to obtain resolutions supporting its appeal for an override of the amendment(s) from a majority of the Cities/Towns representing a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa County and from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. If a jurisdiction does not obtain the necessary resolutions supporting its appeal, the Authority's amendment(s) to the TEP will stand; 4) PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Revenues provided from the transactions and use tax shall not be used to replace private developer funding, which has been or will be committed for any project; 5) DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES . Each project or program in excess of $250,000 funded in whole or in part by revenues from the ordinance shall be clearly designated in writing via signs and/or documents, during its construction or implementation as being funded by revenues from the ordinance; 6) COORDINATION. The Authority shall consult and coordinate its actions to secure funding for the completion and improvement of the priority regional projects with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), transit operators and other interested and affected parties for the purpose of integrating its transportation improvements with other planned improvements and operations impacting Contra Costa County. In addition, the Authority shall seek all ways to expedite the completion of TEP projects, the implementation of which is the responsibility of other agencies; 7) EMINENT DOMAIN . The Authority will not use its power of eminent domain as provided in PUC Section 180152; Ordinance 19-02 October 30, 2019 Page 5 of6 8) COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 (CEQA}. The Authority Board finds that the approval of this ordinance is not a ({project" and alternatively, is exempt from CEQA. The o rdinance is intended to provide a plan for a funding mechanism for future projects and programs, related to the Authority's provision of transportation services. The ordinance does not commit the Authority to any particular project, program, or capital improvement. Accord i ngly, the Authority hereby finds that, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b}(4}, adoption ofthe ordinance and TEP as a prerequisite to establishing a government funding mechanism Is not a project subject to the requirements of CEQA because the TEP merely facilitates "[t]he creation of [a] government funding mechanism or other fiscal activity which do[es] not involve any commitment to any specific project wh ich may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15378, subd. (b)(4); see also Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 179 Cai .App.4th 113, 123 (holding that the adoption of a transportation expenditure plan in accordance with PUC Section 180206 ''does not qualify as a project within the meaning of CEQA because it is a mechanism for funding proposed projects that may be mod ified or not implemented depending upon a number of factors, including CEQA environmental review"].) Further, because the ordinance does not authorize the construction of any projects that may result in any direct or indirect physical change In the environment and is subject to further discretionary approvals, including the pre-conditions found in PUC Section 180206(b), approving the ordinance is not an approval that "comm its the agency to a definite course of action ." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15352.) The timing, design, and approval of individual projects to be funded by the ordinance are dependent on fund i ng availability, need, and CEQA review. Thus, the ordinance has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from any further review under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).); 9) SEVERABILITY. If any section, part, clause or phrase ofthis ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining portions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect; and 10) EFFECTIVE DATE : This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Ordinance 19-02 October 30, 2019 Page 6 of6 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board of Di rect ors i n Walnut Creek, State of California , on October 30, 2019, by the following vote : AYES: Cha i r Taylor, Vi€e-€nal~, and Commissioners Abelson , Arnerich, Gerringer, Glover, Haskew, Hudson, M itchoff, Romick, and Swearingen NOES : Non e ABSENT : ABSTAIN: Comm issioner Butt l.And V1 t.e (.1.-\~,·r Pie~ None This Ordinance 19-0Z was entered into at a special meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board held on October 30, 2019, in Walnut Creek, California, and shall become effective as provided above. Attest: ~r i enne Grover, Clerk of the Board Robert Tay l or, Chair EXHIBI T 1 2020 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN [Attached behind this page] EXHIBITl }} TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 ............. A New Transportation Future for Contra Costa County Transportation E~penditurc Plan Funding Summary 07 ............. Decades oflransportation Improvements and Managed Growth Who We Are and What We Do Fulfilling Our Promise to Contra Costa County Voters Transportation for th e Next Three-and-a-Half Decades Local Funding for Local Projects II ............... A Roadmap for the Fu1ure What Thi s Transportation ExtJonditu ra Plan Will Accompli sh Commilmon! to Performance Achieving Intended Outcomes Ta xpayer Safeguards Pertinent Policie s 15 .............. Proposed Transit and Transportation Investments Pl anning for the Future Reli eving Conge stion on Highw ays, Interchanges , and Major Roads Improve SR-242 , Hi ghway 4, Tran sit, and eBART Corr idor Modernize 1-680 , Highway 24 , Transit, and BART Corridor Enhance 1-80, 1·5BO, Transit , and BART Corridor Impro vin g Transit and Transportation Countywide in All Our Communities 29 ............. Policy Statements The Growth Management Program (GMP) Urban Limit Line (ULL) Compliance Requirements Transit Policy Complete Streets Policy Advance Mitigation Program Taxpayer SaJeguards and Accountability Policy Road Traffic Safety Poli cy f ALAM EDA COUNTY )) SOLANO COUNTY LEGEND -Roadways ••••• BART Passenger Tra in • • • • • • Counly Subregions Co ntra Costa is a c o u nt y as un ique and diverse as its residents . Our communit i es stretch from the Richmond coastli ne to Discov ery Ba y, f rom Po rt Ch icago to the San Ram o n Valley, and from M o u nt Diablo t o Croc kett Hills. )} ALL FUN DING AMOUNTS presente d in th i s Transp o rtation Expend iture Plan are rounded. lllllllllfii!IIH!l I A NEW TRANSPORTATION FUTURE FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FUNDING SUMMARY The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) envisions a futu re where all transportation systems work together for more streamlined, safe, efficient. and convenient trave l. We've created a focused plan that ensures funds directly benefit your commute. CCTA is co mmitted to outcomes-based delivery, where all projects meet performance targets for reduced traffic, shortened commute times, reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). and other mandates and goals. This 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan {TEP) focuses on innovative strategies and new technologies that will relieve congestion, promote a strong economy, protect the environment. promote social equity, and enhan ce the quality of life for all of Contra Costa County 's diverse communities. This plan outlines projects that will achieve a broad range of goals: -? Relieve Traffic Congestion on Highways and Interchanges. CCTA's goal Is to smooth traffic flow and reduce congestion for people and goods through major corridors. to address bottlenecks an d hot spots, and to make commutes smoother and more predictable. -? Make Bus, Ferry, Passenger Train, and BART Rides Safer, Cleaner, and More Reliable. Contra Costa County's residents and t ravelers value safe, clean, convenient, and affordable transit options. CCTA's goal is to support t ra n si t operators In p ro viding more frequent and reliable transit services and to plan and build th e Infrastructure that Improves connectivity countywide. ~ Provide Accessible and Safe Transportation for Children, Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities. CCTA will prioritize social equity and provi de better mobility options for all , especially for those with the greatest tra nsportation ba rriers, such as youth, seniors, people of lower In co mes, and people w it h disabilities. ~ Improve Transportation in Our Communities. CCTA supports livable comm un ities by providing local cities and towns with funding to f ix and modernize loca l streets , offer safe r pla ces to walk and cycle, and improve air quality. We're committed to funding infrastructure that provid es access to affordable housing and jobs. CCTA also helps manage urban sprawl through its advanced mitigation programs and the county's growth management progr am . The TJ:P Is Intentionally designed to be equitable across the entire county, based on population. CCTA commits to delivering proportionally greater b enefits to Communities of Concern (as defined by the Metropolitan Transportat ion Com missio n) and low-Income residents . CCTA understands that acces s to quality transportat io n, jobs, housing, education . health care, and public safety contribute to residents' well-being. All locally generated transportation revenue-plus any additional grant funding CCTA receives-will be spent on local projects in Contra Costa County. '----------------------------------------.. ~O~Offi MISPUR I AIIlllllXPlri01111R£Pl.Ml 3 4 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FUNDING SUMMARY ----~----- SUBTOTALS FUNDING CATEGORIES % Improve State Route 242 (SR·242), Highway 4, Transit, and eBART Corridor Relieve Congestion and Improve Access to Jobs Along Highway 4 and SR -242 Improve Local Access to Highway 4 ahd Byron Airport East County Transit Extension to Brentwood and Connectivity to Transit, Rail, and Parking Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in East County Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in East and Central County Improve Transit Reliability Along SR-242 , H ighway 4, and Vasco Road Additional eBART Train Cars Seamless Connected Transportation Options Modernize 1-680, Highway 24, Transit, and BART Corridor Relieve Congestion, Ease Bottlenecks, and Improve Local Access Along the 1-680 Corridor Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in the Central County and Lamorlnda Improve Transit Reliability along the 1-680 and Highway 24 Corridors Provide Greater Access to BART Stations Along 1-680 and Highway 24 Improve Traffic Flow on Highway 24 and Modernize the Old Bores of Caldecott Tunnel Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads In San Ramon Valley Seamless Connected Transportation Options Enhance 1-80, 1-580 (Richmond-San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor Improve Transit Reliab ility Along the 1-80 Corridor Relieve Congestion and Improve Local Access Along the 1-80 Corridor Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads In West County Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in West County Improve Traffic Flow and Local Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Along 1-580 and Richmond Parkway Seamless Connected Transportation Options ~~~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~--~ Modernize Local Roads and Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing Provide Convenient and Reliable Transit Services In Central, East, and Southwest Contra Costa Increase Bus Services and Reliability In West Contra Costa Improve Walking and Biking on Streets and Trails Accessible Transportation for Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities Cleaner, Safer BART Safe Transportation for Youth and Students Reduce and Reverse Commutes Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality SUBTOTAL TOTAL 'Fu n/Jitl!J omotmts ltre r ounded r.on l u r:ast:l lr ;~n ~pnnOI IIOII Au lh i.IH iy 705 19.5 200 5 .5 150 4.2 100 2 .8 107 3 .0 50 1.4 50 1.4 28 0 .8 20 0 .6 536 14.9 200 5 .5 145 4.0 50 1.4 49 1.4 35 1.0 32 0.9 25 0 .7 243 6.7 90 2 .5 57 1.6 38 1.1 34 0.9 19 0.5 5 0 .1 .. 628 17.4 392 10.9 250 6 .9 215 6 .0 180 5 .0 120 3 .3 104 2 .9 54 1.5 37 1.0 $3,464 96% ' $3,608 l 100% : .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • $197 $363 $1 ,333 $925 6 % 11% 38% 27% • • • • • • $647 18% EXPENDITURES BY FACILITY TYPE AND MODE 55 % \ NOTE: Percentages do not Include Tran sportation Planning and AdmlniSITallotl EXPENDITURES BY SUBREGION AND POPULATION WEST SOU THWEST • Pop ulo1 tlon biJsed on Association of B;w Area Go v11mments (ABAG) Proj ections 2 0 13 for yeilr 203 7 $/nmffflons ----------------------------------------. 20•0 TRM ISPOR lATIO:t lXPUI OIIUII E I'LA it 5 • OUR NEW TRANSPORTAliON FUTURE Carefully crafted to offer a broad array of tangible benefits to all, this Plan will bring: >> Smooth-flowing traffic alo~g highways and roads » Quicker trips and less tlrne sitting In traffic » Smoother pavement and fewer potholes » Transit, where and when It 's needed » Eas ier ways to get from home or work to transit stops and back home again » Cleaner air due to reduced vehicle emissions » More bicycle lanes and walking paths to support an active lifestyle >> Free or reduced transit fares for students DECADES OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND MANAGED GROWTH WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is responsible for maintaining and improving the county's transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation projects that connect our communities, foste r a strong economy, Increase sustainability, and safely and efficiently get people when~ they need to go. CCTA is also responsible for putting solutions in place to help manage traffic by providing and conn e cting a w ide range of transportation options. We are proud of our accomplishments and we recognize the Immense transportation challenges still faced by county residents and businesses-particularly considering population growth, continued development, and threats to the environment. CCTA works to advance transportation solutions , ease congestion, and prepare Contra Costa County for safe, future mobility. CC TA is leading the way and presenting innovative solutions while protecting the qualities that make Contra Costa a wonderful place to call home. We present this Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), which reflects where w e are now and, more importantly, our commitment to pursuing transportation policies, planning, and investments that will get us to where we want to be in the future. FULFILLING OUR PROMISE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY VOTERS Contra Costa County voters passed Measure C In 1988, sending a clear message that recognized the Immense need to improve the way people travel around Contra Costa County. Voters authorized a 20-year (1989-2009) half-cent transportation sales ta x to finance Improvements to the county's overburdened transportation infrastructure. In 1989, CCTA was born. Measure C expired in 2009 but much was accomplished, Including widening Highway 4 from Hercules to Martinez, the BART extension to Pittsburg/Bay Point, Richmond Parkway construction, and new transit programs for seniors and people with disab ilities. -------------------------------------2020TnAHSPORTAIIUti EX I'W011llli!I'L AII 7 8 In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J. The measure provided for the continuation of the county's half-cent transportation sales tax for twenty-five more years (2009-2034) beyond the Measure C expiration date. Without Measures C and J funding, CCTA would not have qualified to receive additional federal, state, or regional funds. With a total of $1.4 billion In Measure C and J project funds, a total of more than $5.5 billion will be invested In vital transportation projects In Contra Costa County through 2034, leveraging Measure C and J funding at about a three-to-one ratio. CCTA has delivered most of the major Infrastructure improvement projects in Measure J-such as the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnels, Highway 4 East widening, eBART extension from the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station to Antioch, and 1-680 and 1-80 corridor Improvements-on an accelerated timeline to deliver its promises to voters. CCTA periodically issues bonds to provide advance funding to design and build major Infrastructure projects. Then , the revenue generated from the transportation sales tax is used to pay back the bonds. By turning future Measure J revenue Into capital dollars and acce lerating design and construction, transportation projects are put Into place sooner to alleviate transportation challenges . Designing and building the projects earlier costs less money because the added cost of future inflation Is avoided. As of 2018. about 80 percent of the Measure J project funds have been expended. Remaining revenues are now going toward repayment of bonds, fixing local streets. continuing programs, and supporting public transportation. Without a new TEP, the CCTA will be unable to fund any new major projects to address pressing mobility needs. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NEXT THREE-AND-A-HALF DECADES While the existing Measure J will r emain intact through 2034, this new TEP has been developed for several reasons: • All of the planned major capital improvement projects funded by Measure J are either complete or in construction. ahead of schedule. • New transportation technology Is offering unprecedented opportunities to streamline travel and traffic and to reduce emissions. • The gap between transportation needs and available funding is large and requires a bold solution. The new TEP will allow l ocal funding to keep needed services in p lace and alleviate congestion by attracting other funding sources. • The demand on Contra Costa County's roads , highways, BART stations, and buses is increasing. The county's population is growing and more people are using roads and transit. Investments are needed to maintain and improve the current transportation system to ensu re It can effectively accommodate growth and prepare the system for the future. • People are increasingly va luing alternative ways to get around. such as transit, walking, and biking. Our roads need to safely accommodate all users . • Contra Costa County's population is aging. Currently, about 14 percent of the population Is age 65 or older: By 2035, this population is expected to double to about 30 percent. Additionally, poverty has risen faster In suburban areas , particularly in So lano, Contra Costa, and Marin counties. Low-income populations Increasingly ha ve less acces s to publi c transit and services:• New and different transportation solutions are needed to keep our older residents mobile, living Independently, and to main tain quality of life for all, Including lo w-in come residents. LOCAL FUNDING FOR LOCAL PROJECTS Measures C and J local transportation sales taxes have provided a substantial and steady sh are of the total funding available for transportation projects in Contra Costa County. State and federal sources have targeted some major projects, but local funding Is needed to attract and supplement those sources . Our loca l transportation sales tax has been indispensable in helping to meet the county's growing needs in an era of unpredictab le resources . • Pof)ulatlon IJased on Associai i011 ol Bay Area Govemmellls (ABIIC) Proj~cl/ons 2013 .. Coordlnared Public Transit -HW/1<111 Setvlces rransporr atlon Pt,m (Metropoll/ill l Tr,msportaUon Commission, 2018) Timeline of Local Funding Contra Costa County Tran sportation Improvements MEASURE C passed by vorers NE\Y MEAS UR E up for vole NEW MEASURE reve nu e begins NEW MEASURE reve nue ends Th e funding for this TEP will aug mt;!nt th e ii!Xistfng Contra Costa County M easure J half"centtranspottarlon sol os tax by a hal("cent until M easure J ex pires in 2034, then conllnue th e l lBi kenttransp ortalio n sal es tux unti/205 5. A sal es Wx will g ene ra te upproximu t~ly $3.6 billion for essen ti;~l rr ansponatlon lmprovome nrs 111111 touc/J e very city, town, and com munily in Contra Costa County These local funds have allowed CCTA to compete effectively for outside funds by providing a local matching fund source, as required by most grants . Measures C and J, for example, will attract $4.1 billion of additional funds for Contra Costa County transportation projects through 2034, providing a tota l Investment of $5.5 billion in vital trans portation Improvements. CCTA will continue to use local transportation sales ta x re v enue to attract outside funds for projects already id entified in r e giona l and state funding measures. In fiscal y e ar 2017-2018 a lone, more than $77 million of California's Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2 017, transportation funding was earmarked for projects sponsored by CCTA. The required local match for the grant was $35 million. In other words, for every dollar Contra Costa County ta x payers paid for these proj ects, th e state paid two more dollars . Similarly, vote rs approved Regional Measure 3 (RM3), whi ch was authorized and signed Into l aw in 2018 to fund major roadway and public transit improvements via an increase In tolls on the Bay Area's seven state-owned toll bridges. Contra Co sta County projects that may benefit from RM3 include: • Interstat e 80 Transit Improve me nts: ex pand bus service along the Inte rstate 80 corridor • Interstate 680 Transit Improvements: enhance transit service along the Interstate 680 corridor, including bus operations, transit centers, and real-time travel information • East Contra Costa County Transit lntermodal Station : construct a transit intermodal center to enhance access to eBART and the Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Overcrosslng at Highway 4 • Contra Costa Interstate 680/Highway 4 Interch ange Improvem ents: reduce congestion and improve safety by wid e ning Highway 4 and adding new direct connectors be tween i-680 and Highway 4 • Richmond -San Rafa e l Bridge Acc ess (Contra Costa approach); make improveme nts to reduce delays on bridge a pproaches and at the toll plaza, including improvements to the Richmond Parkway • Byron Highway-Vasco Road Connector: Improve access, safety, airport connectivity, and economic development w ith a new connector betwee n Byron Highway and Vasco Road RM3 prov ides only partial funding for these projects. Additional fund ing is need ed to make them a reality. ----------------------------------------2020 lll~NSPOnTATIOrl [XP EII OITIIRf PL ~N 9 rl C't}/jf P .a c:us r ji. \_...,;1 transpo rtation authority J I I I I II I III I I l l A ROAD MAP FOR THE FUTURE WHAT THIS TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN WILL ACCOMPLISH Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA's) 2020 Transportation Ex penditure Plan (TEP) serves as both a road map and an Itinerary that will guide transportation Investments for the coming 35 years. Throughout the 35-year duration of this Pl an, Contra Costa County's population is expected to grow and change, infrastructure will con ti nue to age and wear out, new forms of travel will emerge, and the environment will need continued protectio n. Su c h changes will place even more strain on the County's transportation systems. Without new Investments In transportation, Contra Costa will face a future with distressed and outdated Infrastructure, Increased traffic on already-congested roadways, and a decrease In critical transportation services to those with the greatest need. CC TA strives to preserve and enhance an excellent quality of life for Con tra Costa County's residents, businesses, and communities with convenient, reliable, and accessible transportation. We do this through optimizing the existing transportation syste m. leveraging emerging technologies. offering meaningful programs and services, and providing seamless connections b etween various forms of transportation (for example, cars, transit, cycling, and walking). The projects In this Plan will benefit all who live and travel w ithin Contra Costa County. The projects will help Improve the transportation network over the coming decades to meet growing needs , while supporting economic vitality and an environmentally sustainable future. CCTA is an internationally recognized leader in implem enting tran sportation-related technological solutions to help ease traffic congestion, offer alternative mobility options for travel, provide valuable information to trave lers. make it easier and more efficient to maintain our transportation infrastructure, and many other a pplications that may be currently under development. This TEP reflects CCTA's commitment to fully Integrate applicable transportation technologies with traditional infras tructure for the benefit of residents and travelers. When implemented, the projects in this TEP will accomplish an array of major transportation improvements throughout the county. These projects serve to enhance people's transportation options and reduce congestion on every major transportation corridor in the county. The funding w ill also reach deep into the local communities to improve residents ' quality of life and protect the County's natural environment. ---------------------------------------2020 l AAII~P OR I AliU PI O:f'W OiiURf rLMI 11 12 COMMITMENT TO PERFORMANCE The 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) will be governed by strong performance criteria against which funding, projects, and programming will be evaluated and scored to ens ure ma xim um contribution to the guiding principles and goals of the Plan . Guidelines will be developed through meaningful community e ng agement and eng agement w ith cities and towns. Contra Costa County, Regional Transportation Planning Committees, and the Public Oversight Committee to establish the performance criteria for evaluation of progra ms identified In the Policy Statements. In addition , the Plan wffl meet the Governor's Executive Order B-16-2012 to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. To achieve this, CCTA commits to a goal of accelerating zero emission vehicle (ZEV) penetration and a 15% reduction In ve hicle-m iles traveled (VMTs) per capita . ACHIEVING INTENDED OUTCOMES The 202 0 TEP was created for Contra Costa County residents, businesses, and travelers by the comm un ities and people it serves. Key stakeholder groups were convened and comm unity outreach conducted to understand what guiding principles, priorities, outcomes, and results are most important to the residents and businesses of Contra Costa County. CCTA is fully committed to an outcomes-based approach that includes measurable performance targets for all principles and criteria. The TEP presents a sui t e of transportation solutions that align with guiding principles and will offer a transportation system that supports a vibrant, mod ern , eq u itable, and livable Contra Costa County. CCTA will ensure funding in the TEP will achieve the o utcomes Identified In the 2017 Countywide Transporta ti on Plan (CTP). The TEP offers eq uitable transportation opportunities for all residents of Contra Costa. In eva lu ating detailed funding proposals, CCTA will ensure that expenditures benefit those living In Co mmunities of Concern and for minority and low-incom e res idents. Every project with total costs of more th an $10 million will undergo a performance analysis and review prior to funding being allocated. Implem ented projects and programs will also undergo a thorough analysis of their performance to initiate program modification where needed and/or changes In evaluation methods. A Publi c Oversight Committee will provide input for developing specific performance criteria by which projects can be evaluated and measured . In this way, county ta xpayers can be assured that the funding Is spent responsibly to meet the co unty's transportation goals. TAXPAYER SAFEGUARDS Over the past thirty years, CCTA has operated under a syste m of rigorous taxpayer safeguards to protect the county's investments and to ensure that transportation sales tax revenue Is invested wisely. equitably, and transparently. CCTA consistently achieves the highest standards In its governmental accounting and financial reporting and ensures full accountability In Its programs and projects. With the 2020 TEP, CCTA is fully committed to continuing our strong accountability to Contra Costa taxpayers through many safeguards : • CCTA will continue to publish an annual budget an d strategic delivery plan that estimates expected transportation sales tax receipts, other anticipated reven ue, an d planned expenditures for th e year. • CCTA's Publ ic Oversight Comm ittee will con tinue to provide diligent oversight of all CCTA expenditures and report Its oversight activities and findings t o th e public through annual audits th at focus on the all ocation of funding, project performance, tracking of TEP goals, lo ca l jurisd iction compliance, and growth management performance. • CCTA will routinely inform, communicate with, and engage its partner organizations, advisory comm ittees, and the County's residen ts and businesses to ensure that its program s and project s are fully transparent and best meet the needs of its residents. • CCTA will strive to balance the needs of all people and areas of Contra Costa Cou nty to s upport an equitable and sustainable transportation system for all, while ensuring proportionally greater b enefits to Communities of Concern and low-Income residents. • CCTA's regional transportation planning committees will continue to ensure cohesion with local and subregio n planning and Implementation efforts and adherence to adopted policies. In Ju l y 2019, CCTA was the proud recipie nt of Contra Cost a Taxpayers Associ ation Silver Medal Award for Goo d Gove rn ance. PERTINENT POLICIES CCTA Implements and follows several key policies to ensure that Contra Costa's transportation systems are in alignment with the County's established future vision . Full text of these policies Is Included In the Policy Statements section at the end of this document. In summary, these key policies are as follows : .~. -- Gro w t h Man agem ent P ro gram establishes principles that preserve and enhance the county's quality of life and promotes a healthy and strong economy through a cooperative, multijurlsdlctional process for managing growth while maintaining local authority over land use decisions. Urban Lim it Li ne Compli ance Po lley requires each jurisdiction to adopt and comply with a voter-approved Urban Limit Line, which defines the physical limits of a jurisdiction's future urban development. Both the Growth Management Program and Urban Line Limit Compliance policies, which have been in place since Measure J began In 2009, have been enhanced in this TEP. CCTA, with input from many stakeholders, has developed the following additional four policies to ensure th at projects align with the vision, guidelines, and requirements for fund expenditures. Transit Po lley sets out goals for improving, coordinating, and modernizing transit service-along with first-and last-mile connections to transit-thereby increasing the percentage of residents and commuters that may travel conveniently by public transit. Com plete Streets Pol icy encourages making local streets more efficient and safe for all users-Including drivers, pedestrians , bicyclists, and transit riders-and giving travelers convenient options while m inimizing the need to widen roadways. Advanced Mitigation Program provides innovative ways to advance needed Infrastructure projects more efficiently and provides more effective conservation of natural resources, such as watersheds, wetlands , and agricultural lands. CCTA will also begin development of a countywide vehicle-miles traveled (VMn mitigation program . Road Traffic Safety requires all funding recipients to systemically apply planning and design practices that quantlflably reduce the risk of traffic-related deaths and severe injuries . These policies, along with the guiding p rinciples. will govern the funding and Implementation of the 2020 TEP. 13 ' 0 .. 0 PROPOSED TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE This Transportation Expenditu~e Plan (TEP) incl ud es transportation -related projects and programs to be planned, d esigned, funded, construc ted, and/or delivered in Contra Costa County over the next thirty-five years. This plan anticipates an Investment of approximately $3.6 billion of revenue generated from the half-cent transportation sales tax. Contra Costa County's local sales tax reven ue will help Contra Co$ta Transportation Autho rity (CCTA) attract additional loca l, regional, state, and federal funding to augment the sales tax revenue. The project descriptions that follow are purposefully brief and offer general overviews of the purpose and nature of the projects. Several projects (such as affordable transit for students, seniors, and people with disabilities) are continuations or enhancements to ongoing work performed under Measure J . Many other projects included in this Plan are still in the concept or planning stages. Stakeholders and the public will have plenty of future opportunities to help shape these projects so that they are most useful and beneficial to residents, commuters, and visitors. In its role as the administrator of Contra Costa County's transportation sales tax reven ue, CCTA has instituted requirements so that taxpayer's revenue is invested per established polici es, as presented in the Policy Statements section of this TEP. The policy statements generally require that recipients of funding perform advance performance assessments and com ply with applicable laws and other CCTA policies. The Tax payer Safeguards and Accountability Policy in the Policy Statements section includes the full statement of funding requirements and restrictions, as applicable. CCTA sets aside funding to implement the cou ntywide Growth Management Program , prepare the countywide transportation plan, and support the programming and monitoring of federal and state funds, as well as CCTA's Congestion Management Agency functions. A very small percentage of the funding also covers bas ic administrative functions (such as salaries) an d basic expenses (such as r ent). --------------------------------------_. 20?0111AHWORTA110N EXPEtlUIIUII Ef'(.Atl 15 16 ,..._ SI.4B BILLION IN 2017, FOUR MAJOR FR EE WAYS IN CONTRA COS TA COUNTY RANKED IN TH E TOP 10 WORST COMMUTES: 1-680, 1-80, HIGHWAY 24 AND HIGHWAY 4." RELIEVING CONGESTION ON HIGHWAYS, INTERCHANGES, AND MAJOR ROADS More than 79 percent of Contra Costa County's residents drive to work; several of Contra Costa County's highways have been identified as the "most congested In the San Francisco Bay Area."•• Easing traffic congestion is one of Contra Costa Cou nty residents ' highest priorities. Accordingly, CCTA will invest nearly half of the new transportation sa les tax revenue toward new, modern tools and strategies to improve traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion on the county's major corridors and ro ads. These strategies include highway and ro ad improvements thoughtfully Integrated with transit improvements and alternative modes. Improving transit and transit connections will lessen traffic congestion on the County's highways; as transit service is improved and more people take transit, f e wer cars on the road translates to less traffic. CCTA is committed to Improving access to jobs throughout Contra Costa and supporting economic development through programs and projects in this Transportation Expend iture Plan , such as the Northern Waterfront Initiative. Programs and projects will support housing within planned or established job centers that are served by transi t , or that aid economic development and job creation . Projects will be subj ect to applicable policies as presented in the Policy Statements section at the end of this document. ·soURCE: Me tropolitan rranspdrtntion Commis>ion , Vtt,,l Slpns -llttps:!lmtc.ca.govlsiteslde f,wlt/ft'les/top_to_congc•s tic;m .toc;n tion ~-20 1 7pdf ··soURCE: Metropolitan 1'rans,)oct.,lot• Commission, VItal Signs, 2016-2017 datil WHAT'S A CORRIDOR? A corriclc;>r fs a swath or belt of land that contains one or more types of transportation infrastructure, such as a road or railway. Each of Contra Costa County's corridors contains a major interstate or highway as well as a major transit line, roads, streets. paths, bus lines, and transit station!;;. Everyone is impacted by the performance of corridors. This impact is felt each and every day, whether you're doing your daily commute, heading to a medical appointment, or traveling to a youth soccer-game. CC'fA is focused on optimizing all transportation within a corridor so that traffic is smooth, transit is convenient, and all systems work together to support travel across communities and throughout the region. For purposes of this Transportation Expenditure Plan, CCTA is focused on three major transportation corridor Improvement categories: » Improve State Route 242, Highway 4, Transit, and eBART Corridor >> Modernize 1-680, Highway 4, Transit. and BART Corridor » Enhance 1·80, 1-580 ( Richmond-San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor 18 G)@) RELIEVE CONGESTIO N AND IMPROVE ACCESS TO JOBS ALONG HIGHWAY 4 AND SR-242 CCTA is continu in g its work in easing traffic congestion, smoo th ing traffi c flow, and red ucing tr ave l time along Highway 4 and SR-242 with a blend of projects that ma y be considered : • Improving access to jobs and supporting economic development along the northern waterfront • Improv in g access to local key destinations , incl ud ing business districts and BART stations • Reco nfigu ring in terc hanges alon g SR-242 • Managing tra ffic flow on Highway 4 by connecti ng and synchronizing traffic on freeways, loca l roads, and freeway ramps • Completing operational improve ments at the 1-680/Hig hway 4 interch ange • Addressing bottlenecks and cooling hot spots caused by high -vo lume weaving areas and adding auxiliary lanes and improving ramps between SR-242 and Bailey Road • Providing incentives to encoura ge the use of tran si t and alternati ve transportation opt ions most CONGESTED HIGHWAY in the Bay Area Eastbound Mattfnez to Pittsburg* Cn•1110 Cnm hilll!liiiJIIU II Aullllllily IMPROVE LOCAL ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 4 AND BYRON AIRPORT CCTA has developed a multipronged ap proach to reducing traffic congestion and improving safety and travel time reliability on the roads throu gh and around Byron . These projects will also faci litate economic development and goods movement in East Contra Cos ta Cou nty. Key projects ma y co ns ider: • A new limited-access connec tor between Byron Highway and Vasco Road south of Cami no Diablo to improve access to By ron Airport , maki ng it a more use ful tran sportation hub • Improvements to Vasco Road and Byron Highway; and other safety impro vements • Interchang e improvements alon g Highway 4 at Balfour Road , Marsh Creek Road , Wa lnut Bou le va rd , and Ca mino Dia blo • Enhancements to the Byron Airport • Improve access to jobs and support economic development along the Northern Waterfront These projects will include measures to prevent growth outsi de predefined urban limit lines , for example , prohibitions on roadway access fro m adjacen t properties, permanent protection and/or acquisition of agricultural lands or cri tical hab itat. and habitat co nservation measures. ...rC- mr ADDITIONAL eBART TRA IN CARS Trains are full with standing room on ly during co mmute hours. Funding will be cons idered for allo cation toward purchasing additional eBART train cars so that trains can carry more passengers on this popu lar route . ·source: M etropolitan Jra nsporMrion comml.~sion. "VII/'ll Signs: Ba y Area Freeway Loca tions witll Most Wo;ei(Cfrly Tri!lflc Cona esllon, 2017" · ll tlps:llmtc.ca.gov/~iliiJ,V detaultJII/e51top_I O_c onpes tiotUocal{<m.-l·ZD1 Zpctt SEAMLESS CONNECTED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Contra Costa County 's tran sportatio n system is a mix of fre eways to bike paths , trains to shuttles ; and many other modes in between . Providing seamless con ne ct ivity among these many travel options will ensu re that our system ca n meet th e future ne eds of our growing and aging popu lati on . CCTA will develop guidelines and implement systems to promote connec ti vi ty between all users of th e transportation network (vehicles, pedestrians , bi cycles , buses , trucks, etc.) using automation technology and taking advantage of future transportation technology trends . c~ ENHANCE FERRY SERVICE AND COMMUTER RAIL IN EAST AND CENTRAL COUNTY To help travelers make convenient co nne ctions between th e Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin train system an d the BART system, CCTA proposes lo fund new stations and improvements to existing stations and rail facilities . Some exam ple projects may include a new train sta ti on for the San Joaquin line and a park-and-ride lot in Oakley, new con ne ctio ns between the new Oakley station and Antioc h eBART, and a transit connection from Lh e Martinez Amtrak station to the North Concord BART station . CC TA is also co ns idering expanding ferry ser vic e between Martinez and Antioch . As more people use ferries and the passenge r train , tra ffic congestion on Contra Cos ta County's roads and high ways will decrease , traffic will flow more smoothly, and air emissions will decrease , thereby improvi ng th e County's air quality. 19 )) TOTAL INVESTMENTS: S705 million Suisun Bay Elethell~land Pittsburg Antioch Pleasant Hill ~ I I I I\ Lafayatta Walnut Creek IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAJOR ROADS IN EAST COUNTY CCTA is committed to relieving congestion on major roads and implementing modern systems that provide safe , efficient. and reliable movement of buses , vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Projects will range in size and type , and may consider the following : • New and/or wider lanes or shoulders • New bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Installation of "smart'' parking management programs • Traffic signal synchronization and other innovative technologies • Traffic calming measures and roundabouts • Shoulders, sidewalks, cur bs and gutters. and streetscapes • Bus transit facility enhancements, such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities • Closed gaps and extended major roads to relieve congestion and improve safety Brentwood (proposed sta tion) Q ~ Highw3y 4 - S l~!o Route 242 - Passenger Train 01 1111110 BART Trans il Exlemlon EAST COUNTY TRAN SIT EXTEN SION TO BRENTWOOD AND CONNECTIVITY TO TRANSIT, RAIL , AND PARKING Expanding transit service throughout East Contra Costa County will enable more people to travel conveniently to the Antioch eBART station and other destinations served by transit. The TEP may consider funding a direct link between a new intermodal center in Brentwood and lhe Antioch eBART station. Funding will also be considered to improve transit service throughout Brentwood, Oakley, and nearby communities via new shuttle service , bus service, and transit hubs, such as a new Tri Delta park,and-ride lot to service eBART and a new Amtrak San Joaquin station in Oakley. Funding will help integrate existing transit services using new technologies so that people have smooth and convenient connections with less wait time. Byron Q IMPROVE TRAN SIT RELIABILITY ALONG SR,242 , HIGHWAY 4, AND VASCO ROAD One of CCTA's strategies to smooth traffic along SR-242, Highway 4, and Vasco Road is to improve and enhance transit service to give travelers viable and convenient options to driving . When more people take transit, there will be fewer cars on the road and traffic congestion will be reduced. Possible projects that CCTA may consider : • Increased express bus service • Improved interchanges and local access for buses so they can utilize the highways more efficiently • Dedicated part·time transit lanes to bypass congestion • Improved transit connections between transit stations (including BART stations and ferry terminals), schools, housing , and employment centers , thereby addressing transit users' first-mile/last-mile challenges -------------------------------------ZO ?OTRhN~PORTATION [X~E!IOIIIJRi Pl.J\fl 20 Modernize 1-680, Highway 24, Transit, and BART Corridor ~ RELIEVE CONGESTION , EA SE BOTTLENECKS, AND IMPROVE LOCAL ACCESS ALONG THE 1-680 CORRIDOR Improvements to the 1·680 corridor will work together to address bottlenecks. relieve traffic congestion , smooth traffic flow . redu ce travel times. improve air quality , and offer efficient transportation choices to all travelers . Key strategi es to be cons idered include : • Complete express lanes in both directions from Rudgear Road in Wal nut Creek to the Benicia -Martinez Bridge , to provide twenty-five mile s of continuous southbound express lanes and nearly co ntinuous northbound express lanes • Address congestion hot spots caused by high-volume weaving area s. such as between Livorna Road and Treat Blvd. Additional merge lane s and ramp improvements at these locations will provide safe merging for motorists and ease bottlenecks that currently create chronic delays • Implement inno vative technology solutions to manage traffic flow by connecting and synchronizing traffic on local arterials , freeway ramp s, and fr eeways • Transform park -and -ride facilities into shared mobility hubs that provide multimodal transportation options and amen ities to en courage transit use • Implement transportation demand management programs to reduce single-occupancy veh icle travel • Prov ide incent ives for using alternative transportation options •s oc"co; Metro p o{!tan Trar~sporlili!OII t;o milliSs!otl, "Vil li/ Sii;Jns; 8ay Area Freeway Loc.llfom~ wit/1 Me)~ I Wm:;o krf,,y Traffic Conoes tlon, 2U!1"-/lllp.9lim!r..cu.go vl Sitosl/fiJf.?u/1/fi/esllop_IO_cong~s tion_tccii liot iS ·~>ol 7.(i(l/ r.UIIIJJ Cthl;1 h il11!.p!tlli1110tl Au lhnlltv Lafay ette Orinda most CONGESTED HIGHWAY in the Bay Area Northbound Danville to Walnut Creek * Suisu n Bay .t· Bay Point </ -_ '\~~~ Concord P l e~sant Hill Alamo Danvillo San Ramon • 1·660 H igl'lw~y 24 P•mng$rTrein 0 11 11111 0 ElART >>TOTAL INVESTMENTS: $536 million ~ IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAJOR ROADS IN CENTRAL COUNTY AND LAMORINDA CCTA is committed to relievi ng co ngest ion on major roads and implementing modern systems th at provide safe, efficient, and reliable movement of buses, vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians . Projects will range in size and typ e and ma y conside r th e following : • New and/or wide r lanes or shou lde rs • New bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Installation of •smart'' parking mana ge ment programs • Traffic signal syn chronization and other in novative techn ol ogies • Traffic calming measures and ro undabouts • Shoulders , sidewalks, curbs, gutters , and streetscapes • Bu s transit facility enhancements, such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities ~@ IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON HIGHWAY 24 AND MODERNIZE THE OLD BORES OF CALDECOTT TUNNEL CCTA has plans to improve traffic flow and access along Highway 24 in Orinda , Lafayette , and Moraga through a suite of projects that co uld include improving interchanges, modifying major roads to reduce highway access delays, and other co ngest io n-reducing impr ovements . CCTA will also develop transit an d shared trip inc entiv es for drivers in lieu of single-occupant vehicle travel. The original two -bore Calde cott Tunnel opened in 1937. CCTAwill implement improvements that may include increased lighting and vis ibi lity, improved traffic alerts for crashes or sta lled vehicles , an d other phys ical or te chnological solutions to improve safety and help Improv e traffic flow in the tu nn els. a IMPROVE TRANSIT RELIABLITY ALONG THE 1 ~6 80 AND HIGHWAY 24 CORRIDORS One of CCTA's strateg ies to smooth traffic along the 1·680 and Highway 24 corridors Is to improve and enhance transit service to give travelers via ble and conve nient alternatives to driving in their vehicles. Wh en more people take transi t, there will be fewer cars on the road and traffic will be red uce d. Funding may consider the followi ng : • Implement and in crease expres s bus service along the 1-680 and Hig hwa y 24 corridors • Improve intercha ng es and local access so buses can util ize th e hi ghways more efficiently • Provide dectlcated part-tim e transit lan es to bypass con ges tion • Improve transit connections between tr ansit sta tions, schoo ls, housing, and emp lo ym en t centers, th ereby addressing first-mile /last-mil e chall enges for tr ansi t users PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS TO BART STATIONS ALONG 1-680 AND HIGHWAY 24 In addition to making shuttle service to and from BART more frequent, CCTA will co nside r allo ca ting funding toward ma king parking and access Improvements that serve BART st ations , so that buses and people in ve hicles-al ong wi th people arrivi ng by walkin g or bicycling-can get to the station more easily and co nve ni entl y. Fund in g ma y be con side red for constructing satellite parking lots wit h frequent direct shuttl e service to BART. ~ SEAMLESS CONNECTED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Co ntra Cos ta Cou nty's transportation system is a mix, from fre eways to bike paths , trains to shuttles, and man y other modes in between. Providing seamless connectivity among thes e many travel option s wi ll en sure th at ou r system can meet th e future needs of our growing and aging population . CCTA wi ll develop guidelines and implement sy stems to promote connec ti vity between all users of the transportation network (vehicles , pedestrians, bi cycles , buse s, trucks , etc.) using automation technology and taking advantage of future transportation technology tre nds . ~ IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAJOR ROADS IN SAN RAMON VALLEY CCTA is com mitted to relieving congestion on major ro ads and implementing mod ern systems that provide safe, efficient, and reliable movement of buses, vehicles , bicyclists , and pedestrians. Pro jec ts wi ll range in size and type, and ma y cons ider the following : • New and/or wider lanes or shoulders • New bic ycle and pedestria n facilit ies • Installation of "smart" parking management programs • Traffic signal synchronization and other innovative technolog ies • Traffic calming measures and roundabouts • Shoulders , sidewalks , curbs, gutters , and streetscapes • Bus transit facility en hancements, such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities -----------------------------------~ 202DJTh\NSPDO fATID!IEXP£NDilliRiPlMI 21 22 ® RELIEVE CONGESTION AND IMPROVE LOCAL ACCESS ALONG THE 1-80 CORRIDOR Improvements to the 1·80 corridor will address bottlenecks, reli eve traffic congestion , srnooth traffic flow. reduce travel times , improve air quality, and offer effi cient transportation cho ices to all travelers. Key improvements may include ; • Several innovative strategies and operational improvements will be implemented to reduce travel time, improve air quality, reduce weaving at interchanges, and smooth traffic now • Expand intelligent transportation systems an d advanced technology strategies along 1-80 to maximile system efficiency and prepare the corr ido r for future ad vances in transportati on technology • In crease travel time reliability in the carpool lanes through cos t-effective managed lane strategies and enforcement • Improve and expand express transit service through the corrido r • Transform park-and -ride facilities into shared mobility hubs that provide multimodal transportation options and amenities to encourage transit use • Provide incentives to encourage the use of transit and alternative tra nsportation options. San Franctsco Bay San Pablo Point Richmond 1-80 --· 1-580 --· Passeng erTfaln 0 1111111 0 BART -$ ~ Crockott 1111!1!~ Port Costa ~ ~ ,/.t:P- 1 4 ~ El Sobrante El Cerrito del Norte Kensington El Cerrito 0 0. WILL BE SPENT TO INCREASE BUS SERVICES AND RELIABilllV IN WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CtiiiiiJCtl\IJ IIJn~p·nl "ll.lll~ll l holl l'l ------------------------------------- >> TOTAL INVESTMENTS: 8243 million ~ IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAJOR ROADS IN WEST COUNTY CCTA is committed to relieving congestion on major roads and implementing modern systems that provide sa fe, efficient , and reliable movement of buses, vehicles, bicy cl ists, and pedestrians. Projects will rang e in size and type, and may consider the following : • Railroad grade separations • New and/or wider lanes or shoulders • New bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Installation of "smart" parking management programs • Traffic signal synchronization and other innovative technologies • Traffic calming measures and roundabouts • Shoulders , sidewalks , curbs and gutters, and streetscapes • Bus transit facility enhancements, such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities ENHANCE FERRY SERVICE AND COMMUTER RAIL IN WEST COUNTY To help travelers make convenient connections with the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin train systems, CCTA will consider funding a new regional intermodal station in Hercules, along with new or improved ferry services in Hercules with connections to the train . As more people use ferries and the train , traffic congestion on Con tra Costa County's road s and highways will decrease, traffic will flow more smoothly, and air emissions will be reduced the reby improving the county's air quality. SEAMLESS CONNECTED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Contra Costa County 's transportation system is a mix, from freeways to bike paths, trains to shuttles, and many other modes in between . Providing seamless connectivity among th ese many travel options will ensure that our system can meet the future needs of our growing and aging population. CCTA will develop guidelines and implement systems to promote connectivity between all users of the transportation network (vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles , buses , trucks, etc.) using automation technology and taking advantage of future transportation technology trends. IMPROVED TRAFFIC FLOW AND LOCAL ACCESS TO RICHMOND -SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE ALONG 1-580 AND RICHMOND PARKWAY CCTA plans to relieve traffic congestion and reduce traffic delays by modernl~ing facilities, expanding pedestrian and bicycling options, improving transit reliability, and encouraging the use of carpoo ls and buses. Specific improvements to be considered: • Extending the carpool lane along 1-580 from the toll plaza at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Central Avenue in El Cerrito • Making improvements so that pedestrians and cyclists can better access the Richmond -San Rafael bridge, Richmond Parkway, Richmond Ferry Terminal, and Richmond BAR T Station • Improving the interchange at Richmond Parkway and 1-580 • Providing Incentives for using alternative transportation options t; IMPROVE TRANSIT RELIABILITY ALONG THE 1-80 CORRIDOR One of CCTA's strategies to smooth traffic along the 1-80 corridor is to improve and enhance transit service to give travelers viable and convenient options to driving . When more people take transit, there will be fewer cars on the road and traffic will be reduced. Fund ing is planned to : • Increase express bus service along the co rridor • Improve interchanges and local access for buses so they can utilize the highways more efficiently • Provide dedicated part-time transit lanes along 1-80 to bypass congestion • Improve transit connections between transit stations (incl uding BART stations and ferry terminals ), schools, housing, and employment centers , th ereby addressing first-mile/last-mi le challenges for transit users • Provide incentives to tra velers to use alternative transportation options ------------------------------------20 20 III~NSI'ORTAIION EXPENDITUR E 11LMI 23 24 ~ S 1.98 BILLION IMPROVING TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE IN ALL OUR COMMUNITIES The quality of roads and availability of transportation options are two major factors in making our communities great places to live, as are the availability of jobs, safety, access to parks and trails, and good clean air and water. CCTA will implement many projects throughout the county to improve our local communities and protect Contra Costa County's environment and quality of life. The previous section of this TEP presented investments focused on Contra Costa County's major corridors. This section describes funding that spreads into every community, through local projects and programs that improve the County's vast transportation network. Funding will be allocated toward Improving local roads and streets to make them safer for ali travelers . Smaller projects-such as removing bottlenecks, improving traffic signal operations; Installing traffic calming measures, and making streetscape Improvements-can make big improvements in a community's quality of life. Funding will be allocated toward substantial investments in a robust transit system that provides affordable, efficient. convenient. and accessible transit to travelers throughout the county. These projects will result In cleaner, safer, and more reliable trips on BART. buses, and ferries. The transit systems will extend Into parts of the county that are currently lacking frequent transit service. When more people take transit. traffic congestion on the County's roads and highways will decrease, traffic will flow more smoothly, and air emissions will decrease, thereby improving the county's air quality. CCTA Is committed to supporting accessible and safe transportation for all Contra Costa County residents. CCTA will allocate funding toward a wide array of programs for students, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, aimed at offering safe transportation options and improving mobility. Projects will be subject to applicable policies as presented in the Policy Statement section. I ,•"'_ ......... .. i! I ALAMEDA COUNTY \ SOLANO COUNTY LEGEND -------------------------------------20l 0 1 11 ~NSPURT h 110 N EXPEIIOITliR ~PlA N 25 26 Improving Transit and Transportation Countywide In All Our Communities 9 A MODERNIZE LOCAL ROADS AND IMPROVE ACCESS TO JOB CENTERS AND HOUSING Smooth , pothole-free roads , safe intersections, pleasant sidewa lks, safe bike lanes , and clean ai r are some of the important features that make Contra Costa County a great place to live and work. CCTA will prov ide fund in g directly to the county's cities, towns , and unincorporated areas so that they may make improvements to th eir own local roads, streets , and access to job centers and housing . To ensure transparency and accountability, local agencies report annually on the amount spent on roadway maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and other roadway improvements . Local agencies must also meet the requi rements set forth in the Growth Management Program , Urban Li mit Line Compliance Requirements, Transit Poli cy, Complete Streets Policy, Road Traffic Safety Policy, and other applicable policies in the Policy Statements section . ~~~ SAFE TRANSPORTATION FOR YOUTH AND STUDENTS Drop-off and pick-up at schools often creates traffiC jams on local streets and unsafe conditions for children. CCTA will allocate funds toward a wide array of transportation projects and programs for studen ts and youth, aimed at relieving congestion , offering safe transportation options-such as walking and cycling-and improving mobility. Fun ding wi ll also be used for red uced fare transit passes , transit incentives, and school bus programs to encourage more youth and students to use transit to attend school and afterschoo l programs. In cooperation with project sponsors in each subregion , CCTA will establish guidelines to define priori ti es and maximize effectivene ss. The guidelines may require provisions , such as operational efficiencies , performance criteria, parent contributions. and reporting requirements. ~~ IMPROVE WALKING AND BIKING ON STREETS AND TRAILS Numerous studies and research across many different communities have demonstrated the benefits of creating an environment where walking and bicycling are safe , comfortable, and convenient. For example, inc reased walk ing and bicycling can improve ai r quality by reducing emissions and energy use from motor vehicles, improving access by foot or bike can make transit more convenient, and regular wa lking and bicycl ing can improve people's health and reduce mortal ity rates and health ca re costs . This TEP contains unpr ece dente d lev els of funding to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians in every part of the county-from local street Imp rovements to trail enhancements and similar projects. Funding will be considered to implement projects in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestria n Plan . CCTA will develop program guidelines for a competitive project-selection process that maximizes benefits for all users. All funding will be consistent with CCTA's Comple te Stree ts , Road Traffic Safety, and other applicable policies . Approximate ly one-fifth of the funds will be considered for allocation to the East Bay Regional Park District ror the development. maintenance, and rehabi litation of paved · regiona l trails . ' REDUCE AND REVERSE COMMUTES If people live closer to their jobs and transit, they have less need to commute long distances, thereby reducing traffic congestion , vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), and greenhouse gas (GHG ) emiss ions. Transporta tion programs and projec ts funded out of this category will support economic development and job creation in Contra Costa County. All expenditures in this category will be used to reduce or reverse commutes , Funding will also incentivize employers to create local jobs in housing-rich areas and to promote transit , shared trips , telecommuting, and shifting work schedules, all with the intent of reducing commuter traffic at peak commute times and better utiliz ing ava ilable reverse commute capacity in the existing transportation infrastructure . Funding is intended to match reg ional, state, or federal grants and private-sector investment to achieve max imum benefi ts and may be spent on other regiona l transporta ti on pr iorities at the request of the subregion. Examples or projec ts that ma y be Funded include new or upgraded rail crossings to "unlock" development poten ti al fo r emp loyment centers, ra il -based goods movement imp rovements , bike lanes and bike faci lities in business parks and on routes from transit stations and /or housing to employment centers, and other new or upgraded transportation infra structure intended to strategically attract jobs to housing-rich areas. Transit service to new employment centers could also be funded under this category. 27 )) TOTAL INVESTMENTS: 81.98 billion J\~ ACCE SS IBLE TRAN SPORTATION FOR SENIOR S, VETERAN S, AND PEOPLE WITH DI SABILITIE S Contra Costa Coun ty's population is aging . As people get older or become disabled and can no longer drive, they will increasingly rely on other ways to get around . Funding in this category will be used for affordable, accessible, cost·effective , and safe countywide transportation for seniors. disabled ve terans, and other people with disabilities who, due to age or disability, cannot drive or take other transit options . In collaboration with stakeholders, transit and nonprofit service providers , CCTA wlll develop an Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan to impl ement a customer-focused, user-friendly, seamless coordinated system using these funds . The Plan will be developed based on the characteristics and abilities of all system users and identify options including traditional and beyond traditional paratransit services . Q INCREASE BU S SERVI CES AND RELIABILITY IN WE ST CONTRA COSTA Many people in West Contra Costa County rely on buses and transit as their primary means of travel. CCTA will focus on expanding transit services to unserved or underserved areas, along with more frequent and reliab le bus service to all. Funding will be provided to public transit operators in the western subregion of Contra Costa County (including AC Transit and WestCAT) to provide cleaner, safer, and more reliable trips on buses . This funding will enable transit operators to improve the frequency of service, especially on high-demand routes, increase ridership and incentivize transit use by offsetting fares. g PROVIDE CONVENIENT AND RELIABLE TRANSIT SERVICES IN CENTRAL, EASl AND SOUTHWEST CONTRA COSTA Although BART and rail service offer backbone transit options to residents in central , southwest. and east County, many neighborhoods and communities are unserved or underserved by bus or other transit options, meaning that transit is not close enough to people who want to use it and not frequent enough to be convenient. Funding will be provided to public transit operators in the central, east, and southwest subregions to provide cleaner, safer, and more reliable trips on buses or shuttles. This funding will enable transit operators to improve the frequency of service, especially on high-demand route s, increase ridership, and incentlvize transit use by offsetting fa res . ...re- m? CLEANER, SAFER BART BART began operating in the early 1970s and its stations and station equipment are showing thei r age . There are eleven BART stations located in Contra Costa County. CCTA plans to fund a suite of modernization projects at select stations to increase safety, security, and cleanliness, and to Improve customer experience. Several projects will focus on improving reliability of fare gates and reducing fare evasion. Many of these projects are eligible for Measure RR (BART's $3.5 billion genera l obligation bond). CCTA will provide no more than a dollar·for·dollar match for BART projects. BART and CCTA will develop a countywide program to determine how funding is allocated , evaluated, and tracked for effectiveness . Specific funding and maintenance of effort requirements are required and identified in the Taxpayers Safeguards and Accountability Policy section. 3 REDUCE EMISSIONS AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY CCTA is a nationwide leader in susta inable , te chnology -ena bled transp ortation. We integrate innovative technological solutions into Contra Costa County's transportation network to improve traffi c flow and safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and offer improved travel options . Technology solutions can help solve the challenges of the lack of connectivity between transportation options, resulting in reduced emissions and improved air quality. Eligible expenditures in this category include: • Implementing the strategies de veloped in the 2019 Contra Costa Electric Vehicle Readiness Blueprint and subsequent updates • Reducing transportation -re lated greenhouse gases through the utilization of a clean er vehicle fleet, including alternative fuels and/ or locally produced energy • Preparing for a growing fleet of zero-e mission vehic les by facilitating the installation of electric charging stations or alternative fuels • Increasing utilization of non automobile types of transportation by expanding walking and biking paths and transit optio ns • Using demand management strategies designed to reduce congestion, increase use of nonautomobile transportation , increase occupancy of autos , manage existing infrastructur e, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Managing parking supply to improve availability, utili za tion, and to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas production Fund ing is intended to match reg iona l, state, or federal grants and private-sector investment to achieve maximum benefits. CC TAwill develop and adopt guidelines for a competitive project-selection process for the use of these funds. ------------------------------------?02 0 TRANSPORTATION t)CPFNPITIJRF PLMI • I I II :::::& rnull .iC i'U·llilll'.partJIIUIIAnlli nllt V ------------------------ POLICY STATEMENTS The Growth Management Program (GMP) Coupled with the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) is Contra Costa's unique and well-tested program for managing growth. The overall goal of the GMP Is to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa through a cooperative, multijurlsdlctlonal process for managing growth, while maintaining local authority over land-use decisions .' The objectives of the GMP are to: ~ Assure that new residential, business, and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth -+ Require cooperative transportation and land -use planning among Contra Costa County, cities/towns, and transportation agencies ~ Support land-use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions -7 Support lnflll and redevelopment In existing urban and brownfield areas The Measure J GMP, which Includes Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line (ULL), Is augmented and superseded by this 2020 TEP. I. Tile Aul llonty will, to Ill'' exl~lll possible, sllemprlo llilWlOillze the GMf' and the st.l te-manda ted Congestion Ma llRgemer tr ProgrmiJ (CMPs}. To llle mae111 tl1ey eon tiler. CMP ac tivities s/J0/1 lolke precedence over tl1e GMP actNII/es. lOlU I R~NSPUR!Ali ON fXPEIIOI IUAE PLAt/ 29 30 COM PON ENTS To receive its share of funding from the following categories; • 2020 TEP Modernize Local Roads & Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing • Measure J Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) each jurisdiction must: 1. Adopt a Growth Management Element (GME) Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in place, a GME as part of Its General Plan that outlines the jurisdiction's goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals. The GME must show how the jurisdiction will comply with sections 2-9 below. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) will refine Its model GME and administrative procedures in consultation with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) to reflect the revised GMP. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other standards and procedures into its GME to support the objectives and required components of this GMP. 2. Adopt a Development Mitigation Program Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain In place, a Development Mitigation Program to ensure that new growth Is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. This program shall consist of both a local program to mitigate Impacts on local streets and other facilities, and a regional program to fund regional and subregional transportation projects, consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). The jurisdiction's local Development Mitigation Program shall ensure that revenue provided from this measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has or would have been committed to any project. The regional Development Mitigatlon Program shall establish fees, exactions, assessments, or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation Improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development. Regional mitlgatlon programs may adjust such fees, exactions, assessments or other mitigation measures when developments are within walking distance of frequent transit seNice or are part of a mixed-use development of sufficient density and with necessary facilities to support greater levels of walking and bicycling. f n111r :1 Cll\lil h a nst)ttiiJ IIJU ,\ulhfiiiiT Each RTPC shall develop the regional Development Mitigation Program for its region, taking account of planned and forecast growth and the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) and actions to achieve them established in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. RTPCs may use existing regional mitigation programs, if consistent with this section, to comply with the GMP. 3. Address Housing Options Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels as part of a report on the Implementation of the actions outlined in its adopted Housing Element The report will demonstrate progress by one of the following: a. Comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed , or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the average number of units needed each year to rneet the housing objectives established In the jurisdiction's Housing Element b. Illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain , housing development c. Illustrating how a jurisdiction's General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives Jurisdictions will provide prepared reports regarding the production and preservation of affordable units as provided for In the Annual Housing Elements Progress Report and subsequent reports. Ea ch jurisdiction shall demonstrate meaningful progress In preserving existing affordable units for lower-income residents by adopting and implementing locally appropriate antidisplacement and affordable housing policies, for example, preservation of affordable housing, density bonus ordinance and/or incluslonary zoning, to support community stabilization. Jurisdictions are subject to California's Surplus Land Act, which Includes the disposition of surplus land, and each jurisdiction will affirm whether It complies with the surplus Land Act and whether It maintains an Inventory of all public land In its jurisdiction that adheres to applicable Surplus Land Act and Government Code 50569 requirements and makes the inventory available to the public. Each jurisdiction will indicate whether it adheres to applicable local, state, or federal policies or laws regarding tenant protection and whether it has prepared the reports required by such polices or laws and made the reports available to the public. In addition, each jurisdiction sha ll consider the Impacts that its land use and development policies have on the local, regional, and countywide transportation system, Including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided, and shall incorporate policies and standards Into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new developments. 4. Participate In an Ongoing Cooperative, Multljurlsdlctlonal Planning Process Each jurisdiction shall participate in an ongoing p ro cess with other jurisdictions and agencies, the RTPCs, and the Authority to create a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. Jurisdictions shall work with the RTPCs to: a. IdentifY Routes of Regional Significance and MTSOs or other tools adopted by the Authority for measuring performance and quality of service along routes of significance-collectively r eferred to as MTSOs-for those routes and actions for achieving those objectives b. A pply the Authority's travel demand model and technical procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments and developments exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including on Action Plan objectives c . Create the Development Mitigation Programs outlined in section 2 above d . Help develop other plans, programs, and studies to ~ddress other transportation and growth management issues In consultation with the RTPCs, each jurisdiction will use the travel demand model to evaluate changes to local General Plans and the impacts of major development projects for their effects on the local and regional transportation system and the ability to achieve the MTSOs established in the Actlon Plans. Jurisdictions shall also participate in the Authority's ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process. As part of this process. the Authority shall support countywide and subregional planning efforts, including the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, and shall maintain a travel demand model. Jurisdictions shall help maintain the Authority's travel demand modeling system by providing Information on proposed improvements to the transportation system and planned and approved development within the jurisdiction. 5. Continuously Comply with an Urban Limit Line (ULL) To be found In compliance with this element of the Authority's GMP, all jurisdictions must continually comply with an applicable voter approved ULL. Said ULL may either be the Contra Costa County voter approved ULL (County ULL) or a locally initiated, voter approved ULL (LV-ULL). Additional Information and detailed compliance requirements for the ULL are fully defined In the ULL Compliance Requirements, which are Incorporated herein. Either of th e following actions by a local jurisdiction will constitute noncompliance with the GMP: a. The submittal of an annexation request to the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) for lands outside of a j urisdiction's applicable ULL. b . Failure to conform to t he Authority's ULL Compliance Requirements. 6. Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a CIP that outlines the capital projects needed to implement the goals and policies of the jurisdiction's General Plan for at least the following flve ~year period. The CIP shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the Improvements. The jurisdiction shall forward the transportation component of its CIP to the Authority for Incorporation Into the Authority's database of transportation projects. -----------------------------------------~D ZD l llhHSPD~lA TID NEXPEtiDII URE PLAtl 31 32 7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution To promote carpools. vanpools. and park-and-ri de lots, each jurisdiction shall adopt a local ordinance or resolution that conforms to the model TSM ordinance that the Authority has drafted and adopted. Upon approval of the Authority, cities/towns with a small employment base may adopt alternative mitigation measures In lie u of a TSM ordinance or resolution . 8. Adopt Additional Growth Management Policies, as applicable Each jurisdiction shall adopt and thereafter continuously maintain the following polici es (where applicable): a. Hillside Development Policy b. Ridgellne Protection Policy c . Wildlife Corridor Policy d . Creek Development Policy Where a jurisdiction does not have a d evelopabl e hillside , ridgeline, wildlife corridor, or creek. it need not adopt the corresponding policy. An ordinance that implements the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Pres ervation Plan A ct (NCCP) shall satisfy the requirement to have an adopted Wildlife Corridor Policy and Creek Developm ent Policy. In addition to the above, jurisdictions with Prime Farmland and Fa rmland of Statewide Importance (Prime/Statewide)-as defined by the California Departm ent of Conservation and mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program-within their planning areas but outside of their city/town shall adopt and thereafter continuously maintain an Agricultural Protection Policy. The policy must ensure that potential impacts of converting Prime/Statewide outside the ULL to other uses are Identified and disclosed when considering such a conversion . The applicable policies are required to be In place by no later than July 1, 2022. 9. Adopt a Complete Streets Polley and Vision Zero Polley Each jurisdiction shall adopt a Complete Streets Policy, consiste nt with the California Complete Stre ets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Authority's Complete Streets Policy, which accommodates all users of travel modes in the public right-of-w ay. Each jurisdiction shall also adopt a Vision Zero Polley that substantially complies with the Authority's Model Vision Zero Policy and reflects best practices for street design elements and programs to mitigate human error and quantifiably Improve the traffic safety of all us ers In the planning, design, and construction of projects funded with Measure funds. Jurisdictions shall document th eir level of effort to implement these policies. including during requ ests for funding , peer review of project design, and as part of the newly added compliance requirement in the biennial GMP Checklist. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS Portions of the monies received from the retail transaction and use tax will be returned to the local jurisdictions (the cities/towns and County) for use on local , subregional, and/ or regional transportation Improvements and maintenance projects . Receipt of all such funds requires compliance with the GMP and the allocation proced ures described below. The fund s are to be distributed on a formula based on population and road mil es. Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its compliance with all of the components of the GMP in a completed compliance checklist. The jurisdiction shall submit. and the Authority shall review and make findings regarding the jurisdiction's compliance with the requirements of the GMP. consistent with the Authority's adopted policies and procedures. If the Authority determin es that the jurisdiction complies with the requirements of the GMP. it shall allocate to the jurisdiction its share of 2020 TEP funding from the Modernize Local Roads & Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing category and its share of Measu re J Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements funding . Jurisdictions may use funds allocated under this provision to comply with these a dministrative requirements. If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction does not comply with the requirements of the GMP, the Authority shall withhold funds and also make a finding that the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to re ce ive Measure J TLC funds until the Authority determines that the jurisdiction has achieved compliance. The Authority's findings of noncompliance may set deadlines and conditions for achieving compliance. Withholding of funds, reinstatement of compliance , reallocation of funds, and treatment of unallocated funds shall be as established In adopted Autl1orlty policies and procedures . Urban Limit Line (ULL) Compliance Requirements Definitions-the following definitions apply to the GMP ULL requirement: 1. Urban Limit Line (ULL) A ULL, urban growth boundary, or other equivalent physical boundary judged by the Authority to clearly identify the physical limits of the local jurisdiction's future urban development. 2, Local Jurisdictions Includes Contra Costa County, the 19 cities and towns within Contra Costa, plus any newly incorporated cities or towns established after July 1, 2020. 3. County ULL A ULL placed on the ballot by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, approved by voters at a countywide election, and In effect through the applicable GMP compliance period. The current County ULL was established by Measure L and approved by voters in 2006. The following local jurisdictions have adopted the County ULL as their applicable ULL: City of Brentwood Town of Moraga City of Clayton City of Oakley City of Concord City of Orinda Town of Danville City of Pinole City of El Cerrito City of Pleasant Hill City of Hercules City of Richmond City of Lafayette City of San Pablo City of Martinez City of Walnut Cre ek 4. Local Voter ULL (LV-ULL) A ULL or equivalent measure placed on the local jurisdiction ballot, approved by the jurisdiction's voters, and recognized by action of the localjurisdiction's legislative body as its applicable, voter-approved ULL. The LV-ULL will be used as of its effective date to meet the Authority's GMP ULL requirement and must be in effect through the applicable GMP compliance period. The following local jurisdictions have adopted a LV-ULL: City of Antioch City of Pittsburg City of San Ramon S. Minor Adjustment An adjustment to the ULL of 30 acres or less Is Intended to address unanticipated circumstances. 6. Other Adjustments Other adjustments that address issues of unconstitutional takings and conformance to state and federal law. REVISIONS TO THE UL L 1. A local jurisdiction that has adopted the County ULL as its applicable ULL may revise its ULL with local voter approval at any time during the term of the Authority's GMP by adopting a LV-ULL in accordance with the requirements outlined for a LV-ULL contained In the definitions section. 2 . A local jurisdiction may revise Its LV-ULL with local voter approval at any time during the term of the Authority's GMP If the resultant ULL meets the requirements outlined for a LV-ULL contained In the definitions section. 3 . If voters. through a countywide ballot measure, approve a revision to the County ULL, the legislative body of each local jurisdiction relying on the County ULL shall: a. Accept and approve its existing ULL to continue as its applicable ULL, or b. Accept and approve the revised County ULL as its applicable ULL, or c. Adopt a LV-ULL in accordance with the requirements outlin ed for a LV-ULL contained In the definitions section However, if any Countywide measure to approve a revision to the County ULL falls, then the legislative body of each local jurisdiction relying on the prior County ULL may accept and approve the existing County ULL. 4. Local jUrisdictions may, without voter approval , enact Minor Adjustmems to their applicable ULL subject to a vote of at least 4/5 of the jurisdiction's legislativ e body and meeting the following requirements: a. Minor adjustment shall not exceed 30 acres. b. Adoption of at least one of the findings listed In the County's Measure L (§82-1.018 of County Ordinances 200606 § 3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4), which include: • A natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred that warrants the provi- sion of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL 33 34 • An objective study has determined that the ULL Is preventing the jurisdiction from providing its fair share of affordable housing or regional housing, as required by state law, and the governing elected legiS lative body finds that a c hange to the ULL is necessary and is the only feasible means to enable the County jurisdiction to meet these requirements of state law • A majority ofthe cities/towns that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement • A minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries • A five -year cyc lical review of the ULL has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the ULL set forth in Contra Costa County Code (Section 82-1.010), that new information is available (from city/town, County growth management studies , or otherwise) or circ umstances have changed, warranting a change to the ULL • An objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the economic viabi lity of the East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (I) mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or community Impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs • A change Is required to conform to appl icable California or Federal law c. Adoption of a finding that the proposed Minor Adjustment will have a public benefit. Said public benefit cou ld include, but Is not necessarily limited to, enhanced mobility of people or goods, environmental protections or enhancements , Improved air quality or land use, enhanced public safety or security, housing or jobs, infrastructure preservation, or other significant positive community effects as defin ed by the local land use authority. If the proposed Minor Adjustment to the ULL is proposed to accommodate housing or commercial development. said proposal must include permanent environm ental protections or enhancements, such as the permanent protection of agricu ltural lands, the dedication of open space or the establishment of permanent conservation easements. d . The Minor Adjustment is not contiguous to one or more nonvoter approved Minor Adjustments that in total exceeds 30 acres. e . Th e Minor Adjustment does not create a pocket of land outside the existing ULL, specifically to avoid the possibility of a jurisdiction wanting to fill in that land subsequently through separate adjustments. f. Any jurisdiction proposing to process a Minor Adjustment to its applicable ULL that Impacts FMMP is required to have an adopted Agric ultural Protection Ordinance or must demonstrate how the loss of these agricultural lands will be mitigated by permanently protecting farmland . 5 . A local jurisdiction may revise its LV-ULL, and the County may re vise the County ULL, to address issues of unconstitutional takings or conformance to State or Federal law. CONDITIONS OF COMPLIANCE 1. Submittal of an annexation req uest by a local jurisdiction to LAFCO outside of an approved ULL will constitute noncompliance with the GMP, 2. For each jurisdiction, an applicable ULL shall be In place th ro ugh each GMP compliance reporting period for the local jurisdiction to be found in compliance with the GMP requirements. 3. Submittal of an annexation request for land outside an approved ULL by a third party to LAFCO will constitute noncompliance with the GMP, if the local jurisdict ion : (1) submits a •'will serve" letter to LAFCO . A "will serve'' letter determines the applicant 's ability and willingness to serve the subject area and any further development. (2) utilizes an existing ap plicable tax sharing agreement, and/or (3) enters Into a new tax sharing agreement for the annexation request. Transit Polley V ISION This Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) envisions a transportation system that provides reliable , safe , comfortable and convenient access for all users of the transportation system, regardless of mode choice and travel characteristics. The TEP further envisions a public transit system that provides convenient, safe, affordable, and reliable service and which offers an attractive alternative to private automobile usage. The Trans it Polley VIsion Includes the Infrastructure needed to accommodate a more robust transportation system for Contra Costa County that promotes greater use of transit and other shared mobility alternatives by prioritizing the movement of people rather than single-occupancy vehicles across the network. The TEP alms to Improve transit countywide and reduce commute travel times , deliver more frequent and reliable service, expand transit service areas , and provide better connections to and from transit by v arious modes of mobility options. Improving the coordination among transit operators and Integrating the existing transit systems with new technological tools and platforms to enhance customer access and experience should Increase the share of residents and employees w ho choose public transit Doing so will reduce congestion, improve air quality, and accommodate a growing population. To achieve this vision, the TEP allocates more than one-half of the expected sales tax revenue to Transit and Alternative Modes and approximately one-quarter for local road improvements. To provide the maximum benefits to Contra Costa residents, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) adopts the following policies and principles for use of transit funds authorized in the TEP: POLICY 1. The Polley shall promote Transit First and guide the development of an Integrated Transit Plan (ITP). In the context of this Policy, Transit First considers the following to provide a seamless and Integrated transportation system: a. Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space sha ll prioritize the use of public rights-of-way by pedestrians, bicyclists , and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety. b. Transit-p riority improvements, such as designated transit lanes and streets and improved signalization , shall be made to expedite the movement of public transit vehicles and to Improve safety for people who bike and walk. c. Pedestrian areas shall be enhanced wherever possible to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians a nd to encourage travel by foot. d . Bicycling sha ll be promoted by encouraging safe streets for riding, providing convenient access to transit, and Increasing the availability of bi cycle lanes and secure bicycle parking. e. Parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation. f. The ability to reduce traffic congestion depends on the adequacy of regional public transportation. The cities/towns and County shall promote the use of transit and the continued development of a n Integrated and reliable regional public transportation system . g. The cities/towns and County shall encourage innovative solutions to meet public transportation needs wherever possible. 2. All transit operators that receive funding from the TEP shall participate In the development of an ITP to Identify how to utilize funding to better coordinate and Integrate transit services countywide. The ITP should guide how the TEP funding dedicated to Transit and Alternative Modes categories can be used to Implement the Transit Polley VIsion: a. The ITP will be developed and managed under the leadership of the Authority and the County's transit operators. The Authority and the transit operators shall coordinate with transportation service providers in Contra Costa to inform the d evelopm ent of the ITP. Transit operators shall consult with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) in developing the ITP. b. The ITP will focus on delivering a streamlined and unified experience for the custom er across all modes --------------------------------------+ ?ll ~O IRANSPORTATillN £XPUIO ITII RE PLAN 35 36 and transit operators should Identify transit service Investments (i.e ., new routes, service hours, frequency), capital projects/assets (I.e ., transit centers, bus stops, stop amenities, vehicles), and transit priority measures (i.e., transit signa l priority, bus lanes, queue jumps) to be funded from the TEP. c. The ITP sha ll demonstrate reduction In vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) per capita and greenhouse gas (GHG) em is sions to meet the Auth ority's countywide goals. Transit service Investments, capital projects/ assets, and transit priority measures to be funded from the TEP shall reduce VMT and GHG emissions or participate in the VMT Mitigation Program . d. Prioritization for TEP funding should consider projects that can leverage other state, federal, or local funding . e. The ITP shall be updated at least every five years to address new technology opportunities, any changes in demand, and other conditions. 3. Transit operators in Contra Costa County shall incorporate the findings and recommendations of the ITP pertinent to each operator's service area Into their respective Short-Ra nge Transit Plans (SRTP). The SRTPs shall be reviewed for consistency with the ITP associated with this TEP. 4 . Allocations pursuant to this TEP will be made in support of the recommendations In the ITP. Any re commendations In the ITP shall include performance measures to achieve continued funding . 5 . The Authority e xpects transit operating funds from the TEP to be used to support the vision of this policy. In the event that TEP funds must be used to support other transit services as a result of reduction of operating funds from other sources or due to other financial concerns, the transit operator shall update its SRTP and submit to the Authority. Cu ll in CU\11 lr~II>Jin troll on Author ltv 6 . The Authority expects that public agencies and transit operators leverage new and emerging technologies to improve service and to address first-mile/last-mile connections between transit stops and other traveler destinations. These technologies may Include, but not be limited to, ride hailing partnerships, autonomous shuttles, shared mobility (bikes, scooters, cars), and mobility-on-demand platforms that best fit within each transit operator's service area . The ITP shou ld address how these technology services function within and among service boundaries and provide a sea ml ess experience co untywide for customers. 7. Th e Authority expects that recipients of TEP funding create, analyze, and seize opportunities for fare and schedule integration among transit operators and any technology services adopted. Focus should be placed on reducing inconveniences associated with transferring between services and on having a cost-effective, universally accepted digital p ayment method. The ITP should address how Contra Costa tran sit operators can maximize benefits offare payment and schedule integration while acknowledging current efforts by various agencies to achieve the same goal. 8. The Authority will not fund construction of any transit capital improvement until the project sponsor demonstrates how the project would lncreass ridership and/or decrease VMT. Funding for planning and design-includ ing demonstration pilots-is not subject to this requirement. 9. All recipients of funding through this TEP shall consider and accommodate, wherever possibl e. the principles ofTransit First in the planning, desig n, construction, reconstruction. re habilitation. and maintenance of the transportation system. 10. All transit operators that receive funding from the TEP shall report how received funding benefits Communities of Concern and low-Income residents in their jurisdictions and service areas. The ITP should ensure proportionally greater benefits to Communities of Concern and low-Income residents. Complete Streets Policy VISION This Plan envisions a transportation system and infrastructure in which each component provides safe, comfortable, and convenient access for users of all ages and abilities. These users Include pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, automobile drivers , taxis, Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and their passengers, and truckers as well as people of varying abilities, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and able-bodied adults. The goal of every transportation project Is to provide safer, more accessible facilities for all users. All projects shall be planned, designed, constructed, and operated to prioritize users' life safety and accommodate the Complete Streets concept. By making streets more efficient and safer for all users, a Complete Streets approach will expand capacity and improve mobility fo r all users, giving commuters convenient options for travel and minimizing the need to wid e n roadways. POLICY To achieve this vision, all recipients of funding through this Plan shall consider and accommodate, wherever possible and subject to the exceptions listed in this Polley, the needs of all users in the planning, design , construction, reconstruction , rehabilitation , and maintenance of the transportation system . This determination shall be consistent with the exceptions listed below. Ach ieving this vision will require balancing the needs of different users and may require re allocating existing rights-of-way (ROW) for different uses. The Authority shall revise its project development guidelines to require the consideration and accommodation of all users in the design and construction of projects funded with measure funds and shall adopt peer review and design standards to Implement that approach. The guidelines will allow flexibility In responding to the context of each project and the needs of users specific to the proj ect's context and will build on accepted best practices for complete streets and context-sensitive design. To ensure that this policy Is carried out, the Authority shall prepare a checklist that project sponsors using measure funds must submit. This checklist will document how the needs of all users were considered and how they were accommodated in the desig n and construction of the project. In the checklist, the sponsor will outline how they provid ed opportunity for public input, In a public forum, from all users early in the project development and design proc ess. This includes regular public review of agency repaving programs. If the proposed project or program will not provide context-appropriate conditions for all users, th e sponsor shall document the reasons why in the checklist, consistent with th e following section on "exceptions" below. The completed checklist shall b e made part of the approval of programming of funding for the project or the funding allocation resolution . Recipients of 2020 TEP funding for the Modernize Local Roads and Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing category and Measure J TEP Funding from Local Maintenance and Improvements shall adopt procedures that ensure that ali agency departments consider and accommodate the needs of all users for projects or programs affecting public ROW for which the agency Is responsible. These procedures shall: 1. Be consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2 008 (AB 1358) 2 . Be consistent with and be d esi gned to implement each agency's General Plan Policies once that plan has been updated to comply with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 and the Authority's Complete Streets Policy 3 . In volve and coordinate the work of all agency departments and staff whose projects will affect the publ ic ROW 4. Meet or exceed the Complete Street design standards adopted by the Authority 5. Be consistent with the adopted Local Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policy and Authority's Complete Street Policy herein 6. Promote proactive d ata coll ection and traffic system monitoring using next generation technology, such as advance detection systems 7. Provide opportunity for public review by all potentia l users early in the project development and design phase so that options can be fully considered . Thi s review co uld be done through an advisory committee, such as a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee or as part of th e review of the agency's CIP 37 38 As part of their biennial GMP checklist, agencies shall list projects funded by the Measure and detail how those projects accommodated users of all modes by applying Transit, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero Policies. As part of the multijurisdlctlonal planning required by the GMP, agencies shall work with the Authority and the RTPCs to harmonize the planning, design, and construction of transportation facilities for all modes within their jurisdiction with the plans of adjoining and connecting jurisdictions . EXC EPTIONS Project sponsors may provide a lesser accommodatlbn or forgo Complete Street accommodation components when the public works director or equivalent agency official finds that: 1. Pedestrians, bicyclists, or other users are prohibited by law from using the transportation facility 2. The cost of new accommodation would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. If meeting adopted design standards Is cost prohibitive, the proposed project improvements should be phased, or a more cost-effective solution should be provided 3 . The sponsor demonstrates that such accommodation Is not needed based on objective factors including: a. Current and projected us er demand for all modes based on current and future land use b. Lack of Identified conflicts, both existing and potential, between modes of travel Project sponsors shall explicitly approve exception findings as part of the approval of any project using measure funds to Improve streets classified as a major collector or above.' Prior to this project, sponsors must provide an opportunity for public input at an approval body (that regularly considers design issues) and/or the governing board of the project sponsor. 1 Mt'I}DI Cui/L.,:tvr:; ;Jn {i ni)OVC'. <15 dc>lfiJCd by l/11:! C.Jiifc:n n w Dcp.~rllllm l( CJ( 11-anspoll,lion (Cntrrnns) Callfornifl Road Sysl "m (CRS) rrtflp. Advance Mitigation Program The Authority is committed to participate in the creation and funding of an Advance Mitigation Program (AMP) as an innovative way to advance needed infrastructure projects more efficiently and provide more effective conservation of our natural resources , watersheds and wetlands, and agricultural lands. As a global biodive rsity hot spot, the Bay Area and Contra Costa County host an extraordinarily ri ch array of valuable natural communities and ecosystems that provides habitat for rare plants and wildlife and supports residents' health and quality of life by providing clean drinking water, clean air, opportunities for outdoor recre- ation, adaptation to climate change, and protection from disasters like flooding and landslides. Assembly Bill No. 2087 (AB 2087) outlines a program for informing science-based, nonbinding. and voluntary conservation actions and habitat enhancement actions that would advance the conservation of focal species, natural communities, and other conservation elements at a regional scale. The AMP used AB 2087 and subsequent guidance to Integrate conservation Into Infrastructure agencies' plans and prdject development well In advance and on a regional scale to reduce potential Impacts of transportation projects, as well as to drive mitigation dollars to protect regional conservation priorities and protect Important ecological functions, watersheds and wetlands, and agricultural land s that are at threat of los s. The AMP wi ll provide environmenta l mitigation activities specifically required under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), National Environ mental Polley Act of 1969 (NEPA). Clean Water Act Section 401 and Section 404, and other applicable regulations in the Implementation of the major highway, transit, and regional arterial and local streets cmd roads projects Identified in the Plan . Senate Bill1 (58 1) (2017) created the AMP at Caltrans to enhance opportunities for the department to work with stakeholders to identify important project mitigation early in the project development process and improve environmental outcomes by mitigating the effects of transportation projects. The Authority's AMP compliments advance mitigation funding from SB 1. The Authori ty's participation In an AMP is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development and approval of a Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) that identifies conservation priorities and mitigation opportunities for all of Contra Costa County. The RCIS established conservation goals and Includes countywide opportunities and strategies that are, among other requirements, consistent with and that support the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Preservation Plan Act (NCCP). The RCIS will Identify mitigation opportunities for all areas of the County to ensure that mitigation occurs In the vicinity of the project Impact to the greatest extent possible. The Authority will review and approve the RCIS , In consultation with the RTPCs, prior to the allocation of funds for the AMP. 2 . Development of a Project Impacts Assessment (PIA) that Identifies the portfolio of projects to be included in the Advance Mitigation Program and the estimated costs for mitigation of the environmental impacts of the projects. The Authority will review and approve the PIA prior to the allocation of funds for the AMP. The PIA and estimated costs do not in any way limit the amount of mitigation that may be necessary or undertaken for the environmental impacts of the projects. :3. Development of the legislative and regulatory framework necessary to implement an AMP in Contra Costa County. 4. The Identification of the Implementing Agency to administer the AMP for Contra Costa County or portions of the Bay Area, including Contra Costa County. The Authority will determine the amount of funds to be dedicated to this program following the satisfaction of the above conditions . Funds from the Plan will be allocated consistent with the Regional Conservation Assessment/Framework to fund environmental mitigation activities required in the implementation of the major highway, transit and regional arterial and local streets and roads projects Identified In the Plan . If this approach cannot be fully implemented, these funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation required for future transportation improvements identified In the Plan are not limited by the availability of funding or mitigation credits available in the Program. All projects funded from the TEP are eligible for inclusion in the AMP. Note that some projects are within the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The AMP provides an opportunity to meet species mitigation needs on projects that cannot be met by East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. Pursuant to Senate Bill No. 743, which reformed the process for California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) review of transportation Impacts to align with greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Identified vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) as the key metric to measure transportation impacts under CEOA. As a result, projects will be expected to demonstrate a rt~duction In VMT to meet the Authority's goal to reduce VMT per capita and GHG emissions countywide. The Authority will begin development of an innovative countywidE! program to Identify a broad portfolio of mitigation measures that will be funded through aggregation of funds and deployed to support top-priority VMT reducing projects and strategies throughout the County. The VMT Mitigation Program will consider the structure of the program, legal framework to comply with CEQA and Mitigation Fee Act, and program design, such as project selection and prioritization, measurement, evaluation. verification, reporting , equity, and monitoring. The amount of VMT mitigated will be for the planning horizon for eac h project. 39 40 Taxpayer Safeguards and Accountability Policy GOVERN ING STRUCTURE Governing Body and Administration The Authority Is governed by a Board composed of 11 members. all elected officials, with the following representation : • Two members from the Central County Regional Transportation Planning Commission (RTPC), also referred to as Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) • Two members from the East County RTPC, also referred to as East County Transportation Planning Committee (TRANSPLAN) • Two members from the Southwest County RTPC, also referred to as Southwest A re a Transportation Committee (SWAT) • Two members from the West County RTPC, also referred to as West County Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) • One member from the Conference of Mayors • Two members from the Board of Supervisors The Authority Board also Includes three (3) ex officio, nonvoting members that are appointed by the MTC. BART. and the Public Transit Operators in Contra Costa County. The four subregions within Contra Costa-Central, West, Southwest. and East County-are each represented by a Regional Transportation Planning Commis$ion (RTPC). Central Cou nty (TRANSPAC subregion) includes Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and the unincorporated portions of Central County. West County (WCCTAC subregion) includes El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, and the unincorporated portions of West County. Southwest County (SWAT subregion) includes Danville, Lafay ette. Moraga, Orinda, San Ramon and the unincorporated portions of Southwest County. East County (TRANSPLAN subregion) includes Antioch, Brentw ood, Oakley. Pittsburg, and the unincorporated portions of East County. Public Oversight Committee The Public Oversight Committee (POC) shall provide diligent, independent, and public oversight of all expenditures of Measure funds by Authority or recipient agencies (County, cities/towns, transit operators, etc.). The POC will report to the public and fo cus Its oversight on the fo llowing: • Review of allocation and expenditure of Measure funds to ensure that all funds are used consistent with the Measure • Review of fiscal audits of Measu re expenditures • Review of performance audits of projects and programs relative to performance criteria established by the Authority, and if performance of any project or program does not meet its established performance criteria, identifY reasons why and make recomm e ndations for corrective actions that can be taken by th e Authority Board for changes to project or program guideline s Review of application of the performance-based review policy an d provide Input and recommendations for the development of associated guidelines • Review of the maintenance of effort compliance requirements of local jurisdictions for local streets , roads, and bridges funding • Re view of each jurisdiction's GMP Checklist and compliance w ith the GMP Policies The POC shall prepare an annual report that includes an account of the POC's activities during the previous year, Its review and recommendations relative to fiscal or performance audits, and any recommendations made to the Authority Board for implementing the TEP. The report will be noticed In local media outlets throughout Contra Costa County, posted to the Authority website, and made continuously available for public Inspection at Authority offices . The report shall be composed of easy-to-understand language that is not produced in an overly technical format. The POC shall make an annual presentation to the Authority Board summarizing the annual report subsequent to Its release. POC members shall be selected by the Authority to reflect community, business organizations, and other interests within the County. The goal of the membership makeup of the POC is to provide a balance of viewpoints, including, but not limited to, geography. age, gender, ethnicity, and income status to represent the different perspectives of the residents of Contra Costa County. One member will be nominated by each of the four subregions by the RTPCs representing the subregion nominating the member. The Board of Supervisors wil l nominate one member residing In and representing the County. Twelve members will be nominated by respective organizations representative of Interest groups, such as civic and governance involvement, taxpayer advocate, businesses, construction and trades labor, general labor, building and development, disabled, biking and pedestrian, transit, low income, climate change, seniors, environmental, and/or open space organizations operating in Contra Costa County (specific organizations may vary during the life of the Measure). The Authority will consult with the public and active Interest groups to solicit, identify nominees, and nominate POC members that represent those areas listed above. The Authority will accept nominations from any member of the public. The Authority will create a process to review possible POC members, including Interviews. An lntE!rest area will be represented by no more than one POC member. About one-half of the Initial member appointments wil l be for two years and the remaining appointments will be for three-year terms . Thereafter, members will be appointed to two-year terms. Any Individual member can serve on the POC for no more than six consecutive years . POC members will be Contra Costa County residents who are not elected officials at any level of government, or public employees from agencies that either oversee or benefit from the proceeds of the Measure . Membership Is restricted to individuals with no economic interest in any of the Authority's projects or programs. If a member's status changes so that he/she no longer meets these requirements, or if a member resigns his/her position on the POC, the Authority Board will issue a new statement of interest from the same stakeholder category to fill the vacant position. The POC shall meet up to once per month to carry out its responsibility and shall meet at least once every three months. Meetings shall be held at the same location as the Authority Board meetings are usually helct shall be open to the public, and must be held in compliance with California 's open meeting law (the Brown Act). Meetings shall be recorded and the recordings shall be posted for the public. Members are expect~d to attend all meetings. If a member, without good reason acceptable to the Chair of the POC, falls to attend either (a) two or more consecutive meetings or (b) more than three meetings a year, the Authority Board wi ll request a replacement from the Interest group listed above. The Authority commits to support the oversight process through cooperation with the POC by providing access to project and program information, audits, and other information available to the Authority, and to logistical support so that the POC may effectively perform Its oversight function. The POC will have full access to the Authority's independent auditors and may request Authority staff briefings for any information that Is relevant to the Measure. The Authority will provide resources for meeting design and process, facilitation, and skill and knowledge building to foster and support the POC's ability to provide meaningful input and recommendations . The POC Chair shall inform the Authority Board Chair and Executive Director of any concern regarding Authority staff's commitment or performance regarding open communication, the timely sharing of information, and teamwork. The POC shall not have the authority to set policy or to appropriate or withhold funds, nor shall it participate in or interfere with the selection process of any consultant or contractor hired to implem e nt the TEP. The POC shall not receive monetary compensation except for the reimbursement of travel or other Incidental expenses In a manner consistent with other Authority advisory committees. Exceptions may be made by the Authority to reasonably assist members to participate in POC meetings. To ensure that the oversight by the POC continues to be as effective as possible, the efficacy of the POC Charter (i .e., this document) will be evaluated on a periodic basis and a formal review will be conducted by the Authority Board, Executive Director, and the POC a minimum of every five years to determine if any amendments to this Charter should be made. The formal review will ---------------------------------------+-20 IOW~NSPORTA II O N EXPlNUIIUAEPl.llfl 41 42 include a benchmarking of the Committee's activities and Charter with other best-In-class oversight committees. Amendments to this Charter shall be proposed by the POC and adopted or rejected by the Authority Board. The POC replaces the Authority's existing Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Advisory Committees The Authority will continue the committees that were established as part of the Transportation Partnership Commission organization as well as other committees that have been utilized by the Authority to advise and assist in policy development and implementation. The committees include: The RTPCs that were established to develop transportation plans on a geographic basis for subareas of the County, and • The Technical Coord inating Committee (TCC) that will serve as the Authority's technical advisory committee • Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) • The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC) • Bus Transit Coordinating Committee (BTCC) IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES This TEP is guided by principles that ensure the revenue generated by th e sales tax is spent only for the purposes outlined in this TEP in the most efficient and effective manner possible. consistent with serving the transportation needs of Contra Costa County. The following Implementing Guidelines shall govern the administration of sales tax revenues by the Authority. Additional detail for certain Implementing Guidelines is found elsewhere in this TEP. Duration of the TEP The duration of the TEP shall be for 35 years from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2055. Administration of the Plan 1. Funds Only Projects and Programs In the TEP Funds collected under this Measure may only be spent for purposes Identified In the TEP, as it may be amended by the Authority governing body. Identification of Projects or Programs in the Plan does not ensure their Implementation. As authorized, the Authority may amend or delete Projects and Programs Identified In the Plan to provide for the use of additional federal, stale, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenue, to maintain consistency with the current Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), to take Into consideration unforeseen circumstances, and to account for impacts, alternatives, and potential mitigation determined during review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at such time as each project and program is proposed for approval. 2. All Decisions Made in Public Process The Authority is given the fiduciary duty of administering the transportation sales tax proceeds in accordance with all applicable laws and with the TEP. Activities of the Authority will be conducted in public according to state law, through publicly noticed meetings. The annual budgets of Authority, strategic delivery plans, and annual reports will all be prepared for public review. The interest of the public will be further protected by the POC, described previously in the TEP. 3. Salary and Administration Cost Caps Revenues may be exp ended by the Authority for salaries , wages, benefits, overhead, and those services, Including co ntractual services, necessary to administer the Measure. However, in no case shall the expenditures for the salaries and benefits ofthe staff necessary to perform administrative functions for the Authority exceed one percent (1 %) of revenues from the Measure. The allocated costs of Authority staff who directly implement specific projects or programs are not included in the administrative costs. 4. Expenditure Plan Amendments Require Majority Support The Authority may review and propose amendments to the TEP and the GMP to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. Affected RTPCs and the Public Oversight Committee (POC) w ill participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s). A supermajority (66%) vote of the Authority Board is required to approve an amendment. Any amendment to the TEP that is administrative or less than $50 million to the Expenditure Plan w ill require a 45-day p e riod to comment on the proposed amendment. Any amendments to expenditure categories that total $50 million or greater, whether submitted as one amendment or a series of related amendments, will require the following: a. The need for such amendment shall be properly demonstrated in a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Authority Board . b. The Authority shall make a presentation at the earliest possible POC and RTPC meetings outlining the details of the proposed amendment and allow for POC and RTPC input. c. No fewer than two special public information and comment sessions shall be held and publicized by the Authority within 90 days following the initial Authority Board meeting. d. The proposed amendment will be given a 90-day public comment period. e . The proposed amendment shall be voted on during a regularly scheduled Authority Board meeting. 5. Augment Transportation Funds Funds generated pursuant to the Measure are to be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes . Any funds already allocated, committed, or otherwise included in the financial plan for any project In the TEP shall be made available for project development and implementation as required In the project's financial and Implementation program. 6. Jurisdiction The Authority retains sole discretion regarding interpretation , construction, and meaning of words and phrases In the TEP. Taxpayer Safeguards, Audits and Accountability 7. Public Oversight Committee (POC) The POC will provide diligent, Independent, and public oversight of all expenditures of Measure funds by Authority or recipient agencies (County, cities/towns, transit operators. etc.). The POC will report to the public and focus its oversight on annual audits. the review and allocation of Measure funds, the performance of projects and programs in the TEP. and compliance by local jurisdictions with the maintenance of effort and GMP described previously In the TEP. 8. Fiscal Audits All funds expended by the Authority directly and all funds allocated by formula or discretionary grants to other entitles are subject to fiscal audit. Recipients of Measure funds (Including but not limited to County, cities/towns, and transit operators) will be audited at least once every five years, conducted by an independent CPA. Any agency found to be In noncompliance shall have Its formula sales tax funds withheld until such time as the agency Is found to be in compliance. 9. Performance Audits All funding categories shall be subject to performance audits by the Authority. Each year, the Authority shall select and perform a focused performance audit on two or three of the funding categories so that at the end of the fourth year. all funding categories are audited. This process shall commence two years after passage of the new sales tax measure. Additional Performance Audits shall continue on a similar cycle for the duration of the TEP. The performance audits shall provide an accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the funding categories to determine the effectiveness In meeting the performance criteria established by the Authority. In the event that any performance audit determines that a funding category is not meeting the performance requirements established by the Authority, the audit shall include recommendations for corrective action including but not limited to revisions to Authority policies or program guidelines that govern the expenditure of funds. 10. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Funds generated by the new sales tax Measure are to be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for streets and highways purposes. The basis of the MOE requirement will be the average of expenditures of annual discretionary funds on streets and highways. as reported to the Controller pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151 for the three most recent fiscal years before the passage of the Measure, where data Is available. The average dollar amount will then be Increased once every three years by the construction cost index of that third year. Penalty for noncompliance of meeting the minimum MOE is immediate loss of proportional amount of 2020 TEP funding from Modernize Local Roads and Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing and Measure J TEP funding from Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements funds until MOE compliance is achieved. The audit of the MOE contribution shall be at ----------------------------------------. 2U<U I RANSPORIAIIUN cX I'HIOITU~E PLMl 43 44 least once every five years. Any agency found to be In noncompliance shall be subject to an annual audit for three years after they come back into compliance. Any local jurisdiction wishing to adjust Its MOE requirement shall submit a request for adjustment to the Authority and the necessary documentation to justify the adjustment. The Authority staff shall review the request and shall make a recommendation to the Authority Board . Taking Into consideration the recommendation , the Authority Board may adjust the annual average of expenditures reported pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151. The Authority shall make an adjustment If one or more of the following conditions exists: a. The local jurisdiction has undertaken one or more major capital projects during those fiscal years that required accumulating unrestricted revenues (I .e., revenues that are not restricted for use on streets and highways. such as general funds) to support the project during one or more fiscal years. b. A source o f unrestricted revenue use d to support the majo r capital project or projects is no longer ava ilable to the local jurisdiction and the loca l jurisdiction lacks authority to continue the unrestricted funding source. c. One or more sources of unrestricted reven ues that were availab le to the local jurisdiction Is producing less than 95 percent of the amount produced in those fiscal yea rs and the reduction Is not caused by any discretionary action of the local jurisdiction. d. The loca l jurisdiction Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 70 or greater, as calculated by the jurisdiction Pavement Manag ement System and reported to the MTC, and the jurisdiction has implemented Its synchronized signals plan , and its Complete Streets, Vision Zero, and Tr ans it First policies. 11. Annual Budget and Strategic Delivery Plan Each year, th e Authority will adopt an annual budget th at estimates expected sales tax receipts, other anticipated revenue, and planned expenditures for the year. On a periodic basis, the Authority will also prepare a Strategic Delivery Plan that will ide ntify the priority for projects; the date for project implementation based on project read iness and availability of project funding : th e state, federal, and other local funding committed for project implementation; and other relevant criteria. r.tll llfl Cet~l .l lf .an~ltnrlilflnn An th nf•tv The annual budget and Strategic Delivery Plan will be adopted by the Authority Board at a public meeting. 12. Requirements for Fund Recipients All recipients of funds allocated in this TEP will be required to sign a Master Cooperative Agreement that defines reporting and ac countability elements as well as other applicable policy requ irements. All funds will be appropriated through an open and transparent public process. 13. Geographic and Social Equity The proposed projects and programs to be funded through the TEP constitute a proportional distribution of funding allocations to each subregion In Contra Costa County. The subregional share of projected revenue is based on each subregion's sha re of the projected overall population In Contra Costa County at the midpoint of the measure. RTPC s mu st approve any revision s to the proportional distribution of funding allocations in the TEP and Strat egic Deliv ery Plan. The Authority commits that the TEP will deliver proportionally greater benefits to Communities of Concern (as defined by the M etropolitan Transportation Commission) and low-income reside nts. Restrictions on Funds 14. Expenditure Shall Benefit Contra Costa County Under no circumstance may the proceeds of this transportation sales tax be applied for any purpose other than for transportation Improvem e nts benefiting residents of Contra Costa County. Under no circumstance ma y these funds be appropria ted by the State of California or any other loca l governme nt agency as defined In the Implementing guidelines. 15. Environmental Review All projects fund ed by sales t ax proceeds are subject to laws and regul ations offederal, state, and local government, including the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to approval or commencement of a ny project or program Included in the TEP, all necessary environmental review reqUired by CEQA shall be completed. 16. Performance-based Project Review Before the allocation of any Measure funds for the construction of a project with an estimated cost in excess of $10 million (or ele m ents of a corridor project with an overall estimated cost in excess of $10 million), the Authority will1) verify that the project Is consistent with the approved CT P, as it may be amended, 2) verify that the project is included in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and 3) require the project sponsor to complete a performance-based review of project alternatives prior to the selection of a preferred alternative. Said performance-based review will include, but not necessarily be limited to, an analysis of the project impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, vehicle-mi les traveled (VMn, goods movement effectiveness, travel mode share, delay (by mode), safety, maintenance of the transportation system, impact on displacement. affordable housing, social equity, any other environmental effects. and consistency with adopted Authority plans. The Authority may require the evaluation of other performance criteria depending on the specific need and purpose of the project. The Authority will perform review and independent verification of performance-based review submitted by project sponsors. The Authority Is committed to meet the Governor's Executive Order 8-16-2012 to reduce transportation- related GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and will establish overall VMT per capita and GHG goals countywide. The Authority will expect project sponsors to Identify and select a project alternative that red uces GHG emissions as well as VMT per capita to meet the Authority's adopted countywide VMT and GHG goals. Limited exceptions will be Identified and a process created to select a project alternative that does not decrease VMT and GHG sufficiently but has other substantial benefits. The Authority will require the project sponsors that select a project alternative that does not decrease VMT and GHG sufficiently to make findings for an exceptio n and require participation in a VMT mitigation program to be developed by the Authority. Funding for projects that do not decrease VMT and GHG sufficiently will not be allocated until the Authority develops a VMT mitigation program. The VMT mitigation program will define the limited exceptions, substantial benefits, and process to determine adequate findings for those exceptions. The purpose of the VMT Mitigation Program will be to fund projects and programs that reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and traffic congestion In Contra Costa County. The Authority will also prioritize and reward high performing projects by leveraging additional regional and other funding sources. The Authority shall employ a public process to develop and adopt detailed guidelines for eva lu ating project performance and applying performance criteria in the review and selection of a preferred project alternat ive no later than October 1, 2022. The performance cri teria will Inc lude measurable performance targets and be developed per Section 43. There will be additional performance-based reviews for actions in five categories of expenditure: Improve Walking and Biking on Streets and Trails, Countywide Major Road Improvement Prog ram, Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality, Seamless Connected Transportation Options, and Reduce and Reverse Commutes. The additional review guidelines are outlined In Sections 31-35 ofthese Implementing Guidelines. 17. Countywide Transportation Plan State law allows each county In the San Francisco Bay Area that is subject to the jurisdiction of the regional transportation planning agency to prepare a CTP for the county and cities/towns within the county. Both Measure C and Measure J also require the Authority to prepare and periodically update a CTP for Contra Costa County. State law also created an Interdependent relationship between the CTP and regional planning agency. Each CTP must consider the region's most recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) while the adopted CTPs must form the "primary basis" for the next RTP and SCS . The Authority shall follow applicable statutes and the most current guidelines for preparing the CTP, as established and periodically updated by the regional transportation planning agency. The Authority shall also use the CTP to convey the Authority's Investment priorities , consistent w ith the long-range vision of t he RTP and SCS . 18. Complete Streets The Authority has adopted a policy requiring all recipients of f un ding through this TEP to consider and accommodate, wherever possible, the needs of all users in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the transportation system . 19. Road Traffic Safety The Authority has adopted a poli cy requ iring all recipients of funding through this TEP shall, wherever possible, systemically incorporate street design elements that quantifiably reduce the risk of traffic-re lated deaths and severe Injuries In the public right-of-way and accommodate the needs of all users in the planning, desi gn. construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation. and maintenance of the transportation system. --------------------------------------~ ?0 ~0 WANSPORTAIIONEXPWOIIU~t J•LAtl 45 46 20. Compliance with the GMP If the Authority determines that a jurisdiction does not comply with the requirements of the GMP, the Authority shall withhold funds and also make a finding that the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to receive 2020 TEP funding from Modernize Local Roads and Improve Access to Job Centers and Housing, Measure J TEP funding from Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements, and Measure J TLC fund ing until the Authority determines the jurisdiction has ach ieved compliance, as detailed In the GMP section of the TEP. 21. Local Contracting and Good Jobs The purpose of the current section o f the "Implementing Guidelines" portion of the Authority's Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Is to promote efficient and quality construction operations on the included projects, ensure an adequate supply of skilled craftspeople, provide a safe work place, ensure high quality construction, ensure uninterrupted construction projects, se cure optimum productivity on schedule performance and Authority and citizen sa t isf action, and Increase access to quality jobs for Contra Costa residents . The provisions and req uirements found herein s hall ap ply to each cont ractor and any subcontractors on projects approved by th e TEP and administered by Authority. Authority supports training and apprent iceship opportunities In the construction Industry. A s such, Authority requires apprentice labor enrolled In or graduat ed from joint labor-management apprenticeship programs o n constructio n projects estimate d to cost $1 million or greater. Authority w ill develop guidelines modeled after the California Department of Transportation 's (Caltrans') Standard Specifications appli ca bl e to training an apprentice for the be n efit of re sidents of Contra Costa County. Contrac tors w ill be required to comply with the guidelines on construc tion projects estimated to cost $1 million or greater. All those employed on projects approved by the TEP and administere d by Authority shall be classified and paid In accordance with the prevailing rate of per diem wages as d e te rmined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations and comply with all applicable Labor Code provisions. It is also the Intent of Authority to create a policy that encourages contractors to hire residents of Contra Costa County and the other eight Bay Area counties.2 Therefore, all Authority contracts In excess of $1 million shall be subject t o provisions pursuant to which the contractor is required to make a good faith effort to hire qualified individuals who are residents of Contra Co sta County or any of the other eight Bay Area counties in sufficient numbers so that no less than 40% of the contractor's total construction workforce, measured in labor work hours, Is composed of residents of Contra Costa County or any of th e other eight Bay Area counties. The contractor shall require all subcontractors to also make a good faith effort to hire qualified individuals who are residents of Contra Costa County and the other eight Bay Area counties . The above provision will be Implemente d to the extent allowed by law and in compliance with funding agreements so as to not je opardi~e any funding for the completion of th e proj ect. ;Sat'l Mt~lco, San Fmnc;/s co. Al ameda. Solano. Napa, Sonoma, San ta Clam. ,,nd Mllrlti 22. New Agencies New cities /towns or new e ntities (such as new transit agencies) that come into existence in Contra Costa County during the life of the TEP may be considered as eligible recipients of funds through a TEP amendment. 23. Integrated Transit Plan (ITP) The Authority has adopted a Tran sit Polley that envisions a public trans it system that p rovides conve nient, safe. affordable, and reli ab le service that offers an attractive alternativ e to private automobile usa ge. All recipients of fundin g through this TEP shall consider and accommodate, wherever possible, th e principles of Transit First In the planning , design, c o nstruction, reconstruction, rehabilitation , and maintenance of the tran sportation system. To achieve this vi sion, the Authority and transit operators will develop an ITP to identify how Contra Costa County transit operators can utili ze TEP funding to better coordinate and inte grate the ir services. This ITP w ill focus on delivering a streamlined and unified experience for the c ustomer across all modes and transit operators. Allocations pursuant to this TE P will be made in support of the findings and recommendations included in the ITP. All transit operators who re ceive funding from the TEP shall participate in the development of an ITP. Trans it operators shall consu lt with the RTPC s in developing the ITP in cities, towns. and the County, as applicable, regarding TEP funding for signal synchronization, complete streets, and other investments that could benefit transit. Transit operat ors sh all incorporat e the findings and re commendations of the ITP into their respective Short-Range Tra nsit Plan s. The Authority expects that transit operating f unds from the Transportation Expenditure Plan be use d to support transit service and the ITP. In th e event that TEP funds must be used to sub sidize existing se rvices as a result of reduction of operatin g funds from other sources, or due to other financial concerns. the transit operator shall update Its Short-Range Transit Plan and submit it to t~1e Authority. 24. Accessible Transportation for Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities An Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan will be developed and periodically updated during the term of the Measure. No funding under the Accessible Transportation for Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities category will be allocated until the ATS Plan has been developed and adopted. No funds may be distributed to a service provider until It adopts the plan. except as noted below. The development and delivery of the ATS Plan will establish a user-focused system with a seamless coordinated system using mobility management to ensure coordination and efficienci es in accessible service delivery. The ATS Plan will address and direct funding to both traditional and b eyond traditional paratranslt services . The ATS Plan will deliver a streamlined, affordable, and unified experience for the customer and address how accessible services are delivered by all service providers where appropriate coordination can improve transportation services. eliminate gaps In service, and find efficiencies In the service delivered. The ATS Plan will identify where coordination can Improve transportation services. eliminate gaps In service, and find efficiencies in the service delivered. The ATS Plan will also determine the Investments and oversight of the program funding and Identify timing, projects. service d elivery options, administrative structure, and fund leverage opportunities. The ATS Plan will be d eveloped by the Authority in consultation with direct use rs of service: stakeholders representing seniors and people with disabilities who face mobility barriers and nonprofit and publicly operated para transit service providers. Public transit operators in Contra Costa must participate In the ATS planning process to be eligible to receive funding In this category. The ATS Plan must be adopted no later than December 31. 2020. The development of the ATS Plan will not affect the allocation of funds to current operators as prescribed In the existing Measure J Expenditure Plan. 25. Safe Transportation for Youth and Children Prior to an allocation of funds from the Safe Transportation for Youth and Children category, th e Authority will employ a public process to develop and adopt program guidelines and performance assessment procedures to maximize effectiveness. The guidelines and performance assessment may require provisions, such as operational efficiencies, performance criteria, parent contributions, and reporting requirements. The guidelines will be developed In coordination with the RTPCs to develop a program that meets the needs within each subregion. Funding will be allocated to subregions and program funding will be subject to the publicized performance assessment conducted by the Authority (see Item 16 In this policy section). The development of the program guide lines and performance assessment procedures will not affect the allocation offunds to current programs as described in the existing Measure J expenditure plan . 26. Enhance Ferry Service and Rail Connectivity in Contra Costa County All projects funded in the Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in Contra Costa category will be evaluated by the Authority and demonstrate progress toward the Authority's goals of reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Sel ection of final projects to be based on a performance analysis of project alternatives consistent with Authority requirements. Proposed projects must be included in and conform w ith the ITP. Project sponsors requesting funding from this category will be required to prepare a feasibility and operations plan and submit it to the Authority to demonstrate that there is sufficient funding available to operate the proposed project and/ or service. 27. BART Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Prior to any appropriation, allocation, or reimbursement offunds to BART. the Authority Board shall make a finding that BART has continued to use a proportional share of its operating allocations for capital projects. BART's preliminary FY 2019 Budget forecasts approximately $150 million of its operating allocations to capital projects. BART shall demonstrate that It continues to use an equivalent proportional share of It operating revenues for capital projects allowing for normal annual fluctuations In capital projects or maintenance expenditures. In years where BART fare revenues or other general fund revenues are reduced by a decrease In ridership or unforeseen economic circumstances, loss of regional, state, or federal funding, or where one-time costs are Increased by a natural disaster, then the Authority may release funds only if the Authority Board makes findings that 1) BART has not reduced its capital project funding disproportionately to the total operating revenue and 2) BART made best efforts to fund capital projects that benefit Contra Costa County. --------------------------------------_.,. 2020 rAMISI'O~TATIONEXP!IIOil\IRI PlAt/ 47 48 28. Cleaner, Safer BART Prior to making an allocation of funds to BART for the Cleaner, Safer BART category, BART shall develop and submit a countywide plan to the Authority that proposes how these funds and other funds available to BART (Including Measure RR, Regional Measure 3, and other funds) will be used as part of a systemwide effort to Improve its stations to meet the goals described In the TEP. The funding from the Cleaner, Safer BART category will b e used for improvements to stations in Contra Costa County and requires a minimum dollar-for·dollar match from other BART funds. The Planshould document how a systemwide program to improve BART stations benefits Contra Costa residents who travel outside the county. BART should consult with the Authority (in consultation with RTPCs) in the development of the countywide plan. In the event BART completes the train control system and if BART has maintained the commitment to provide a minimum dollar.for-dollar match from other BART funds as describe above, the Authority (in consultation with RTPCs) and BART will jointly identify, and the Authority may allocate fund s for the acquisition of additional new BART cars to increase frequency during periods of high demand. The allocation will be considered in conjunction with a periodic review of the TE P (see item 39 In this policy section) and available funding capacity In the TEP. 29. Improve Local Access to Highway 4 and Byron Airport Prior to each allocation of funds from the Improve Local Access to Highway 4 and Byron Airport ca t egory, the Authority Board must make a finding that the project includes measures to prevent growth outside ofthe Urban Limit Lines (ULL). Such measures might Include, but are not necessa rily limited to, limits on roadway access in areas outside the ULL, purchase of abutters' rights of access, preservation of c ritical habitat and/ or the permanent protection/acquisition of agricultural and open space, or performing conservation measures required to cover this project under the Ea st Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). With the exception of the proposed new connection betwee n Vasco Road and the Byron Highway, funding from this category shall not be used to construct new roadways on new alignments. The Authority will coordinate with Alameda and/or San Joaquin Counties relative to project improvements in those jurisdictions. Cunlr 1 CosiJ li.Jn5~Drl.1 11111 Au lhQIIfY' 30. Modernize Local Roads and Improve Access to Jobs Centers and Housing Each jurisdiction In Contra Costa County wlll receive their share of 15.2% of annual sales tax revenues, calculated using a base allocation of $100,000 per year plus additional funds distributed based half on relative population and half on road miles within each jurisdiction. In addition, j urisdictions in Central, East, and Southwest Contra Costa will receive th eir share of an additional allocation of 2 .2% of annual sales tax revenue calculated using the sa m e formula. This is equivalent to 18% of the sales tax revenues for the Central, East, and Southwest parts of the county for improvements under this category. Populatio n figures used shall b e the most current available from the State Department of Finance. Road mileage shall be from the most current information included in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Jurisdictions shall comply with the Authority's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) policy as well as Implementation Guidelines of this TEP. In addition to the requirements set forth In the Growth Management Program Urban Lim it Line Compliance policies and other applicable policies, local jurisdictions will report on the use of these funds, such as the amount spent on roadway maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and other roadway improvements, and benefits to social equity and Communities of Concern (as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission) in their jurisdictions. A minimum of 15% of all local street funding be spent o n project elements directly benefiting bicyclists and pedestrians. 31. Countywide Major Roads Improvement Program Prior to an allocation of fund s from the Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads category, the Authority will develop a new countywide Major Roads Improvement Program to address congestion relief on major roads within each subregion . The program guidelines will include information regarding how to eva luate the range of possible components. Implementation guidelines and standards will be developed in coordination with the RTPCs and will be approved by the Authority Board. Project funding is subject to a performance assessment conducted by the Authority using approved and publicized guidelines. Funding will be allocated to subregions. If projects propose d by an RTPC do not meet performance standards, the project will either be modified or withdrawn in favor of another project from the same region . Funds in this category may be used for arterial refurbishment/redesign for Transit First and Complete Streets . Projects funded from the Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads category must conform to the Transit, Complete Streets, Road Traffic Safety, and other related policies . 32. Improve Walking and Biking on Streets and Trails Prior to an allocation offunds from the Improve Walking and Biking on Streets and Trails category, the Authority will develop and adopt program guidelines and standards for a competitive project-selection process. All projects will be selected through a competitive project-selection process with the Authority approving the final program of projects, allowing for a comprehensive countywide approach while recognizing subregional equity based upon the proportional funding share shown in the TEP. Project funding Is subject to a performance assessment conducted by the Authority using approved and publicized guidelines. Projects funded from this category must comply with the Transit, Road Traffic Safety, and Complete Streets Policies and Include complete street elements whenever possible. Up to $15 million within each subregion for a total of $60 million will be allocated to Complete Street demonstration projects. Each demonstration project will be recommended by the relevant Regional Transportation Planning Committees and approved by the Authority prior to allocation of funds to demonstrate the successful Implementation of Complete Streets projects no later than July 1, 2024. Each demonstration project will be required to strongly pursue the use of separated bike lane facilities to be considered for funding. The purpose of these demonstration projects Is to create examples of successful complete street projects In multiple situations throughout the County. Approximately one fifth of the funding Is to b e allocated to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for the development, rehabilitation, and maintenance of pave d regional trails. EBRPD is to spend its allocation proportionally in each subregion, subj ect to the review and approval of the conceptual planning/de sign phase by the applicable subregional committee, prior to funding allocation by the Authority. The Authority, in conjunction with EBRPD, will develop a maintena nce-of-effort requirement for funds under this component of the funding category. 33. Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality Prior to an allocation of funds from the Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality category, the Authority will develop and adopt program guidelines and standards for a competitive project-selection process. All projects will be selected through a competitive project-se lection process with the Authority approving the final program of projects, allowing for a comprehensive countywide approach while recognizing subregional equity based upon the proportional funding share shown in the TEP. Project funding is subject to a performance assessment conducted by the Authority using approved and publicized guidelines. Projects funded from this category must comply with the Transit. Complete Streets. Road Traffic Safety, and other related policies. 34. Seamless Connected Transportation Options Prior to an allocation of funds from the Seamless Connected Transportation Options category, the Authority will develop and adopt program guidelines and standards for a competitive project-selection process. All projects will be selected through a competitive project-selection process, with the Authority approving the final program of projects, and allowing for a comprehensive countywide approach while recognizing subregional equity based upon the proportional funding share shown In the TEP. Project funding is subject to a performance assessment conducted by the Authority using approved and publicized guidelines. Projects funded from this category must comply with the Transit. Complete Streets, Road Traffic Safety and other related policies. 35. Reduce and Reverse Commutes Prior to an allocation of funds from the Reduce and Reverse Commutes category, the Authority will develop and adopt program guidelines and standards for a competitive project-selection process. All projects will be selected through a competitive project-selection process with the Authority approving the final program of projects. allowing for a comprehensive countywide approach while recognizing subregional equity based upon the proportional funding share shown In the TEP. Project funding is subject to a performance assessment conducted by Authority using approved and publicized guidelines. Projects funded from this category must comply with th e Transit, Complete Streets, Road Traffic Safety, and other related policies. ---------------------------------------?020 mMISPORTATIOII £XPEti0 11URE ~IMI 49 50 Project Financing Guidelines and Managing Revenue 36. Fiduciary Duty Funds may be accumulated for larger or longer-term projects. Interest income generated will be used for the purposes outlined in the TEP and will be subject to audits. 37. Project and Program Financing The Authority has the jurisdiction to bond for th e purposes of expediting the delivery of transportation projects and programs. The Authority will develop a policy to identify financing procedures for the entire plan of projects and programs. 38. Strategic Delivery Plan On a periodic bas is, the Authority will develop a Strategic Delivery Plan to distribute revenue from the Measure to TEP projects and programs. The Strategic Delivery Plan will allocate Measure funds as a firm commitment and will consider the amount of Measure funds and additional leveraged funds available to the project or program, ex pected cost and cash -flow needs, and project or program delivery sc hedule In alloca ting Meas ure funds. Recip ients of Measure funds may seek an allocation for project s and programs included In the Strategic Delivery Plan . 39. Periodic: Review of the 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) The Authority may review the TEP to consider updating the financial forecast due to changing economic conditions and adjust funding , If necessa ry, due to revenue shortfalls. The project and program categories may need to be adjusted based on progress made In meeting the commitments and goals of the TEP. The review may determine that increased revenues be Invested in projects and programs deem ed by the Authority to address transportation needs th at will best serve the res idents of Contra Costa County. The review will provide the opportunity to adjust the TEP to adapt t o the current state of transportation, leverage new funding opportunities, reflect changed conditions, adhere to state and federal requirements, tra ck performance towards commitments and goals of the TEP, and to capture new opportunities that are becoming better defined. The Authority will review the TEP at a minimum of every ten years. The Authority may review the performance of the TEP and progress towards meeting state transportation mandates for reduction In vehicle-mi le s trave led (VMn per capita and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Depending on progress, the Authority may adjust and ronlf JI!OSII 1fJII!.UIIII J IIU11 Au lhnllly approve new goals In the TEP with explicit findings, justification, and approach to meeting goals for State transportation mandates to reduce VMT pe r capita and GHG emissions. Any amendments to the TEP must comply with the policy for Expenditure Plan Amendments Require Majority Support and the following rel ated policies. 40. Programming of Excess Funds Actual revenues may, at times be higher or lower than expected in this TEP due to changes In receipts. Additional funds may become available due to the increased opportunities for leveraging or project costs being less than expected. Revenue may be higher or lower than expected as the economy fluctuates . Determination of when the additional funds become excess will be established by a policy defined by the Authority. Funds considered excess will be prioritized first to the TEP projects and programs that are not fully funded and second to other projects deemed by the Authority to best serve the residents of Co ntra Costa County. Any new project or program will be required to be amended Into the TEP pursuant to th e Expenditure Plan Amendments Require Majority Support section above. 41 . Reprogramming Funds Through the course of the Measure, If any TEP project becomes undeliverable, infeas ible, or unfundable due to circumstances unforeseen at the time the TEP was created, funding for that project will be reallocated to another project or program. The subregion where the project or program was located may request that the Authority reas sig n funds to another project category in the same subregion. In the allocation of the released funds, the Authority, in consultation with the su bregion's RTPC, will consider: a. A project or program of the same travel mode (i.e., transit, bicycle/pedestrian, or road) In the same subregion b. A project or program for other modes of trav el In the same subregion c . Other TEP projects or programs d . Other projects dee med by the Authority to best serve the residents of Contra Costa County Th e new project, program, or funding level may require amending the TEP pursuant to the Expenditure Plan Amendments section above. Funds may require reallocation to meet state transportation policy for vehicle-miles traveled per capita and greenhouse gas emissions. 42, Leveraging Funds Project proponents, including the Authority, are expected to apply for all available funds from other sources to maximize the leveraging of TEP funds. To the extent matching funds from the TEP are needed to complete a project or a phase of project, the Authority will approve funding from the applicable funding category In the TEP where the project is eligible for funding. If the project is determined not to be eligible for funding under any of the categories in the TEP, the Authority, in consultation with the respective RTPC, may approve matching funds from the Reduce and Reverse Commutes category. The Authority may utilize funding from the Transportation Planning, Facilities, and Services category, as needed, to attract other fund sources. 43. Development of Guidelines for Performance-Based Projects Review and Programs The TEP requires development of procedures and guidelines to ensure the goals ofthe TEP are attained. To ensure high quality of the resulting guidelines and substantial public participation, the following procedures shall be used unless specifically replaced by the Authority. a. Scope. The Authority will adopt the following Implementation guidelines and procedures described in the TEP, herein referenced as Guidelines. 1. Performance-Based Project Review 2 . Countywide Major Road Improvement Program 3. Safe Transportation for Youth and Children 4. Improve Walking and Biking on Streets and Trails 5 . Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality 6 . Seamless Connected Transportation Options 7. Reduce and Reverse Commutes 8. Integrated Transit Plan 9. Vehicle-Miles Traveled Mitigation Program The Guidelines shall adhere to the following parameters: 1. Implement the overall guiding principles, goals, and policies of the TEP and the applicable funding categol)' efficientlY and effectively 2. Utilize other regulations and reporting requirements for funding recipients as possible to avoid additional work 3. Increase public confidence regarding the Authority and its actions 4. Shall be written concisely In plain language b. Schedule. Before December 31, 2020, the Authority shall publish a public outreach and engagement process and a schedule for developing the Guidelines. Individuals and organizations shall be able to register their interest in development of the Guidelines and shall subsequently receive advance notification from the Authority of the steps described below and encourageme nt to participate. c . Public Review. Using a structured public-engagement process, the Authority will publish the draft Guidelines for public comment and questions from residents , agencies, and Interested parties. Cities/towns and Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) may provide Input and feedback on draft Guidelines. The public comment period will be at least 45 days. Public Meetings will be held to receive any Input and requested modifications from the public. d. Public Oversight Committee (POC). The POC shall be convened and tasked with reviewing comments received during the public review period. The POC will provide input and recommendations regarding the Guidelines for consideration by the Authority. e. Approval. The Authority shall discuss POC recommendations, public comments, requested modifications, or additional criteria at a public meeting. The Guidelines shall be approved by a supermt;tiority (66%) vote of the Authority Board and published on the Authority's website. The Authority will send notices to all interested parties . The Guidelines shall be reviewed and approved by the Authority every five years if needed to achieve the goals of the Plan, with input and recommendations from the POC and other interested parties. --------------------------------------~ tn~o TnMISPnRTATIOII E~PEtiOIIURt PLMI 51 52 Road Traffic Safety Policy V ISION In this Plan, the Road Traffic Safety policy Is Intended to eliminate trafflc·related deaths and severe Injuries within Contra Costa County by prioritizing a systemwide safety approach to transportation planning and design . Principally, the Road Traffic Safety policy treats personal mobility and accessibility as a fundamental activity of the general public to attend school, conduct business. and visit friends and family, free from the risk of physical harm due to traffic . This policy applies to all transportation system users. Including pedestrians, bicyclists. transit riders. micromoblllty users, automobile drivers, taxis, ride -hailing services and their passengers, truckers, and people of varying abilities, including children, seniors. and people with disabilities. Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety policy Is intended to reduce societal costs due to loss of life and injury, lessen congestion stemming from nonrecurring traffic collisions and Incidents, and generally enhance the quality of life In Contra Costa. POLICY Achieving this vision will require shifting the paradigm of traditional transportation planning and engineering by following the principle of "Vision Zero," which is an internationally recognized approach to proactively preserving life safety In transportation planning and engineering decision making. All recipients of funding through this Plan shall systemically incorporate street design elements that quantlflably reduce the risk of traffic-related deaths and severe injuries in the public right-of-way and accommodate the needs of all users in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, operations. and maintenance of the transportation system . In consultation with local jurisdictions, the RTPCs. and the public, the Authority shall develop and adopt a Model Vision Zero Policy that reflects best practices for street design elements and programs to mitigate human error and quantifiably Improve the traffic safety of all users in the planning, design, and construction of projects funded with Measure funds . Key design elements of the Model Vision Zero Polley shall be Incorporated Into the Authority's project development guidelines as appropriate. To be eligible to receive Measure funds. local jurisdictions must adopt a Vision Zero Policy that substantially complies with the Authority's Model Vision Zero Policy. Jurisdictions that adopt a Vision Zero Policy prior to the Authority's adoption of the model Vision Zero Policy may be considered compliant with the Growth Management Program compliance requirements if the adopted policy substantially complies with the Authority's Model policy. To ensure consistency with the Road Traffic Safety Polley vision, the Authority shall coordinate periodic traffic system and project monitoring with loca l jurisdictions and the RTPCs and utilize data collected over time to evaluate the effects of Vision Zero Implementation on public health and safety. Emphasis shall be placed on proactive deployment of next.generation technology, such as advanced detection systems at major Intersections and corridors Identified In regional and loca l plans as having high collision density, Funding for this level of effort shall be made available to local jurisdictions and RTPCs through the Countywide Major Road Improvement Program and funding from the Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads . l\!!t U,il~fl,f,lli ~II~Jl'li i J IIQIIAUthntiiY -4---------------------------------------- Deve loped by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Boa rd in partn ers hip with th e communities It serves . Janet Abelson Council Me mber, City of El Cerrito Debora Allen (Ex Officio) Director, BART Board of Directors Newell Arnerich Council Member, Town of Danv ille Tom Butt Mayor, City of Richmond Teresa Gerringer Council Me mber, City of Lafayette Federal Glover Board of Sup ervisors, Contra Costa County 05 Loella Haskew Mayor Pro Tern, City of Walnut Creek Dave Hudson Council Member, City of San Ramon Karen Mltchoff Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County 04 Julie Pierce (Vice Chair) Vice Mayor, City of Clayton Kevin Romick Council M embe r, City of Oakley Robert Taylor (Chair) Mayor, City of Brentwood Monica Wilson (Ex Officio) Council Member, City of Antioch Amy Worth (Ex Officio) Council Me mber, City of Orinda --------------------------------------~ ~01nTRftN SPORfAl lntl rXPE UOniJR E Pl MI 53 EXHIBIT2 2020 TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY BY SUBREGION [Attached behind this page] 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan Funding Summary Fwuling c.Mq...., s mlllloru " ~EI:JMNG CONGESTlON ~ HIGHWAYS, lfflCRCH.utGES. AND Mill OR ROADS 1484 41.1% llnprore State Route 242 (SR·242}, ...,_ 4, Transit oDd dAAT C<>nldot 7iJS 19.5% R.ellooeCongestion 3nd lmpnwe Al:cess to Jobs alo~ ~w-av4 and SR-24.2 100 5.s" lmt><"O""' Loca l Ac<:Ms to Hiplwoy4 ond Byron AlrpcA 150 4.ZJ' Eut Countv T"'""k E>clmslon I<> Brom..."Ood ~nd Connocti•itv to Trar>Sit, .Rail, a11d P~rtlng 100 2.!" 111\PI'DV<! lnoffoc f law on Majot Roods in Eut CoLmtr 107 3.~ Enllo"""' FMV Sl!l'\(tce a<>d C<lfnm UUt Rall l~ East and Centrol Cou~ 50 lA" lmpr""" Tr~nsit Rellabolity along 5R-242 .. 5tote lloute 4 011d Vuco Rl»>l :50 lA" iAdci!ional eiiARTT,.,in ~rs 28 O.ml ISumlo>S C011r>eeted lt3flsportit ian Options 20 0 .6" Modtmlze lrUrsla~ SilO (f.680}, llicfrway 24, Transit,. and 8AJIT Conldot S:Jii 14.."' ifler.ew, Congestion, Ease Bottlon.ecks,. 311d lmpr~ Loco! Access 31onc tho I.V80 C:crrtdor 200 s~ ~mprD'ft Totroc flow on Mojor Roads in the Ce~~tro l County and Lamorlnda 145 4.0% jmpra-Tra~~slt Reliobirotv along the 1-6150 •"" Hlshway 24 Corridors 50 '""" f'rcwfde Grntr< Acass to BART Sbticns alon1l-'80 ~d lf~Bhwoy 24 49 1A )mc:Jr<Mt Traffic flow on tiaftway 24 a11d Modernize the COd Bores o f ~ldecottTuooel 35 1.0% )mprO'It Tofl1c Flow on Mo;or Roads in San Ra mon Vo lley 3'2 0.9% Sa"*'• Connected T ransportatlon Opticns 2S QJ'% Enl>ance lllter-111 1-801. lilltorsDII! 580 ft.-5801.. Rlthmond -~ ~•el Brldp. Traoullar>d BART Conidor 143 6 .-nc; lmpr~·TAnslt ltelabilit:y o l11<11 thei..SO Conidior 90 25% Reli...e Concestlon or>d Im p"""' Local Acoess alon& t he J.&l CC<ridot 57 1.6')(, tmprooe Toffiic Flaw on Major Roads in WestCoiD'Itr 38 1.1% Enivnoe Feny Semel> and CoiN!Illter Rail Ill West COli!!!£ 34 0.9% tmpro.~> Tnolfit Flaw and Local Access to Richmond-san Rafael Brld1.• a lonll·580 lfld Rich monel P.:dw;oy 19 0 .5% Sea.ml•n Coooected TransportoUon Optloru s I 0.1% IMP'IIO\lmG TIIANSJr ANDTIIAIISPOIITA:liON CO Urfll'WIDE rH All OUR COMMUNntES 1980 S..!l% Modem I,., l oe31 Roads and lmpoo"" Acoe,. to Job Centers a nd Hou sit~~ 628 17 .4% P<oolde Cl>llvenient and Rella hie T0111lt Services In Cenolnl, Eut and Soul.......,,. Co !\In C<>m 392 10.~ ill ~>US~> Bus servkles a no Reliability in West C<>nn COsta 2SO 6,~ lm~o." W~B and llilir11 on Sln!ets and Trais 215 6.0% Acc.sslble Trusj><>r'Qt!on 1M Senion, Vennm, and People w~~ Dislobililies 180 5.0% Cloaner, Safer BAAl 120 3 .~% S.Ce TrartS po rtotion ror Youth .. d Sb.ldmu 104 2 .~ Rectuoe .and ll~ Cornnwtes 54 l .S% Reduce fmossions and lmiJrooe Air Qualily 37 1 .0% Soit.tot.ll 3464 Transportation PiaMinc, fadlltles & Servloe:s 108 3.0% Admlnlsto Uon 36 1.0!' Toto I 3601 100.0% Populati011 Bued Share 3601 Population Sllare (2037 esllmotej ol Total DI-Uiklm offur>dtac by 5Uibrogla~ Centro I 5outllwest West East l~l (b) (cJ (df l.S4 46 150 JOO 101 30 20 12 38 28 8 12 lOS 95 129 16 25 25 30 19 3 33 32 17 8 90 57 38 34 1!1 5 184 144 119 181 162. 120 110 250 53 54 51 57 .., 90 48 S6 ~ 19 43 28 l6 38 33 17 16 10 a 15 11 7 9 10 32 2.0 IS 31 11 7 8 10 1015 675 841 1018 1015 rn 841 1018 29.~ 1.8.7'% 23-3" 28.2% m X :I: a; :::; .... This Page lnte,ntionally Blank CON TR II C05T A transportation authority Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT Subject summary of Issues Recommendations Meeting Date: October 30, 2019 Approve Ordinance 19 ~02 Adopting the 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Beginning in early 2019, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) has undertaken actions necessary to consider placing a measure on the March 2020 electlon ballot, which would establish a new one-half of one cent transactions and use tax (aka sales tax) for transportation purposes to meet the growing needs of Contra Costa County. Placing a new transportation sales tax on the ballot requires preparation and adoption of a TEP documenting the use of the revenues expected to be derived from the sales tax. The Authority approved the final language for the Draft TEP on August 28, 2019 and released the TEP for approval by City/Town Councils and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The TEP was approved by all City/Town Councils and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Staff has worked with the Authority's legal counsel to develop the attached Ordinance 19-02 as consideration of adopting the TEP . Staff seeks Authority Board approval to adopt Ordinance 19-02, which will approve the 2020 TEP, pursuant to a finding that the adoption of the ordinance is not a project or, alternatively, is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). Financial Implications The proposed TEP would, if approved by the voters, generate $3.608 billion (current dollars) in sales tax revenues over 35 years to improve the transportation system in Contra Costa County. Options Attachments The Authority Board can elect to not adopt the TEP, which would effectively end efforts to seek a new transportation sales tax measure on the March 2020 ballot. A. Ordinance 19-02 Changes from Committee Background Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT October 30, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Since 1989, the Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter- approved transportation sales tax measures, specifically Measures C and J. Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half·cent sales tax for 20 years, which expired in 2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J1 with a 71 .1 percent vote1 to continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the Measure C 2009 expiration date. Together, the two measures fund $1.4 billion to capital projects and will attract $4.1 billion of additional federal, state, and regional funds providing a total investment of $5.5 billion in vital transportation investments in Contra Costa County. These previous measures also established the Growth Management Program (GMP), the principles for agreement of an Urban Limit Line (ULLL and other policies. The Authority, as Contra Costa County's Congestion Management Agency (CMAL updates the Countywide Transportation Plan {CTP) on a periodic basis. The CTP identified goals for bringing together all modes of travel , networks and operators to meet the diverse transportation needs of Contra Costa County, and highlights priority programs and projects to meet these needs. The cost for the projects identified in the 2017 CTP totals $11.6 billion with available funding from approved local, federal, state and regional sources projected to be $3.6 billion, resulting in an $8 billion shortfall for projects. State and federal transportation programs no longer contain reliable funding that addresses multi modal needs. To continue to implement a robust program to improve the transportation network in Contra Costa County, and to enhance or add new services, additional new revenue is required . Placing a new transportation sales tax measure on the ballot requires preparation and adoption of a TEP to document the planned use of the revenues expected to be derived from the sales ta x. In early 2019, the Authority began discussions on the development and approval of a new TEP and an associated countywide transportation sales tax measure as a potential method to begin to address the funding gap . The Authority conducted outreach with the public and worked with the Cities/Towns, Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), and other stakeholders to develop the proposed TEP. The Authority Board approved the Draft TEP on August 281 2019 and released it for Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT October 30, 2019 Page 3 of 3 approval by City/Town Councils and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The TEP was approved by all nineteen City/Town Councils and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors . Staff has worked with the Authority's legal counsel to develop the attached Ordinance 19 -02 for consideration of adopting the TEP . The ordinance also makes a finding with respect to compliance ofthe TEP with CEQA. C:\Egnyte\Shared\Transportation\AGENDAS_BOS & Committee\2019\TEP 1st-2nd\11-12 TEP Intro\draft\CCCountyNOE_TEP_ElecOrd2019- 33.docx Revised 2018 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From:Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder 555 Escobar Street Martinez, CA 94553 Project Name/File No.: Adoption of Ordinance 2019-33 Calling a special election for voter approval of a local sales tax for transportation purposes. Project Applicant/Sponsor Name and Address: Contra Costa County Project Location/Address/APN: Countywide Project Description: The project consists of calling a special election for voter approval of a Contra Costa County Transportation Authority initiated transportation sales tax in support of the Authority’s adopted Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). Public Agency Approving Project: Contra Costa County Project Approval/Adoption Date: November 12, 2019 Exemption(s): Ministerial Project (§ 21080[b][1]; 15268) Categorical Exemption (§ ) Declared Emergency (§ 21080[b][3]; 15269[a]) Common Sense Exemption (§ 15061[b][3]) Emergency Project (§ 21080[b][4]; 15269[b][c]) Other Statutory Exemption (§ ) Reasons why project is exempt: It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project, consisting of Ordinance 2019-33, will have a significant effect on the environment, and it is therefore exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21080(b)(1); 15268, for the following reasons: 1) The Board’s decision to adopt Ordinance 2019-33 Involved only the use of fixed standards and objective measurements, 2) the Authority request met the requirements of state law, 3) The Authority found the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), 4) the Board and all nineteen cities and towns have approved the project, 5) the Board’s decision is ministerial pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1). Lead Agency Contact Person: John Cunningham Telephone: 925-674-7833 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: Date: Title: Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant C:\Egnyte\Shared\Transportation\AGENDAS_BOS & Committee\2019\TEP 1st-2nd\11-12 TEP Intro\draft\CCCountyNOE_TEP_ElecOrd2019- 33.docx Revised 2018 AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title County CEQA Fees County Clerk-Recorder - $50 Conservation and Development - $25 Total Due: $75 Receipt #: RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-34 to prohibit the sale of tobacco vaping products, flavored tobacco products, and menthol cigarettes, and to prohibit the sale or delivery of cannabis vaping products. FISCAL IMPACT: There are minimal fiscal impacts associated with the amendment of the Tobacco Retailing Ordinance, as a portion of Prop 56 and 99 funding in Contra Costa Health Services receives for its Tobacco Prevention Project could be allocated for implementation. BACKGROUND: 1. Introduction On September 10, 2019 the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of vaping products in the unincorporated county to address mounting concerns related to the rapid increase in use of these product by minors and the co-occurring epidemic of serious lung disease that has been linked to the use of vaping devices. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Ryyn Shumacher, (925)313-6825 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Cedrita Claiborne, FHS Staff, DCD Director C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Ordinance No. 2019-34 prohibiting the sale or delivery of electronic smoking devices and e-liquids BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On October 07, 2019, staff presented a report to the Family and Human Services Committee regarding the proposed prohibition on the sale of vaping products. The Committee accepted the report and discussed the recommendations presented by staff. The Committee recommended that staff review the FDA approval process for new tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and to address cannabis vaping products in the proposed ordinance. The Committee further recommended that the proposed ordinance prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products in the entire unincorporated county. On November 12, 2019, the Board of Supervisors unanimously introduced Ordinance No. 2019-34, waived its reading, and fixed November 19, 2019 for adoption of the ordinance. 2. Summary of Ordinance No. 2019-34 Ordinance No. 2019-34 implements the Board of Supervisor’s direction to prohibit the sale of vaping products and implements the Family and Human Services Committee’s further recommendations regarding flavored tobacco products.Specifically, the ordinance: - Amends Division 445 (Secondhand Smoke and Tobacco Product Control) of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of any electronic smoking device or e-liquid that is required to obtain, but has not yet obtained, a premarket review order from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. - Amends Chapter 413-4 (Commercial Cannabis Health Permits) of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale or delivery of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, and to prohibit the sale or delivery of any electronic smoking device that can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form. - Amends Section 445-6.006 of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes. Currently, the sale of these products is only prohibited within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, playground, park, or library. The proposed ordinance will make the prohibition effective in all of the unincorporated County. 3. Tobacco Vaping Products Nationwide, electronic cigarette and electronic smoking device use has increased at alarming rates since the first electronic smoking device products became available about 10 years ago. While there have been many successful efforts to reduce underage tobacco use, the growing availability of electronic cigarettes and flavored tobacco products has reversed positive trends in public health. Electronic cigarettes have often been depicted as an effective cessation device for adults, although the FDA has not approved the product for this use. At a Congressional hearing held by US House Committee on Energy and Commerce in September 2019, Dr. Norman Sharpless, the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, stated that “e-cigarette products are not safe.” Dr. Sharpless went on to state that all electronic cigarettes currently on the market are illegal because they haven’t been assessed by the FDA. Additionally, at least one study has concluded that for every additional adult who quits smoking using electronic cigarettes, there are 80 additional youth who initiate daily tobacco use through electronic cigarettes (Soneji et al., 2018). The proposed ordinance would prohibit the sale of any electronic smoking device or e-liquid that is required to obtain, but has not yet obtained, a premarket review order from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. To protect the public, especially youth, against the health risks created by tobacco products, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Act) in 2009. Among other things, the Act authorizes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to set national standards governing the manufacture of tobacco products, to limit levels of harmful components in tobacco products, and to require manufacturers to disclose information and research relating to the products’ health effects. A central requirement of the Act is the FDA’s premarket review of all new tobacco products. Specifically, every “new tobacco product”—defined to include any tobacco product not on the market in the United States as of February 15, 2007—must be authorized by the FDA for sale in the United States before it may enter the marketplace. A new tobacco product may not be marketed until the FDA has found that the product is: (1) appropriate for the protection of the public health upon review of a premarket application; (2) substantially equivalent to a grandfathered product; or (3) exempt from substantial equivalence requirements. In determining whether the marketing of a tobacco product is appropriate for the protection of the public health, the FDA must consider the risks and benefits of the product to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using tobacco products and the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using tobacco products. Where an application is insufficient to show that permitting the new tobacco product would be appropriate for the protection of the public health, the Act requires the FDA to deny the application for premarket review. Virtually all tobacco vaping products sold today entered the market after 2007 and are considered “new tobacco products,” but have not yet obtained a premarket review order from the FDA. In 2017, the FDA issued Guidance that purported to give vaping product manufacturers until August 2022 to submit their application for premarket review. That Guidance further purported to allow unapproved products to stay on the market indefinitely, until such time as the FDA complies with its statutory duty to conduct a premarket review to determine whether a new tobacco product poses a risk to public health. More recently, in May and June 2019, a federal District Court vacated the FDA’s 2017 Guidance and ordered that applications for some new tobacco products be filed with the FDA by May 2020. However, it is still not clear how or when the FDA will conduct the required premarket reviews for the numerous unapproved products currently on the market. The FDA’s delay in reviewing tobacco vaping products has allowed manufacturers to introduce and market products that appeal to kids and set the stage for the youth e-cigarette epidemic. Manufacturers have introduced sweet-flavored, high-nicotine products like Juul without any review of their appeal to kids or public health impact. The result was a 135% increase in e-cigarette use among high school students from 2017 to 2019. Unfortunately, nearly all tobacco vaping products (except IQOS) on the market have not obtained a premarket review order and the FDA has not taken appropriate action to enforce the requirements of the Tobacco Control Act. 4. Cannabis Vaping Products The proposed ordinance would prohibit the sale or delivery of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, and to prohibit the sale or delivery of any electronic smoking device that can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form. Currently the United States is experiencing a public health crisis as a result of the high number of pulmonary injuries related to vaping which are assaulting our communities in epidemic proportions. As of October 29, 2019, 1,888 cases (the youngest is 13) of electronic cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 49 states, the District of Columbia and 1 U.S. territory. 37 deaths have been confirmed, occurring in 24 states across the nation, with 3 having been confirmed in California. Among 867 patients with information on substances used in electronic cigarettes (as of October 15, 2019), about 86% reported using THC-containing products; 34% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products. The CDC has recommended that the public not use electronic cigarettes or vaping products that contain THC. The CDC has also recommended that people should not buy any type of electronic cigarette or vaping product, particularly those containing THC, off the street, or modify or add any substances to electronic cigarette or vaping products that are not intended by the manufactory, including products purchased through retail establishments. The California Department of Public Health, the CDC, and the FDA have released a health alert to inform communities about the health risks associated with vaping any product, including the use of electronic cigarettes, as vaping has been linked to severe breathing problems and lung damage developed in a matter of months or even weeks. The advisory recommends all users to refrain from vaping, no matter the substance or source. Vaping nicotine or cannabis is dangerous and potentially deadly for any user. After the approval of Proposition 64 in November 2016 that legalized recreational adult use of cannabis in California, Contra Costa County implemented measures to regulate the establishment of commercial cannabis businesses in the unincorporated areas of the County, including the retail sale and delivery of cannabis and cannabis products. Currently, the County is considering eligible proposals for some forms of commercial cannabis businesses. There is growing evidence of harms associated with youth cannabis use. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in JAMA Pediatrics August 2019, findings revealed a significant increase in the odds of past or current and subsequent cannabis use in adolescents and young adults who used electronic cigarettes. The odds of cannabis use were 3.5 times greater in adolescents and young adults who had a history of electronic cigarette use compared with individuals who denied use. These findings highlight the importance of addressing the rapid increases in electronic cigarette use among youths to help limit cannabis use in this population. Adolescents (aged 12 to 17 years) exhibited a stronger association between electronic cigarette and cannabis use than those conducted in young adults. Proposition 64 reserved to local jurisdictions broad authority to regulate commercial cannabis businesses. Specifically, a local jurisdiction may establish standards, requirements, and regulations regarding health and safety in addition to those imposed by the State. 5. Flavored Tobacco Products Four out of five youth who vape nicotine, vape flavored nicotine (NIH, 2019). Youth who are 15-16 years-old are more likely to use Juul than any other age group (Truth Initiative, 2019). Given the relationship between vaping and the associated epidemic of serious lung disease staff recommends, consistent with the recommendation from the Family and Human Services Committee, that the sale of flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes be prohibited in all of the unincorporated county. In July 2017, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2017-01 that, among other things, prohibited the sale of flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, playground, park, or library. The proposed amendment extends the prohibition on flavored tobacco products to the entire unincorporated county. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The sale and delivery of electronic smoking devices and e-liquids and the sale of flavored tobacco products in Contra Costa County will continue to negatively impact the health of the community and will continue the expansion of tobacco influence on youth through vape and vaping associated products. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance would prohibit the sale or delivery of electronic smoking devices and e-liquids and prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products in the entirety of the entire unincorporated county. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to reduce tobacco influence on youth and the associated negative health impacts. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2019-34 Redline of Ordinance No. 2019-34 FHS Staff Report MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2019-34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES AND E-LIQUIDS PROHIBITED 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 amends Division 445 of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of any e-liquid or electronic smoking device that is required to obtain, but has not yet obtained, a premarket review order from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This ordinance also amends Chapter 413-4 of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale or delivery of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, and to prohibit the sale or delivery of any electronic smoking device that can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form. This ordinance also amends Division 445 of the County Ordinance Code to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes. SECTION II. Section 445-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 445-2.006 Definitions. For the purposes of this division, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a)"Characterizing flavor" means a distinguishable taste or aroma imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product that is perceivable by an ordinary consumer by either the sense of taste or smell, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco. A "characterizing flavor" includes, but is not limited to, a taste or aroma relating to a fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. (b)"Cigar" means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing more than three pounds per thousand. (c)"Constituent" means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet, that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the tobacco product. (d)"Consumer" means a person who purchases a tobacco product for consumption and not for sale to another. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 1 (e)"E-liquid " means any substance that is intended to be consumed in aerosolized or vaporized form using an electronic smoking device, regardless of the nicotine content of the substance. (f)“Electronic smoking device” means any device or delivery system that can be used to deliver to a person, in aerosolized or vaporized form, nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol, or any other cannabinoid, including but not limited to an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic pipe, electronic hookah, or vape pen. “Electronic smoking device” includes any component, part, or accessory of such a device, including but not limited to a cartridge, that is used during the operation of the device. (g)"Enclosed" means all space between a floor and ceiling where the space is closed in on all sides by solid walls or windows that extend from the floor to the ceiling. An enclosed space may have openings for ingress and egress, such as doorways or passageways. An enclosed space includes all areas within that space, such as hallways and areas screened by partitions that do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid. (h)"Flavored tobacco product" means any tobacco product, other than cigarettes as defined by federal law, that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor. A tobacco product whose labeling or packaging contains text or an image indicating that the product imparts a characterizing flavor is presumed to be a flavored tobacco product. (i)"Little cigar" means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing no more than three pounds per thousand. "Little cigar" includes, but is not limited to, any tobacco product known or labeled as "small cigar" or "little cigar." (j)"Package" or "packaging" means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind, or any wrapping, in which a tobacco product is sold or offered for sale to a consumer. (k)"Menthol cigarettes" means cigarettes as defined by federal law, that have a characterizing flavor of menthol, mint, or wintergreen, including cigarettes advertised, labeled, or described by the manufacturer as possessing a menthol characterizing flavor. (l)"Multi-unit residence" means a building that contains two or more dwelling units, including but not limited to apartments, condominiums, senior citizen housing, nursing homes, and single room occupancy hotels. A primary residence with an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit permitted pursuant to Chapter 82-24 is not a multi-unit residence for purposes of this division. (m)"Multi-unit residence common area" means any indoor or outdoor area of a multi-unit residence accessible to and usable by residents of different dwelling units, including but ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 2 not limited to halls, lobbies, laundry rooms, common cooking areas, stairwells, outdoor eating areas, play areas, swimming pools, and carports. (n)"Place of employment" means any area under the control of an employer, business, or nonprofit entity that an employee, volunteer, or the public may have cause to enter in the normal course of operations, regardless of the hours of operation. Places of employment include, but are not limited to: indoor work areas; bars; restaurants; hotels and motels, including all guest rooms; vehicles used for business purposes; taxis; employee lounges and breakrooms; conference and banquet rooms; bingo and gaming facilities; long-term health care facilities; warehouses; retail or wholesale tobacco shops; and private residences used as licensed child-care or health-care facilities when employees, children, or patients are present and during business hours. The places specified in subdivisions (e)(1), (2), (6), and (7) of Labor Code section 6404.5 are places of employment for the purposes of this division and are regulated as specified in this division. The places specified in subdivisions (e)(3), (4), and (5) of Labor Code section 6404.5 are not places of employment for the purposes of this division. (o)"Public place" means any area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted. A private residence is not a public place. (p)"Self-service display" means the open display or storage of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia in a manner that is physically accessible in any way to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or employee of the retailer. A vending machine is a form of self-service display. (q)"Service area" means any area designed to be or regularly used by one or more persons to receive or wait to receive a service, enter a public place, or make a transaction, whether or not the service involves the exchange of money. "Service areas" include but are not limited to automatic teller machine waiting areas, bank teller windows, ticket lines, bus stops and taxi stands. (r)"Smoke" means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization when the apparent or usual purpose of the combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts, except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine or illegal substances, and the purpose of inhalation is solely olfactory, such as, for example, smoke from incense. The term "smoke" includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, electronic smoking device vapors, marijuana smoke, and smoke from any illegal substance. (s)"Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted, heated, or ignited cigar, cigarette, cigarillo, pipe, hookah, electronic smoking device, or any plant product ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 3 intended for human inhalation. (t)"Tobacco paraphernalia" means any item designed or marketed for the consumption, use, or preparation of tobacco products. (u)"Tobacco product" means any of the following: (1)Any product containing, made from, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and snuff. (2)Any electronic smoking device that contains nicotine or can be used to deliver nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form. (3)Any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product, whether or not it is sold separately. (4)"Tobacco product" does not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where the product is marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose. (v)"Tobacco retailer" means any individual or entity who sells, offers for sale, or exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia. "Tobacco retailing" means the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange. (Ords. 2019-34 § 2, 2018-07 § 7, 2017-01 § 2, 2013-10 § 2, 2010-10 § 2, 2006-66 § 4, 98-43 § 2, 91-44 § 2.) SECTION III. Section 445-6.014 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: 445-6.014 Electronic smoking devices and e-liquids. No tobacco retailer may sell, offer for sale, or exchange or offer to exchange for any form of consideration, to a consumer any electronic smoking device or e-liquid where the electronic smoking device or e-liquid: (a)Is a new tobacco product as defined in Section 387j(a)(1) of Title 21 of the U.S. Code; (b)Requires premarket review under Section 387j of Title 21 of the U.S. Code; and (c)Does not have a premarket review order issued under Section 387j(c)(1)(A)(i) of Title 21 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 4 of the U.S. Code. (Ord. 2019-34 § 3.) SECTION IV. Section 413-4.608 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 413-4.608 Retail sale standards. A permittee that sells cannabis or cannabis products shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Sections 413-4.602 and 413-4.604. (a)Within each building in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold, the permittee shall prominently display a sign including the following statement in bold print: "GOVERNMENT WARNING: CANNABIS IS A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION." (b)Within each building in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold, the permittee shall establish a waiting area that persons must enter prior to entering the retail area. No person may be admitted to the waiting area without first verifying through examination of a government-issued identification card that he or she is at least the minimum age under state law to enter the premises. The waiting area must be physically separated from the retail area. No cannabis or cannabis product may be accessible to customers in the waiting area. (c)The permittee or at least one employee shall be physically present in the retail area at all times when any non-employee is in the retail area. Within the retail area, the number of non-employees may not exceed twice the number of employees at any time. (d)The sale of any non-cannabis food or beverage, alcohol or alcohol product, or tobacco or tobacco product from the permitted premises is prohibited. (e)The sale of more than eight hundred milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in the form of edible cannabis products to a single cannabis customer in a single day is prohibited. (f)The sale of any cannabis product listed in Section 40300 of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations is prohibited. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 5 (g)The sale of any flavored cannabis product for which the primary use is human inhalation of the gases, particles, vapors, or byproducts released as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization of the flavored cannabis product, is prohibited. (h)A permittee shall not sell, permit to be sold, offer for sale, or display for sale any cannabis or cannabis product by means of self-service display, vending machine, rack, counter-top, or shelf that allows self-service sales for any cannabis or cannabis product. All cannabis and cannabis products must be offered for sale only by means of permittee or employee assistance. (i)The sale of any electronic smoking device that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, or can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form, is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “electronic smoking device” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any device regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (j)The sale of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “e-liquid” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any substance regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (Ords. 2019-34 § 4, 2018- 23 § 2.) SECTION V. Section 413-4.610 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 413-4.610 Retail delivery standards. A permittee that delivers cannabis or cannabis products from a retail location in the unincorporated area of the county to any location in the unincorporated area of the county shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Sections 413-4.602 and 413-4.604. A permittee that delivers cannabis or cannabis products from a location outside the unincorporated area of the county to any location in the unincorporated area of the county shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Section 413-4.602. (a)The delivery of more than eight hundred milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in the form of edible cannabis products to a single cannabis customer in a single day is prohibited. (b)The delivery of any cannabis product listed in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 40300, is prohibited. (c)The delivery of any flavored cannabis product for which the primary use is human inhalation of the gases, particles, vapors, or byproducts released as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization of the flavored cannabis product, is prohibited. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 6 (d)A permittee may not display any advertisement upon any vehicle that is used for the delivery of cannabis or cannabis products that promotes any activity related to cannabis or that identifies the permittee or the business conducting the delivery. (e)A delivery employee who delivers cannabis or cannabis products to a customer shall have in his or her possession a copy of the permit issued under this chapter authorizing the delivery, which shall be made available upon request to law enforcement. (f)No delivery employee may deliver cannabis or cannabis products to a customer without first examining a government-issued identification card of the recipient to confirm that the recipient is the customer who requested the delivery and that the recipient is at least the minimum age under state law to purchase the cannabis or cannabis product. (g)A delivery employee who delivers cannabis or cannabis products to a customer shall at the time of delivery provide the customer with a written warning that includes the following statement in bold print: "GOVERNMENT WARNING: CANNABIS IS A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION." (h)The delivery of any electronic smoking device that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, or can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form, is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “electronic smoking device” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any device regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (i)The delivery of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “e-liquid” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any substance regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (Ords. 2019-34 § 5, 2018- 23 § 2.) SECTION VI. Section 445-6.006 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 7 445-6.006 Flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes. No tobacco retailer may sell, offer for sale, or exchange or offer to exchange for any form of consideration, to a consumer any flavored tobacco product or menthol cigarette. (Ords. 2019-34 § 6, 2017-01 § 4.) SECTION VII. 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 East Bay 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\2019\HS\Ordinance No. 2019-34 Sale of Electronic Smoking Devices and E-Liquids Prohibited.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2019-34 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 1 DIVISION 445 SECONDHAND SMOKE AND TOBACCO PRODUCT CONTROL Chapter 445-2 GENERAL PROVISIONS 445-2.002 Title. This division is known as the secondhand smoke and tobacco product control ordinance of Contra Costa County. (Ords. 2006-66 § 4, 98-43 § 2, 91-44 § 2) 445-2.004 Purpose. The purposes of this division are to protect the public health, safety and welfare against the health hazards and harmful effects of the use of addictive tobacco products; and further to maintain a balance between the desires of persons who smoke and the need of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, while recognizing that where these conflict, the need to breathe smoke- free air shall have priority. (Ords. 2006-66 § 4, 98-43 § 2, 91-44 § 2) 445-2.006 Definitions. For the purposes of this division, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a) “Characterizing flavor” means a distinguishable taste or aroma imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product that is perceivable by an ordinary consumer by either the sense of taste or smell, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco. A “characterizing flavor” includes, but is not limited to, a taste or aroma relating to a fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. (b) “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing more than three pounds per thousand. (c) “Constituent” means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet, that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the tobacco product. (d) “Consumer” means a person who purchases a tobacco product for consumption and ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 2 not for sale to another. (e) “E-liquid” means any substance that is intended to be consumed in aerosolized or vaporized form using an electronic smoking device, regardless of the nicotine content of the substance. (f) “Electronic smoking device” means any electronic device or delivery system that can be used to deliver to a person, in aerosolized or vaporized form, an inhaled dose of nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol, or any other cannabinoid, or other substancesincluding but not limited to an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic pipe, electronic hookah, or vape pen. An “electronic smoking device” includes a device that is manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an electronic cigarette, an electronic cigar, an electronic cigarillo, an electronic pipe, an electronic hookah, a vape pen, or a vapor pen. “Electronic smoking device” includes any component, part, or accessory of such a device, including but not limited to a cartridge, that is used during the operation of the device. (gf) “Enclosed” means all space between a floor and ceiling where the space is closed in on all sides by solid walls or windows that extend from the floor to the ceiling. An enclosed space may have openings for ingress and egress, such as doorways or passageways. An enclosed space includes all areas within that space, such as hallways and areas screened by partitions that do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid. (hg) “Flavored tobacco product” means any tobacco product, other than cigarettes as defined by federal law, that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor. A tobacco product whose labeling or packaging contains text or an image indicating that the product imparts a characterizing flavor is presumed to be a flavored tobacco product. (ih) “Little cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing no more than three pounds per thousand. “Little cigar” includes, but is not limited to, any tobacco product known or labeled as “small cigar” or “little cigar.” (ji) “Package” or “packaging” means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind, or any wrapping, in which a tobacco product is sold or offered for sale to a consumer. (kj) “Menthol cigarettes” means cigarettes as defined by federal law, that have a characterizing flavor of menthol, mint, or wintergreen, including cigarettes advertised, labeled, or described by the manufacturer as possessing a menthol characterizing flavor. (lk) “Multi-unit residence” means a building that contains two or more dwelling units, including but not limited to apartments, condominiums, senior citizen housing, nursing ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 3 homes, and single room occupancy hotels. A primary residence with an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit permitted pursuant to Chapter 82-24 of this code is not a multi-unit residence for purposes of this division. (ml) “Multi-unit residence common area” means any indoor or outdoor area of a multi-unit residence accessible to and usable by residents of different dwelling units, including but not limited to halls, lobbies, laundry rooms, common cooking areas, stairwells, outdoor eating areas, play areas, swimming pools, and carports. (nm) “Place of employment” means any area under the control of an employer, business, or nonprofit entity that an employee, volunteer, or the public may have cause to enter in the normal course of operations, regardless of the hours of operation. Places of employment include, but are not limited to: indoor work areas; bars; restaurants; hotels and motels, including all guest rooms; vehicles used for business purposes; taxis; employee lounges and breakrooms; conference and banquet rooms; bingo and gaming facilities; long-term health care facilities; warehouses; retail or wholesale tobacco shops; and private residences used as licensed child-care or health-care facilities when employees, children, or patients are present and during business hours. The places specified in subdivisions (e)(1), (2), (6), and (7) of Labor Code section 6404.5 are places of employment for the purposes of this division and are regulated as specified in this division. The places specified in subdivisions (e)(3), (4), and (5) of Labor Code section 6404.5 are not places of employment for the purposes of this division. (on) “Public place” means any area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted. A private residence is not a public place. (po) “Self-service display” means the open display or storage of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia in a manner that is physically accessible in any way to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or employee of the retailer. A vending machine is a form of self-service display. (qp) “Service area” means any area designed to be or regularly used by one or more persons to receive or wait to receive a service, enter a public place, or make a transaction, whether or not the service involves the exchange of money. “Service areas” include but are not limited to automatic teller machine waiting areas, bank teller windows, ticket lines, bus stops and taxi stands. (rq) “Smoke” means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization when the apparent or usual purpose of the combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproduct, except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine or illegal substances, and the purpose of inhalation is solely olfactory, such as, for example, smoke from incense. The term “smoke” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, electronic smoking device vapors, marijuana smoke, and smoke from ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 4 any illegal substance. (sr) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted, heated, or ignited cigar, cigarette, cigarillo, pipe, hookah, electronic smoking device, or any plant product intended for human inhalation. (ts) “Tobacco paraphernalia” means any item designed or marketed for the consumption, use, or preparation of tobacco products. (ut) “Tobacco product” means any of the following: (1) Any product containing, made from, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, whether smoked, heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and snuff. (2) Any electronic smoking device that contains nicotine or can be used to deliver nicotine in aerosolized or vaporized form. (3) Any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product, whether or not it is sold separately. (4) “Tobacco product” does not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where the product is marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose. (vu) “Tobacco retailer” means any individual or entity who sells, offers for sale, or exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia. “Tobacco retailing” means the doing of any of these things. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange. (Ords. 2019-34 § 2, 2018-07 § 7, 2017-01 § 2, 2013-10 § 2, 2010-10 § 2, 2006-66 § 4, 98-43 § 2, 91-44 § 2.) (Ords. 2018-07 § 7, 2017-01 § 2, 2013-10 § II, 4-9-13, 2010-10 § II, 10-12-10, 2006-66 § 4, 98 43 § 2, 91-44 § 2). ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 5 Chapter 445-6 TOBACCO SALES 445-6.002 Self-service displays. (a) It is unlawful for any person or tobacco retailer to sell, permit to be sold, offer for sale, or display for sale any tobacco product or tobacco paraphernalia by means of self-service display, vending machine, rack, counter-top or shelf that allows self-service sales for any tobacco product or tobacco paraphernalia. (b) All tobacco products and tobacco paraphernalia shall be offered for sale exclusively by means of vendor or employee assistance. Tobacco products and tobacco paraphernalia shall be kept in a locked case that requires employee assistance to retrieve the tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia. (Ords. 2006-66 § 6, 98-43 § 2). 445-6.004 Distribution of free samples and coupons. It is unlawful for any person, agent, or employee of a person in the business of selling or distributing cigarettes or other tobacco or smoking products to distribute, or direct, authorize, or permit any agent or employee to distribute, any of the following to any person on any public street or sidewalk or in any public park or playground or on any other public ground or in any public building: (a) Any tobacco product; (b) Coupons, certificates, or other written material that may be redeemed for tobacco products without charge. (Ords. 2006-66 § 6, 91-44 § 2) 445-6.006 Flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes. No tobacco retailer may sell, offer for sale, or exchange or offer to exchange for any form of consideration, to a consumer any flavored tobacco product or menthol cigarette.It is a violation of this division for any tobacco retailer to sell or offer for sale any flavored tobacco product or menthol cigarettes within 1,000 feet of any parcel occupied by a public or private school, playground, park, or library. For the purposes of this section, distance is measured by the shortest line connecting any point on the property line of the parcel where the tobacco retailer operates to any point on the property line of the other parcel. (Ords. 2019-34 § 6, 2017-01 § 4). ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 6 445-6.008 Packaging and labeling. No tobacco retailer may sell any tobacco product to any consumer unless that product is sold in the original manufacturer’s packaging intended for sale to consumers and conforms to all applicable federal labeling requirements. (Ord. 2017-01 § 5). 445-6.010 Minimum package size for little cigars and cigars. No tobacco retailer may sell to a consumer any of the following: (a) Any little cigar unless it is sold in a package of at least ten little cigars. (b) Any cigar unless it is sold in a package of at least ten cigars. This subsection does not apply to a cigar that has a price of at least $5 per cigar, including all applicable taxes and fees. (Ord. 2017-01 § 6). 445-6.012 Identification required. No tobacco retailer may sell or transfer a tobacco product or tobacco paraphernalia to a person who reasonably appears to be under the age of 27 years without first examining the identification of the recipient to confirm that the recipient is at least the minimum age under state law to purchase the tobacco product or tobacco paraphernalia. (Ord. 2017-01 § 7). 445-6.014 Electronic smoking devices and e-liquids. No tobacco retailer may sell, offer for sale, or exchange or offer to exchange for any form of consideration, to a consumer any electronic smoking device or e-liquid where the electronic smoking device or e-liquid: (a) Is a new tobacco product as defined in Section 387j(a)(1) of Title 21 of the U.S. Code; (b) Requires premarket review under Section 387j of Title 21 of the U.S. Code; and (c) Does not have a premarket review order issued under Section 387j(c)(1)(A)(i) of Title 21 of the U.S. Code. (Ord. 2019-34 § 3.) ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 7 Chapter 413-4 COMMERCIAL CANNABIS HEALTH PERMITS Article 413-4.6 COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY HEALTH STANDARDS 413-4.602 Standards for all permittees. A permittee shall comply with all of the following standards. (a) Compliance with State and Local Laws. A permittee shall comply with all state and local laws and regulations. (b) State License. A permittee shall maintain a valid state license. A permittee shall notify the director within three days after receiving any notices of violations or other corrective action ordered by a state or other local licensing authority. (c) Business License. A permittee shall maintain a valid county business license. (d) Hours of Operation. All permitted facilities shall be closed to the general public, and deliveries are prohibited, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day. (Ord. No. 2018-23, § II, 8-7-18) 413-4.604 Commercial cannabis activity standards. A permittee engaged in a commercial cannabis activity shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Section 413-4.602. (a) Land Use Entitlements. A permittee shall maintain a valid land use permit issued pursuant to Chapter 88-28 authorizing the commercial cannabis activity. (b) Odor Control. A permittee shall prevent odors generated from the permitted commercial cannabis activity from impacting neighboring parcels or creating a public nuisance. Unresolved or repeated odor complaints may be a basis for revocation of the permit or denial of permit renewal. (c) No Consumption on Premises. No cannabis or cannabis product may be smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed on the premises. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 8 (d) Security Breach. A permittee shall notify the county sheriff's office within twenty-four hours after discovering any diversion, theft, loss, or any criminal activity involving cannabis, cannabis product, or any agent or employee of the permittee. (Ord. No. 2018-23, § II, 8-7-18) 413-4.606 Processing and manufacturing standards. A permittee that processes or manufactures cannabis or cannabis products shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Sections 413-4.602 and 413- 4.604. (a) No volatile solvent may be used to process or manufacture cannabis or cannabis products. (b) All processing and manufacturing operations must occur at the fixed location listed on the permit. (Ord. No. 2018-23, § II, 8-7-18) 413-4.608 Retail sale standards. A permittee that sells cannabis or cannabis products shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Sections 413-4.602 and 413-4.604. (a) Within each building in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold, the permittee shall prominently display a sign including the following statement in bold print: "GOVERNMENT WARNING: CANNABIS IS A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION." (b) Within each building in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold, the permittee shall establish a waiting area that persons must enter prior to entering the retail area. No person ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 9 may be admitted to the waiting area without first verifying through examination of a government-issued identification card that he or she is at least the minimum age under state law to enter the premises. The waiting area must be physically separated from the retail area. No cannabis or cannabis product may be accessible to customers in the waiting area. (c) The permittee or at least one employee shall be physically present in the retail area at all times when any non-employee is in the retail area. Within the retail area, the number of non-employees may not exceed twice the number of employees at any time. (d) The sale of any non-cannabis food or beverage, alcohol or alcohol product, or tobacco or tobacco product from the permitted premises is prohibited. (e) The sale of more than eight hundred milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in the form of edible cannabis products to a single cannabis customer in a single day is prohibited. (f) The sale of any cannabis product listed in Section 40300 of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations is prohibited. (g) The sale of any flavored cannabis product for which the primary use is human inhalation of the gases, particles, vapors, or byproducts released as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization of the flavored cannabis product, is prohibited. (h) A permittee shall not sell, permit to be sold, offer for sale, or display for sale any cannabis or cannabis product by means of self-service display, vending machine, rack, counter-top, or shelf that allows self-service sales for any cannabis or cannabis product. All cannabis and cannabis products must be offered for sale only by means of permittee or employee assistance. (i) The sale of any electronic smoking device that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, or can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form, is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “electronic smoking device” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any device regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (h)(j) The sale of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “e-liquid” has the meaning set forth in ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 10 Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any substance regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (Ords. 2019-34 § 4, 2018-23 § 2.) (Ord. No. 2018-23, § II, 8-7-18) 413-4.610 Retail delivery standards. A permittee that delivers cannabis or cannabis products from a retail location in the unincorporated area of the county to any location in the unincorporated area of the county shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Sections 413- 4.602 and 413-4.604. A permittee that delivers cannabis or cannabis products from a location outside the unincorporated area of the county to any location in the unincorporated area of the county shall comply with all of the following standards in addition to the standards specified in Section 413-4.602. (a) The delivery of more than eight hundred milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in the form of edible cannabis products to a single cannabis customer in a single day is prohibited. (b) The delivery of any cannabis product listed in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 40300, is prohibited. (c) The delivery of any flavored cannabis product for which the primary use is human inhalation of the gases, particles, vapors, or byproducts released as a result of combustion, electrical ignition, or vaporization of the flavored cannabis product, is prohibited. (d) A permittee may not display any advertisement upon any vehicle that is used for the delivery of cannabis or cannabis products that promotes any activity related to cannabis or that identifies the permittee or the business conducting the delivery. (e) A delivery employee who delivers cannabis or cannabis products to a customer shall have in his or her possession a copy of the permit issued under this chapter authorizing the delivery, which shall be made available upon request to law enforcement. (f) No delivery employee may deliver cannabis or cannabis products to a customer without first examining a government-issued identification card of the recipient to confirm that the recipient is the customer who requested the delivery and that the recipient is at least the minimum age under state law to purchase the cannabis or cannabis product. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XX REDLINE VERSION – DRAFT 2 11 (g) A delivery employee who delivers cannabis or cannabis products to a customer shall at the time of delivery provide the customer with a written warning that includes the following statement in bold print: "GOVERNMENT WARNING: CANNABIS IS A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. CANNABIS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. CANNABIS USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY. PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION." (h) The delivery of any electronic smoking device that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid, or can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid in aerosolized or vaporized form, is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “electronic smoking device” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any device regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (h)(i) The delivery of any e-liquid that contains tetrahydrocannabinol or any other cannabinoid is prohibited. For purposes of this subsection, “e-liquid” has the meaning set forth in Section 445-2.006. This subsection does not apply to any substance regulated by the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. (Ords. 2019-34 § 5, 2018-23 § 2.) (Ord. No. 2018-23, § II, 8-7-18) • Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • • Contra Costa Hazardous Materials • Contra Costa Health Plan • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers • ANNA M. ROTH, RN, MS, MPH HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR DANIEL PEDDYCORD, RN, MPA/HA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH C ONTRA C OSTA P U BLIC H EALTH 597 CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 200 MARTINEZ , CALIFORNIA 94553 PH (925) 313-6712 FAX (925) 313-6721 DANIEL.PEDDYCORD@HSD.CCCOUNTY .US To: Family and Human Services Committee, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors From: Daniel Peddycord, RN, MPA/HA, Director, Public Health Re: Annual Report on Implementation of Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance s Date: 10/7/19 I. Summary In July 2017, the Board of Supervisors adopted two tobacco control ordinances to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment. The first being a zoning ordinance and the second a retailer licensing ordinance. The goal of these ordinances is to regulate the marketing and availability of youth- friendly flavored tobacco products, small pack sizes of cigars and cigarillos, and density and location of tobacco retailers, as these contribute largely to youth exposure to tobacco influences and tobacco use. The tobacco retailer licensing ordinance required tobacco retailers to be compliant by January 1, 2018. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Public Health staff provided reports in March 2018 on preliminary implementation of the ordinances with a follow up report to the Family and Human Services Committee being made in October of 2018. This report is a brief overview of implementation activities that have taken place since October 2018, as well as next steps. II. Ordinance Provisions Zoning Ordinance 2017-10 Tobacco Retailer Businesses (effective 8/11/17) states: a) New retailers operating within 1000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries are prohibited from selling tobacco products. Existing tobacco retailing businesses operating within 1000 feet of these areas are nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use will be allowed to continue operating under the ordinance. b) New retailers within 500 feet of tobacco retailers are prohibited from selling tobacco products. Existing tobacco retailing businesses operating within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer will be come nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use will be allowed to continue operating under the ordinance. c) No new “Significant Tobacco Retailers”, including vape shops, hookah bars or smoke shops are allowed. A “Significant Tobacco Retailer” is defined as ha ving more than 20% of retail sales space dedicated to tobacco retailing use. Licensing Ordinance 2017-01 Tobacco Product and Retail Sales Control (effective 1/1/18) states: a) The definition of “tobacco products” and “smoke” includes all electronic smoking d evices and liquids, including all electronic devices that could be used to deliver a dose of nicotine or other substances. b) The sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, is prohibited within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, and libraries. c) The sale of cigars, including little cigars and cigarillos, is prohibited in pack sizes under ten (10). Premium cigars that sell for $5.00 (including taxes and fees) or more are exempt from this provision. d) No tobacco retailer’s license wi ll be issued that authorizes tobacco retailing in a pharmacy. e) Compliance with state and local storefront signage and drug paraphernalia sales laws is required in order to maintain a Contra Costa Tobacco Retailer License. ∎ Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services ∎ Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services ∎ Contra Costa Environmental Health ∎ Contra Costa Health Plan ∎ ∎ Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs ∎ Contra Costa Mental Health ∎ Contra Costa Public Health ∎ Contra Costa Regional Medical Center ∎ Contra Costa Health Centers ∎ f) Tobacco retailers are required to c heck identification (ID) of customers who appear younger than 27 years of age. g) The number of retailers that can sell tobacco products is “capped” at current number (92) of licenses issued by the County. (effective 8/17/17) Condition of License Suspension if a Violation of the Law Occurs: h) Tobacco retailers who have their license suspended due to violations of the law are required to remove tobacco advertising during license suspension periods. i) The time period reviewed for prior violations of the license (the “look-back” period) is expanded from 24 months (2 years) to 60 months (5 years) when considering the length of time for a license suspension for retailers found to be in violation of the law. Retailers found to be in violation of the law can be fined up to $500 for each day that they are in violation, per County Code 14 -12.006, “Administrative fines,” and may face suspension or revocation of their tobacco retailer license. III. Implementation A. Implementation efforts from October 2018 report to the Board of Supervisors The Public Health staff worked with the Business License Office to include information about tobacco retail ordinance and resources in the annual mailing to all bus iness owners. In May 2019, the Business License Office mailed the annual business renewal reminder letters to all 88 unincorporated tobacco retailers, who also receive d a flyer on compliance with Ordinance 2017-10 Tobacco Retailer Businesses and Ordinance 2017 -01 Tobacco Product and Retail Sales Control. The Tobacco Retailer Businesses zoning ordinance prohibits new tobacco retailers from locating within 1 ,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries, and within 500 feet of another tobacco retail er. The Public Health and Department of Conservation and Development staff developed a protocol for license approval in August 2017 which remains in place. As needed, Public Health Staff provide technical assistance to Department of Conservation and Development front line staff that interacts with tobacco retailers requesting zoning verification. Public Health staff in partnership with a team of 15 adults from the following agencies: Contra Costa County Office of Education; Tobacco Use Prevention Education (TUPE); Contra Costa County Health Services’ Alcohol and Other Drugs Prevention Program and Nutrition and Physical Activity Promotion Program; and Bay Area Community Resources to conduct the Statewide Health Stores for a Healthy Community survey. Over 380 stores were surveyed, and the findings will provide information about the marketing of tobacco products that are attractive and affordable to youth and include measures to make tobacco produc ts easily accessible through store discounts and online coupons. Surveys will be sent to the California Department of Public Health’s California Tobacco Control Prevention Program to be analyzed and the findings will be shared with Public Health. Public Health will utilize this data when conducting compliance checks i n early 2020. ∎ Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services ∎ Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services ∎ Contra Costa Environmental Health ∎ Contra Costa Health Plan ∎ ∎ Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs ∎ Contra Costa Mental Health ∎ Contra Costa Public Health ∎ Contra Costa Regional Medical Center ∎ Contra Costa Health Centers ∎ B. Next Steps for Increased Compliance In 2018 , Public Health staff provided technical assistance to the Sheriff’s Office on applying for and funds from the California Department of Justice to combat youth use of and access to tobacco products and enforce the tobacco sales to minors. The Sheriff’s Department was awarded these funds and Public Health staff will continue to work with the Sheriff’s Office to conduct tobacco retail compliance inspections, including youth decoy and shoulder tap operations for enforcement of sales to minors. The Public Health staff also applied for and was awarded funding ($838,379.00) offe red by the California Department of Justice to fund local tobacco enforcement activities complementary to those enforcement activities charged to the Sheriff’s Office from November 2018 through June 2021. As a designated enforcement agency for tobacco reta iler licensing laws, Public Health staff will conduct tobacco retail compliance inspections in partnership with the Sheriff’s Department, provide retailer educations sessions, and conduct outreach and education to K -12 schools, colleges, and youth-serving organizations to combat youth and young adult tobacco use including vaping. Through the new funding from the California Department of Justice , Public Health will: 1. Conduct enforcement activities with licensed t obacco retailers which include updating protocols for conducting compliance inspections with local retailers; developing a list of tobacco retailers to target enforcement actions based on data from the California Department of Ta x and Fee Administration and the local Business License O ffice; conduct 100 tobacco retail compliance inspections; cite violations of tobacco retail laws and conduct follow -up inspections. 2. Conduct tobacco retailer education classes on an annual basis with emphasis on tobacco laws meant to reduce youth tobacco influence. 3. Maintain tobacco retailer information and complaint hub (i.e., hotline and website) to provide technical assistance to tobacco retailers as well as the general public about tobacco retail issues and accept reports of any violations of local toba cco retail laws. The capacity of both the Sherriff’s Department and Public Health to respond to planned activities leading to the completion of tobacco retailer compliance inspections, including youth decoy and shoulder tap operations have been significa ntly impacted as staff at the Sherriff’s Department have been reassigned, and Public Health has encountered challenges in hiring staff for this new funding source. The above activities continue to be a priority and activities are expected to begin early 2020. C. Technical Assistance to Contra Costa Cities O n June 8, 2018, Public Health staff conducted a presentation about local tobacco retail implementation efforts at the Contra Costa Mayors Conference and offered technical assistance to Contra Costa cities that were interested in considering similar laws. As a result of this presentation several cities have requested and have been provided with technical assistance from Public Health staff (i.e., Concord, San Ramon, Danville , and Antioch). Within the past year, the following cities have adopted tobacco retail control policies utilizing the Contra Costa County ordinance as a model: ∎ Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services ∎ Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services ∎ Contra Costa Environmental Health ∎ Contra Costa Health Plan ∎ ∎ Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs ∎ Contra Costa Mental Health ∎ Contra Costa Public Health ∎ Contra Costa Regional Medical Center ∎ Contra Costa Health Centers ∎ City Policy Description Date adopted/ Date effective San Pablo Prohibits sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol within city limits Dec 2018/ Mar 2019 Lafayette Prohibits sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol within city limits May 2019/ Aug 2019 Richmond Prohibits sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol within city limits July 2018/ Sept 2019 Oakley Future Tobacco Retailers businesses would be prohibited from being located within 500 feet of existing tobacco retailers or 1,000 feet of youth - sensitive areas: parks, playgrounds, libraries, schools and bus stops servicing schools. Retailers already inside that 1,000 -foot buffer are exempt. TRL with a high cap of number of tobacco retailer licenses (25) Dec 2018/ Jan 2019 In April 2019, Tobacco Prevention Program disseminated a Request for Proposal for community -based organizations to work with communities in Pittsburg and Antioch to educate the community on the importance and benefits of protective tobacco measures to reduce the influence and use of tobacco and tobacco products in environments that are youth sensitive. Two agencies have been identified: Bay Area Community Resources and Community Health for Asians and execution of their projects will begin in Fall of 2019. In August and September 2019, Tobacco Program staff, the Health Off icer and Public Health Director provided technical assistance and public testimony to the City of Richmond related to the development and subsequent adoption of policy to suspend the sale of vaping products. This action was taken in the wake of growing nat ional concerns related to the incidents of severe pulmonary illness triggered by the use of vaping products. In addition, Public Health staff has been instructed by the Board of Supervisors to develop a proposed vaping sales moratorium for consideration in response to the epidemic of teen vaping and the incidence of severe pulmonary illness related to the use of vaping products. As of September 27 th, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) reports over 800 cases across 46 states and 12 deaths. In California there have been 90 cases reported and 2 deaths, as of September 24 th, 2019. Public Health staff is currently working in partnership with Contra Costa County Coun sel to draft language for the proposed ordinance that is tentat ively scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors in late October or early November 2019. D. Technical Assistance to Nationwide Tobacco Control Public Health staff was selected by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) to present at their 2019 Tobacco Policy and Responsible Retailing Conference in Tampa, Florida in May 2019. Staff was invited to provide best practices on the successful implementation of local tobacco retailer licensing laws. ∎ Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services ∎ Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services ∎ Contra Costa Environmental Health ∎ Contra Costa Health Plan ∎ ∎ Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs ∎ Contra Costa Mental Health ∎ Contra Costa Public Health ∎ Contra Costa Regional Medical Center ∎ Contra Costa Health Centers ∎ III. Recommendations : Staff recommends that the Family and Human Services Committee accept the report and direct staff to continue to provide updates on implementation of the ordinance as part of staff’s annual report on the County’s Tobacco Retail Licensing Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2019-32, establishing the times when late fees accrue on unpaid animal license fees. FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the proposed ordinance changes will generate approximately $108,020 per fiscal year. BACKGROUND: On June 26, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2012/170 approving the Animal Services Department’s current fee schedule. The Animal Services Director recently conducted a fee study and identified that an ordinance revision was necessary for a late fee time-frame for animal licenses. The proposed ordinance change will bring the Department inline with the proposed fee schedule changes approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on November 12, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt this ordinance will result in a loss of revenue to the Department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Arturo Castillo 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Animal Services Fee Schedule and Accrual of Late Fees AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2019-32 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2019-32 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-32 (ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LICENSE LATE FEES) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends the County Ordinance Code to reduce from 60 days to 30 days the time when late fees begin to accrue on unpaid fees for licenses issued by the Animal Services Department. SECTION II. Section 416-6.012 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: (a) Licenses are valid for time periods specified by the board of supervisors. (b) License fees are due and payable at times specified by the board of supervisors. (c) Late fees accrue if a license fee is not paid within 30 days afte r it is due and payable. (Ords. 2019-32, § II; 80-97, § 2.) SECTION III. Section 416-6.212 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: (a) Late fees accrue if a person does not obtain a multiple pet license or a kennel license within 30 days after keeping, harboring, possessing, or maintaining animals in excess of the numbers specified in this article. (b) Late fees accrue if a renewal license is not paid within 30 days after it is due and payable. (Ords. 2019-32, § II; 80-97, § 2.) SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage must 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 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-32 1 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT in lieu of election Smith Cunningham and Kevin Finta to the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) for a term of four years, commencing December 1, 2019 and concluding November 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors received correspondence from Angelia Tant, District Secretary for Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island), requesting appointment to the Board of Trustees of the District in lieu of elections. Ms. Tant reports that subsequent to posting the notice calling for nominations, the District received only two filing petitions, from Smith Cunningham and Kevin Finta. Therefore, the District election scheduled for November 12, 2019 is uncontested and no election will be conducted. At this time, the District respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors appoint Smith Cunningham and Kevin Finta to four-year terms on the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2026. The terms will commence December 1, 2019 and conclude November 30, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Emlyn Struthers, 925-335-1919 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Reclamation District No. 2059 (Bradford Island) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The proposed nominees to the Board of Trustees for Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) would not be approved, which may hinder the Board of Trustee’s ability to conduct the District's business. ATTACHMENTS Correspondence from RD 2059 Secretary RECOMMENDATION(S): Health Services Department (0452)/ISF Fleet Services (0064): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 005015 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $31,280.00 from the Environmental Health Division (0452) to ISF Fleet Services (0064) for the purchase of one ISF vehicle for use with solid/medical waste inspection and enforcement activities. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases appropriations to General Services – ISF Fleet Services (0064) and reduces appropriations from the Environmental Health Division – Solid Waste Enforcement (5880) by $31,280.00. No net County cost. BACKGROUND: The Environmental Health Division (EHD) is in need of replacing one existing 2004 Chevrolet S10 Blazer (non-ISF Vehicle #3664) that has exceeded its useful life and currently requires repairs exceeding the overall value of the vehicle. The replacement vehicle will primarily be used for solid/medical waste inspections and enforcement activities in support of EHD’s Local Enforcement Agency and medical waste management programs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be insufficient appropriations available to facilitate the replacement of one Environmental Health Division vehicle. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Randy Sawyer, 925-335-3210 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Melissa Vanlohuizen C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment – Vehicle Purchase AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC 24/27-40130-AP005015 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Approp Adj 5015 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22520 to add one (1) full-time Library Services Manager (3KGA) (unrepresented) position at Salary Plan and Grade B85 1007 ($8,669 - $10,537) in the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost of $162,321 to the Library Fund. No impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The addition of this Library Services Manager position is part of a larger internal reorganization currently in progress. The plan involves a reorganization at the executive senior management level to better facilitate management workflow. While there is an additional cost at this time, a cost savings is anticipated with future position reductions. The Library recently entered into a contract with BiblioCommons to enhance the Library’s website and virtual presence. In support of this contract, there is a need for a Library Services Manager to have a key oversight role of the BiblioCommons project, and other system-wide projects designed to facilitate implementation of the Library’s strategic plan. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Samuel Treanor C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Library Services Manager position BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The contract with BiblioCommons gives the Library great flexibility in presenting catalogs and curating information for patrons. Maintaining information, as well as initial decisions relating to the implementation of content, will require managerial oversight. This oversight will include supervision of the Library’s virtual services staff and marketing and communications team, as well as coordination with the Community Library Managers. Since this coordination will require an individual whom is able to direct and support numerous managers while handling complex matters, a managerial position is warranted. This oversight cannot be properly given within the Library’s current organizational structure given the existing myriad duties and oversight responsibilities fulfilled by the Deputy County Librarians. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Library will have difficulty implementing its reorganization plan, resulting in potential service gaps. Additionally, there will be inefficiencies in implementing and maintaining virtual services for patrons. Similarly, there will be a lack of crucial support for the Deputy County Librarians to handle discrete complex projects creating additional workflow burdens at the senior administrative level. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 22520 Add one Library Services Manager in Library Dept. MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed p300 22520 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22520 DATE 9/1/2019 Department No./ Department County Library Budget Unit No. 0620 Org No. 3702 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Add one (1) Library Services Manager (3KGA) position to the Library Department. Proposed Effective Date: 10/1/2019 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 $162,321.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $121,741.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melinda S. Cervantes ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BR for JE 9/19/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 11/12/2019 Add one (1) 40/40 Library Services Manager (3KGA) (unrepresented) position at salary plan and grade B85 1007 ($8,669- $10,537) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 11/12/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 11/14/2019 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea 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 ACTI ON Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 11/14/2019 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 P roject: 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 & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (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 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22555 to increase the hours of (1) Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) position #15806 from 32/40 to 40/40 at salary level TC2-1384 ($5,180-$7,689) and decrease hours of (1) Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) position #15805 from 32/40 to 24/40 at salary level TC2-1384 ($5,180-$7,689) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will not have a financial impact. (100% cost offset) BACKGROUND: Occasionally, incumbents of certain positions submit a request to their manager to reduce or increase their position hours. The manager then evaluates the request based on division operation requirements and program service needs. CCRMC Medical Social Services received said request from two Mental Health Clinical Specialists. The incumbents requested their position hours adjusted - Position #15806 to be increased from 32/40 to 40/40, while Position #15805 to be decreased from 32/40 to 24/40. There is no cost associated with the position hours adjustments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the department will not be able to fulfill the request of the incumbents and support the operational needs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Sabrina Pearson, (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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase and decrease hours of two (2) positions in the Health Services Department. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22555 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22555 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22555 DATE 11/8/2019 Department No./ Department Health Services Department Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6417 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of (1) Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) position # 15806 from 32/40 to 40/40 and its incumbent and decrease hours of (1) Mental Health Clinical Specilist (VQSB) position # 1580 5 from 32/40 to 24/40 and its incumbent in the Health Services Department . 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: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $0.00 Net County Cost Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost Neutral-No Impact to Funding. Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Sabrina Pearson ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Kennard for 11/8/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 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 11/12/2019 Approve Rec ommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Timothy M. Ewell 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 fol lows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 11/12/2019 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 & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (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) i n 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 ha ve 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 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment No. 22554 to add one (1) full-time Legal Assistant (2Y7B) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1337 ($4,799-$5,834), one (1) full-time Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1631 ($6,421-$7,805), and one (1) full-time Public Defender Client Services Specialist (26SC) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade QV5 1521 ($5,760 - $7,001) in the Public Defenders Office. FISCAL IMPACT: These positions are funded by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), Justice Assistance Grant. (100% federal funds, no County match). BACKGROUND: The Holistic Intervention Partnership (HIP) will establish an innovative holistic defense system that focuses on early intervention at the time of police contact in misdemeanor cases. A public-private partnership between the Contra Costa County Office of the Public Defender, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Joanne Sanchez-Rosa, (925) 335-8065 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Joanne Sanchez-Rosa C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Legal Assistant, one Admin Services Assistant III, and one Client Services Specialist in the Public Defenders Office BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) multiple County agencies, and community-based partners, HIP will provide interdisciplinary case management and navigation services to indigent individuals to ensure timely and coordinated access to a client-centered array of housing, behavioral health, transportation and legal services at the critical time of initial law enforcement contact. Over the three years, HIP will reduce system burden and improve criminal justice outcomes in misdemeanor cases in all three regions of Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved,the Public Defenders Office would not have the appropriate staffing required to access the grant funding, and would not be able to provide the services as intended and improve criminal justice outcomes. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 22554 JAG Positions MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22554 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22554 DATE 11/4/19 Department No./ Department Public Defender Budget Unit No. 0243 Org No. 2909 Agency No. 43 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment No. XXXC to add one (1) full-time Legal Assistant (2Y7B ) salary & grade ZB5 1337 ($4,799-$5,834) (represented), one (1) full-time Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA),salary & grade ZB5 1631 ($6,421-$7,805), and one (1) full-time Client Services Specialist (26SC) salary & grade QV5 1521 ($5,760 - $7,001) in the Office of the Public Defender. Proposed Effective Date: 11/20/19 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 cos t $297,490.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $185,931.00 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Federal Funding BSCC JAG grant Department must initiate n ecessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Joanne Sanchez-Rosa ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESO URCES DEPARTMENT Paul Reyes 11/6/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 11/12/2019 Add one (1) full-time Legal Assistant (2Y7B) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1337 ($4,799 -$5,834), one (1) full-time Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1631 ($6,421- $7,805), and one (1) full-time Public Defender Client Services Specialist (26SC) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade QV5 1521 ($5,760 - $7,001) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions alloca ting classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 11/12/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 11/13/2019 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Paul Reyes 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 clas s(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 11/13/2019 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 & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (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 deliverin g 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 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22553 to cancel one (1) Departmental Fiscal Officer (APSA) (unrepresented) position number 17704 at Salary Plan and Grade B82 1724 ($7,256.25-$8,841.03) from the Employment and Human Services Department, Administrative Services Bureau. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On July 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22492 adding one (1) Departmental Fiscal Officer (DFO) in the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Administrative Services Bureau to allow a retiring incumbent to provide transitional training in EHSD budgeting. The incumbent has retired on September 7, 2019. This Board order is to request to delete one (1) DFO position number 17704 from EHSD, Administrative Services Bureau. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A DFO position that is not supported by the budget or departmental need will remain on the books. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Livienne Manguera (925) 608-5022 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Livienne Manguera C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel One Departmental Fiscal Officer Position from the Employment and Human Services Department, Administrative Services Bureau AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 40123 P300 22553 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22553 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22553 DATE 11/5/2019 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 5101 Org No. 0501 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Delete 1 (one) Departmental Fiscal Officer (APSA) (unrepresented) position 17704 at Salary Plan and Grade B82 1724 ($7,256.25 - $8,415.02) in Employment and Human Services Department, Administrative Services Bureau. Proposed Effective Date: 9/30/2019 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated wit h 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 N/A Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Livienne Manguera (925) 608 -5022 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Julia Taylor 11/5/19 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Adminis trator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 11/13/2019 Cancel one (1) Departmental Fiscal Officer (APSA) (unrepresented) position number 17704 at Salary Plan and Grade B82 1724 ($7,256 - $8, 841) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 11/13/2019 ___________________________________ ________________ (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 Administrat or 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 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 11/13/2019 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 & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (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 ter ms 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 co nsidered. 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 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education, to increase the payment limit to pay County by $121,732 to a new payment limit of $3,855,946 for general childcare and preschool development program services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: County is to receive up to $3,855,946, with 35% ($1,336,723) coming from Federal funding, and 65% ($2,518,223) from State funding (CFDA Nos. 93.596, 93.575). No County match is required. The State contract number is CCTR 9025; County contract number is 39-801-45. BACKGROUND: The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide general childcare services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. Approval of this board order will allow the continued provision of these childcare services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate the childcare and development program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Nelly Ige, Teresita Foster C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:2019-20 California Department of Education General Childcare & Development Revenue Contract Amendment CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Department of Education General Childcare & Development funding supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS State agreement LOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTRACTOR'S NAME: DATE: CONTRACT NUMBER: PROGRAM TYPE: PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT CCTR-9025 07-02207-00-9 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1430 N Street F.Y.Sacramento, CA 95814-5901 July 01, 2019 GENERAL CHILD CARE & DEV PROGRAMS 19 - 20 This agreement with the State of California dated July 01, 2019 designated as number CCTR-9025 shall be amended in the following particulars but no others: The Contractor agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Contra Costa County Local Individualized Subsidized Child Care Plan (hereafter the "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PILOT PLAN") as specifically approved by letter from the California Department of Education, dated May 8, 2019. The Contract must meet the specifications of the GENERAL CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS except where the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PILOT PLAN allows for exceptions. The Maximum Reimbursable Amount (MRA) payable pursuant to the provisions of this agreement shall be amended by deleting reference to $3,734,214.00 and inserting $3,855,946.00 in place thereof. The Maximum Rate per child day of enrollment payable pursuant to the provisions of the agreement shall be amended by deleting reference to $47.98 and inserting $49.54 in place thereof. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The minimum Child Days of Enrollment (CDE) Requirement shall be 77,835.0. (No Change) Minimum Days of Operation (MDO) Requirement shall be 252. (No change) EXCEPT AS AMENDED HEREIN all terms and conditions of the original agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Amendment 01 Budget Act/Rate Change/Add Pilot Language T.B.A. NO. $ $ I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS CONTRACT TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE B.R. NO. STATUTE FISCAL YEARCHAPTER OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) ITEM (OPTIONAL USE) FUND TITLEPROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) TITLE ADDRESS PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNINGPRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING BY (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE)BY (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE) CONTRACTORSTATE OF CALIFORNIA use only Department of General Services 706 See Attached 121,732 Child Development Programs Jaymi Brown, Contract Manager 3,855,946 See Attached See Attached $ 3,734,214 CONTRACTOR'S NAME: CONTRACT NUMBER: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT CCTR-9025 Amendment 01 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT $ PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $ PROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) (OPTIONAL USE) ITEM OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) FUND TITLE CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR Child Development Programs 0 915,756 Federal 0656 FC# 93.596 PC# 000321 13609-2207 30.10.020.001 6100-194-0890 B/A 2019 2019-2020 706 SACS: Res-5025 Rev-8290 915,756 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT $ PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $ PROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) (OPTIONAL USE) ITEM OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) FUND TITLE CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR Child Development Programs 0 420,967 Federal 0656 FC# 93.575 PC# 000324 15136-2207 30.10.020.001 6100-194-0890 B/A 2019 2019-2020 706 SACS: Res-5025 Rev-8290 420,967 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT $ PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $ TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $ PROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) (OPTIONAL USE) ITEM OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) FUND TITLE CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR Child Development Programs 121,732 2,519,223 General 0656 23254-2207 30.10.020.001 6100-194-0001 B/A 2019 2019-2020 706 SACS: Res-6105 Rev-8590 2,397,491 SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. B.R. NO. DATE T.B.A. NO. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Adult Protective Services, to apply for and accept grant funding from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), Victim Services Branch for the Elder Abuse (XE) Program, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the period of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $200,000 (100% Federal CFDA 16.575) from the Governor's California Office of Emergency Services to fund the Elder Abuse Prevention Project for a one year period. The program is supported through the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and requires a cash and/or in-kind match match equal to 20 percent of the total project cost, which is $250,000.Therefore, Employment and Human Services Department will match $50,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Adult Protective Services Elder Abuse Prevention Project Grant Funding BACKGROUND: The goal of the Elder Abuse Prevention Project (EAPP) is to bridge the gap in services addressing Elder Abuse. The purpose of the XE Program funding is to enhance the safety of elder and dependent adult victims of crime by providing direct services to victims and bridging the gap between elder justice service providers and victim service providers. The program design takes into account approximately 6,000 annual Adult Protective Services (APS) caseload, and focuses on the areas where direct service is most required: financial abuse, case management, and counseling. This focus will increase justice for, and safety of, elder residents and dependent adults of Contra Costa County. This grant funding will be used to: Continue to fund a 1.0 FTE Elder Abuse Victim Specialist dedicated to serving elder and dependent adult victims 1. Provide and coordinate direct services for elder and dependent adult victims2. Expand the communities’ capacity to service elder and dependent adult victims3. Ensure that elder and dependent adult victims have access to the criminal justice system; and 4. Implement a number of outreach awareness programs for victims and mandated reporters of elder and dependent adult abuse and others who come into contact with these victims. 5. EHSD’s Aging & Adult Services will partner with the District Attorney’s Office, and community partners to deliver the elder abuse prevention and interventions outlined in the proposal application to Cal OES. Additional partners may be identified and added as needed. Pros and cons of request: Pros: Leverages existing APS services and community partners to address gaps in services for elder adults and dependent adults who are victims of crime, elder abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation. Focuses on prevention in order for older adults to be in a safe environment. Builds capacity for the County’s network of community service providers and Adult Protective Services to continue the success of the Elder Abuse Prevention Program. Cons: Sustainability of program funding beyond end of grant term, December 31, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, the Adult Protection Services division will continue to face an increasing number of vulnerable elder and dependent adults facing financial abuse, interpersonal violence, neglect and exploitation. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee, to submit funding application #28-825-12 to the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for Contra Costa Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) Non-Competitive Capacity Building Grant Project, for the period from February 1, 2020 through August 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this funding application will result in a maximum amount of $7,500 from NACCHO to support the County’s MRC Non-Competitive Capacity Building Grant Project. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa MRC is housed under Contra Costa County’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS), which is part of Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD). MRC is part of the County's emergency planning and response system to address the need for additional medical professionals to respond to a medical surge event or an event such as those requiring the mass distribution of pharmaceuticals. Additionally, the MRC participates in trainings, health fairs, flu clinics, first aid, and community service. The NACCHO award will provide funding to allow MRC to acquire medical supply APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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 Frost, 925-313-9554 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Submission of Application #28-825-12 to the National Association of County and City Health Officials BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) cases and an assistant MRC Coordinator (to manage community/hospital outreach training). The funds will be used to provide continuous support to County’s MRC Non-Competitive Capacity Building Grant Project to enhance the Contra Costa MRC unit through August 31, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this application is not accepted, the County’s Emergency Medical Services will not receive funding to support its Non-Competitive Capacity Building Grant Project to continue enhancement of the MRC. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #28-706-22 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., a non-profit corporation, to pay County an amount not to exceed $85,901 for participation in the California Emerging Infections Program (EIP), for the period from September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: The Agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $85,901 in funding by Food and Drug Administration Grant for the Emerging Infections Program through the Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) for Enteric Bacteria was established in 1996 to monitor bacterial resistance, specifically, the resistance among Salmonella and other enteric bacteria. The 17 participating state health departments forward every tenth human Salmonella isolate to Center for Disease Control (CDC) for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Daniel 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #28-706-22 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The CDC is requesting that additional EIP sites participate in the study of foodborne bacteria. Such bacteria is not uncommon and often is associated with the use of antimicrobial agents in food animals, especially in retail food. This study will assist in generating a database that may be utilized to augment the development of intervention programs to stem the high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in the meal and poultry food supply. The goal of the study is to determine the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among Salmonella, Campylobacter, E.coli and enterococci isolated from a sample of chicken, ground turkey, ground beef and pork chops purchased from selected grocery stores in the catchment area of the California EIP FoodNet site. This will include samples collected from Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco County retail grocery stores. Approval of this Agreement #28-706-22 will allow continuous funding to support the EIP - Retail Foods Project, through August 31, 2020. This Agreement includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, The County will not receive additional funding to continue provide services for the EIP. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute an agreement amendment with California Department of Education, to increase the payment limit by $305,652 to a new amount not to exceed $11,118,905 for state preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue agreement is from the California Department of Education, with 87% ($9,674,367) coming from the State and 13% ($1,444,538) being federally funded. No County match is required. The State agreement number is CSPP 9050 / Amend 1 The County agreement number is 39-908-27. The CFDA numbers are 93.596 ($989,889) and 93.575 ($454,649) BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education notified the Department on June 1, 2019 of the 2019-20 funding allocation of the California State Preschool program services. The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide state preschool services APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nelly Ige, Teresita Foster C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:2019-20 California Department of Education Preschool Program Revenue Contract Amendment 1 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. The board approved the 2019-2020 revenue agreement on July 9, 2019 (c.56). This board order is to approve execution of an amendment for additional funds. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate these childcare programs. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Agreement #29-822-1 (Fed# CA1651L9T051801) with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in an amount payable to County not to exceed $1,017,763 for the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care Program (CoC) to provide permanent supportive housing and support services for 32 High Utilizers of Multiple Systems (HUMS) homeless individuals, for the period from March 1, 2020 through February 28, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $1,017,763 in funding from HUD for the CoC Program. ($58,821 County match) BACKGROUND: In 2013 and 2014, Cost of Homelessness study looked at Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) reported that 12% of our system's homeless utilizers account for 71% of healthcare costs (over $32 million) at an average cost of $80,000/per person, per year. This translates to 398 unduplicated homeless individuals, with APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #29-822-1 with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) highest costs for inpatient hospital stays and mental health services, many of whom are chronically homeless. Research shows that costs can be reduced by nearly $50,000 per person when placed in permanent supportive housing. The CoC builds on the successes of CCHS in permanent supportive housing projects, which spans 20 years and is considerable in every aspect including outreach and assessment to housing placement and retention. CCHS oversees the referral process, leasing of units, and consumer services. This includes case management, coordination of supportive services, administering the housing application process, and assistance with housing information. Approval of Grant Agreement #29-822-1 will allow County to receive funding for the CoC, including supportive housing and support services to HUMS homeless individuals until terminated by either party. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not be able to better assist its homeless population with supportive housing and support services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Agreement #28-661-17 with the City of Walnut Creek, including agreeing to indemnify the City, to pay the County in an amount not to exceed $6,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to be used for the operation of the Adult Interim Housing Program, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will allow the County to receive $6,000 in CDBG funding from the City of Walnut Creek to provide emergency housing and supportive services to individuals year-round. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department operates an emergency shelter program at full capacity on a year-round basis. Each year, the shelters provide interim housing and support services to over 800 individuals per year. The Community Development Block Grant program, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is a source of public funding for the operation of the County’s Adult Interim Housing Program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Agreement #28-661-17 with the City of Walnut Creek BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 18, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Grant Agreement #28-661-16 with the City of Walnut Creek to receive CDBG funding to be used for the operation of the Adult Interim Housing Program, for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Approval of Grant Agreement #28-661-17 will allow the County to receive CDBG funding from the City of Walnut Creek to continue to provide interim housing and support services through June 30, 2020 The County is agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor for claims arising out of County’s performance under this Contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not receive funding and without such funding, the emergency shelter program may have to operate at a reduced capacity. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, an amendment to Purchase Order #F008676, with Epic Systems, Inc., to increase the Payment Limit by $4,900,000, to a total Payment Limit of $11,900,000 for the purchase of annual maintenance, training, and additional modules for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Health Services Department utilizes EPIC Systems, Inc., for managing patients Electronic Health Records (EHR) pursuant to the standard license and support agreement, dated April 26, 2001, between EPIC and the County. On June 13, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved a Purchase Order #F008676, for a 3-year term with Epic Systems, Inc., EPIC, for an amount of $7,000,000. Due to the addition of new modules and maintenance for those modules under the Whole Person Care project, and smaller projects in the past Fiscal Year, funds for the original Purchase Order have been exhausted. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8700 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Purchase Order with EPIC Systems, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval for additional funding will allow the Contractor to provide continued maintenance services, and additional modules. These services and additional modules will allow all physicians, nurses, clinicians, and patient care managers to continue to provide managed care throughout Health Services Department to patients, through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request to add funds to the existing Purchase Order is not approved, it negatively affects clinician’s ability to adequately provide managed care to patients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-403-21 with Jon Whalen, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $360,960, to provide outpatient psychiatric services to minors for the period February 1, 2020 through January 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 50% Mental Health Realignment Funds and 50% Federal Medi-Cal. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-403-20 with Jon Whalen, M.D., to provide outpatient psychiatric services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluation, and medical and therapeutic treatment and consulting and training in medical and therapeutic matters to minors, for the period February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #24-403-21 will allow Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services to minors through January 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Willhem C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-403-21 with Jon Whalen, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-438-13 with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $240,000, to provide telepsychiatry services to children and adolescents seen in children’s clinics, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 22, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-438-12 with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D. to provide telepsychiatry services; including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment for children and adolescents seen in children’s clinics for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. Approval of Contract #74-438-13 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide telepsychiatry services to children and adolescents seen in children’s clinics through December 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-438-13 with Vasanta Venkat Giri, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s 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). RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-503-4 with Mental Health Systems, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,136,653, to provide assisted outpatient treatment and assertive community treatment for eligible adults in Contra Costa County under the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020 in an amount not to exceed $1,068,327. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded by 19% Federal Medi-Cal and 81% MHSA. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing MHSA Community Services and Supports Program, including providing community-based services, personal services coordination, medication support, crisis intervention, and other mental health services to eligible adult clients in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–503-4 with Mental Health Systems, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 6, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-503-3 with Mental Health Systems, Inc., for the period of October 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2019, for the provision of mental health support services to adults in Contra Costa County. Approval of Novation Contract #74-503-4 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Contractor to continue providing mental health services through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer services provided to eligible adult clients in Contra Costa County through the MHSA Community Services and Support Program. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-343-12 with Richard D. Baldwin, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $264,960, to provide geriatric psychiatric services for County’s Adult Mental Health Clinics, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment Fund. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-343-11 with Richard D. Baldwin, M.D. for the provision of geriatric psychiatric services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, medical and therapeutic services, for seriously and persistently mentally ill older adults at the County’s Adult Mental Health Clinics, and consulting and training to other clinical staff, for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. Approval of Contract #74-343-12 will allow the Contractor to continue providing geriatric psychiatric services through December 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925 957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-343-12 with Richard D. Baldwin, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s geriatric psychiatric services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-612 with Mental Health Systems, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,050,375, to provide mental health services including outpatient treatment, assertive community treatment and crisis intervention for eligible adults in central Contra Costa County under the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), for the period from November 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020 in an amount not to exceed $525,188. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded by 14% Federal Medi-Cal, 66% MHSA and 20% Mental Health Realignment Funds. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing MHSA Community Services and Supports Program, including providing community-based services, personal services coordination, medication support, crisis intervention, and other mental health services to eligible adult clients in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Harris C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74–612 with Mental Health Systems, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under Contract #74-612, Contractor will provide mental health support services to adults in central Contra Costa County through June 30, 2020, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer services provided to eligible adult clients in central Contra Costa County through the MHSA Community Services and Support Program. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Ray A. Morgan Company, LLC in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to provide the County with document imaging and records management services for the period of November 12, 2019 through October 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: In April 2019, the County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide document scanning and indexing services as well as to assist with the planning, design, and development of a comprehensive document management solution. The goal of this project is to eliminate paper which will reduce the physical footprint of storage needs in preparation for the relocation of the County Administration Building and implement an all-inclusive document management system. The document management system will integrate the SharePoint Document Capture solution with the existing Laserfiche Content Management system and will greatly enhance the ability to make public record searches easier and to provide the ability for documents to be indexed and searched by a variety of criteria. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Marc Shorr, (925) 608-4071 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Jennifer Hopkins, Ijeoma Chukwunyelu, Nancy Zandonella, Jessica Butterfield C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Marc Shorr, Chief Information Officer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Ray A. Morgan Company, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) An Evaluation Committee comprised of members of the County Administrator’s Office (Budget, Finance, and Labor Relations), the Department of Information Technology, Clerk of the Board and the Human Resources Department was convened to evaluate the responses to the RFP which also included onsite presentations by all three (3) vendors. The committee’s recommendation was to select Ray A. Morgan Company, LLC based on their ability to provide the most complete solution, and their pricing was the most cost-effective. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The services to be provided by this contract are critical to the plan of eliminating excess paper and the need to streamline the ability to index, scan and search for documents. If this contract is not approved, the County will be unable to provide a comprehensive document management system and the need to house paper documents will continue. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bibliocommons, Inc. effective December 2, 2019 to address the integration of third party technologies, and amend Schedule A-2 to address mobile applications, with no change to the payment limit of $632,000 or term expiration of December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Library Subscription Master Agreement with Bibliocommons provides the Library the ability to create a new website with a comprehensive Content Management System and Catalog Discovery Layer developed specifically for libraries. It enables the Library's site, including its catalog and events calendar, to be fully compatible with mobile devices. The software enables the Library to offer many improved online features such as, natural language search, shareable book lists, the ability to virtually browse shelves, FRBR logic results (meaning all formats will display in a single search result), a built-in Awards and Bestsellers database, and read-alike suggestions when a searched for item is not available. It offers seamless integration and promotion of catalog content on the website and web content in the catalog. It also provides patrons the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Alison McKee, 925-608-7790 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Bibliocommons, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) option to post and share content with other library users regarding books and other media in the Library's collection and aims to protect children under the age of 13 by restricting their ability to post free text, create their own user names or send and receive private messages. The amended contract with the vendor will add Schedule H - Approved Modification and Integrations, which will allow for the integration of third party vendors that the Library and BiblioCommons have mutually agreed to integrate into the BiblioCommons product. Schedule A-2 will be amended to address the deployment of the BiblioCommons mobile app, BiblioApps, in iOS and Android environments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action or inaction will prevent the Contra Costa County Library from integrating third party vendors into the new website and launching the mobile app for the site. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-566-3 with Kirsten Schick, D.C., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $403,200 to provide chiropractic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 11, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-566-2 with Kirsten Schick, D.C., to provide chiropractic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. Approval of Contract #76-566-3 will allow Contractor to continue to provide chiropractic services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring chiropractic services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-566-3 with Kirsten Schick, D.C. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #23-581-3 with San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, a government agency, including mutual indemnification, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to coordinate the services of a Fire Services Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Medical Director, for the period from December 15, 2019 through December 14, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Measure H Funding. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Agreement is to provide enhancements in fire service based education, training, patient safety and quality improvement for fire services providers within the Contra Costa EMS Systems. On August 20, 2015, the San Ramon Valley Fire Department’s Board of Directors authorized to recruit and hire a Fire Services EMS Medical Director on behalf of the following protection agencies: East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, El Cerrito Fire Department, Moraga Orinda Fire District, Pinole Fire APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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 Frost, 925-608-5437 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #23-581-3 with San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Department, Richmond Fire Department, Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. On November 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #23-581-1 with San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, to coordinate the services of a Fire Services EMS Medical Director, for the period December 15, 2016 through December 14, 2019. Approval of Agreement #23-581-3 will allow Contractor to continue to coordinate the services of a Fire Services EMS Medical Director, for the period December 15, 2019 through December 14, 2020. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, Contra Costa County’s EMS Systems will not receive enhancements supporting education, training, patients safety and quality improvements for its providers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-265 with Nova Care Home Health Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $280,000, to provide home health care services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #77-265, the Contractor will provide home health care services for CCHP members for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CCHP members will not receive the benefits of home health care services from the Contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-265 with Nova Care Home Health Services, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-925-32 with Lincoln, a non-profit corporation, effective November 1, 2019, to amend Contract #24-925-31 to decrease the payment limit by $20,000, from $5,646,310 to a new payment limit of $5,626,310, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, and to decrease the automatic extension payment limit by $10,000, from $2,823,155 to a new payment limit of $2,813,155, with no change in the term of the automatic extension through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal, 35% Mental Health Realignment, 11% Antioch/Pittsburg Unified School Grant and 4% The Tides Foundation Grant. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 19, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-925-31 with Lincoln Child Center, Inc., for the provision of school-based mental health services and a multi-dimensional family APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-925-32 with Lincoln BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) treatment program for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) students and their families, for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. The Contractor has re-allocated the funds to non-Medi-Cal services which reduced the matching funds from Federal Medi-Cal. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #24-925-32 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services, through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Contractor will not be able to reallocate funds to provide the necessary services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This prevention and treatment 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 addicted youth being provided an opportunity to prevent or recover from the effects of alcohol or other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive individuals. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-579-2 with Support4Recovery, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective November 1, 2019, to amend Contract #74-579-1 to increase the payment limit by $134,400, from $68,000 to a new payment limit of $202,400, to provide alcohol and drug abuse treatment services by providing specialty housing for adults participating in substance use disorder treatment, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 100% by Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. BACKGROUND: In August 2019, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-579-1 with Support4Recovery to provide alcohol and drug abuse treatment services by providing specialty housing for adults participating in substance use disorder treatment for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-579-2 with Support4Recovery, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-579-2 will allow the Contractor to provide additional alcohol and drug abuse treatment services, through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, County’s Clients will not receive substance abuse treatment from Contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a Purchase Order with Watermark Medical, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $526,000 for the rental of monitors, related patient supplies, and on-line management of Sleep Study results for the Cardiopulmonary Unit of the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: This Purchase Order request is for the Home Sleep Study related monitor rental, patient supplies, and on-line management of the test results with the CCRMC physician interpretation. This vendor has been providing this service for the past seven years. The testing is needed to determine the medical management of patients with symptoms of sleep disordered breathing. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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, 925-370-5501 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Jasmine Campos C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Watermark Medical, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, then the Cardiopulmonary Department will not be able to provide diagnostic testing for patients suspected of sleep disordered breathing. When left untreated, this condition can cause worsening of cardiac, pulmonary disease, and endocrine disorders resulting in increased incidents of hospital admissions for patients. This scenario would negatively impact the PRIME directive to manage these chronic disease conditions and result in decreased federal funding. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the County Librarian, a purchase order with Baker & Taylor in an amount not to exceed $322,927 for book rental for the Contra Costa County Library, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Library Fund. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County Library builds and maintains a robust collection for County residents. In order to meet the high demand of popular current materials, the library occasionally has to purchase additional copies to supplement the long demand list. When popularity wanes, the library is faced with the challenge and expense of storing the excess titles. The Baker & Taylor book rental program provides libraries with an efficient and economical method for maintaining an inventory of the most current, high demand hardcover titles. Renting library materials through the Baker & Taylor program will allow the library access to additional copies of popular titles without a negative storage impact. The rented materials will have the same level of processing and branding that current Contra Costa County Library materials have. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Baker & Taylor Purchase Order For Book Rentals CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, the Contra Costa County Library will not be able to meet the high demand of current materials, and be able to efficiently manage its collection volume. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/579 authorizing the forms of and directing the execution and delivery of a First Amendment to the Facilities and Site leases related to the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds to substitue certain real property owned by the County as leased assets for the bonds. 2. DIRECT the Public Works Department, Real Estate Division, to have said First Amendment to the Site and Facilities lease documents recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On February 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Sheriff-Coroner to submit a grant proposal in response to a competitive Request for Proposals ("RFP") released by the California Board of State and Community Corrections ("BSCC") to construct a 416-bed, high security facility (the "Facility") on the campus of the West County Detention Facility ("WCDF"). At the time, the Facility design totaled 118,907 square feet and included approximately 15,000 square feet of new program and medical space to compliment efforts to provide reentry and mental health services to County inmates regardless of classification. On June 8, 2017, the BSCC funded the County's application in the amount of $70 million. Since that time, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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 M. 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMS OF AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO FACILITY & SITE LEASES County staff has been working with various State agencies on the design of the facility, completion of a comprehensive Real Estate Due Diligence (REDD) process and other logistics related to the project grant. Over this period of time, the project scope was reduced to reflect a 106,430 square foot facility, that includes 288 beds, 96 of which are specifically designed for inmates with mental health needs. Additionally, the State notified the County of the need for clear title on those portions of the WCDF campus that would include the new Facility and underground utilities that would service the building. For that reason, staff has determined it is prudent to seek release of the entire WCDF parcel as a leased asset from the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds and substitute in the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF). This issue is outlined more completely below: BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) EXISTING TITLE ENCUMBRANCES ON THE WCDF The County has leased certain real property and the improvements thereon to the Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to a Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017. The Authority has issued lease revenue bonds to finance various public capital improvements for the County, and to secure the bonds, has leased certain real property and the improvements to the County pursuant to a Facility Lease, also dated as of March 1, 2017. Under the lease revenue bond construct, the County pays base rental payments to the Authority pursuant to the Facility Lease for the use and occupancy of certain facilities, including the WCDF, which rental payments are in amounts sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds held by the Authority. REMOVAL OF TITLE ENCUMBRANCES Today's action proposes that the Authority enter into a First Amendment to the Site Lease to release that parcel of real property from the Site Lease consisting of the entire WCDF campus and substitute in the MDF. It is also proposed that the Authority enter into a First Amendment to the Facility Lease to delete said parcel of land from the real property leased pursuant to the Facility Lease consisting of the WCDF campus and substitute in the MDF. The release of such parcel from the Site Lease and the Facility Lease will not cause any reduction in the base rental payments of the County under the Facility Lease and the addition of the MDF property leased pursuant to the Facility Lease following such substitution will result in a fair rental value at least equal to the maximum amount of base rental payments becoming due in each fiscal year during the term of the amended Facility Lease. In addition, the release of property will not adversely affect the County’s use and occupancy of the facilities. The proposed amendments of the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease are permitted by Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017, pursuant to which the Bonds are issued as the amendments will accurately describe the parcels intended or preferred by the parties to be leased and will not materially adversely affect the interests of the Bondholders or result in any material impairment of the security given for the payment of the Bonds. Attached to this board order is the form of each the First Amendment to the Site and Facility Leases, which have been prepared by bond counsel in consult with the County's municipal advisor and county administration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action will result in the WCDF parcel remaining as a leased asset of the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds. In this scenario, the State would likely not be able to issue its own lease revenue bonds against the property to fund the grant award to the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/579 Clerk's Certificate First Amendment to Facility Lease First Amendment to Site Lease THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/19/2019 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2019/579 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMS OF AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE AND A FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE; AND AUTHORIZING TAKING OF NECESSARY ACTIONS AND EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District have entered into an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated June 16, 2015 pursuant to an amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of April 7, 1992 (as amended, the “Joint Powers Agreement”), between the County and the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”); WHEREAS, the County has leased certain real property and the improvements thereon to the Authority pursuant to a Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Site Lease”), by and between the County and the Authority; WHEREAS, the Authority has issued its $99,810,000 Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) to finance and refinance certain public capital improvements for the County, and to secure such Bonds the Authority has leased the Facilities (defined in the Facilities Lease) to the County pursuant to a Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”), by and between the Authority and the County; WHEREAS, the County pays base rental payments to the Authority pursuant to the Facilities Lease for the use and occupancy of the Facilities leased thereunder, such Facilities consisting of the West County Detention Facility, Public Works Department Administration Building, the Family Law Center and the Martinez Health Center, which rental payments are in amounts sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds; WHEREAS, it is proposed that the County and the Authority enter into a First Amendment to Site Lease (the “First Amendment to Site Lease”) and a First Amendment to Facilities Lease (the “First Amendment to Facilities Lease”) to: (i) release the West County Detention Facility and the Public Works Department Administration Building (the “Released Property”) from the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease; (ii) substitute the West County Detention Facility and the Public Works Department Administration Building with the Martinez Detention Facility (the “Substitute Property”) and (iii) extend the lease term of Martinez Health Center; WHEREAS, the release of the Released Property from the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease, the substitution of the Substitute Property and the extension of the lease term of the Martinez Health Center will not cause any reduction in the base rental payments of the County under the Facilities Lease and the remaining property leased pursuant to the Facilities Lease following such substitution will continue to have a fair rental value at least equal to the maximum amount of base rental payments becoming due in each fiscal year during the term of the Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, such substitution will not adversely affect the County’s use and occupancy of the Facilities and the County, following such substitution, will continue to have “Good Merchantable Title” to the Facilities as described in the Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, the First Amendment to Site Lease and the First Amendment to Facilities Lease are permitted by 6.09 of the Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017, by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, pursuant to which the Bonds are issued as the amendment will accurately describe the parcels intended or preferred by the parties to be leased and will not materially adversely affect the interest of the Bondholder or result in any material impairment of the security given for the payment of the Bonds; WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors has been presented with the substantially final form of each document referred to herein, and the Board of Supervisors has examined and approved each document and desires to authorize and direct the execution of such documents and the consummation of such transaction; and WHEREAS, the County has full legal right, power and authority under the Constitution and the laws of the State of California to enter into the transactions hereinafter authorized; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and this Board of Supervisors so finds and determines. Section 2. The County hereby specifically finds and declares that the actions authorized hereby constitute and are with respect to public affairs of the County and that the statements, findings and determinations of the County set forth above are true and correct Section 3. The form of First Amendment to Site Lease on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby approved and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, the Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator of the County, the County Finance Director or any designee of any such official (the “Authorized Signatories”) and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or any assistant clerk of the Board of Supervisors (the “Clerk”), each acting alone, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the Clerk to attest, the First Amendment to Site Lease in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 4. The form of First Amendment to Facilities Lease on file with the Clerk is hereby approved, and any one of the Authorized Signatories, each acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the Clerk to attest, the First Amendment to Facilities Lease in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 5. The Authorized Signatories and other officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the transactions herein authorized and otherwise to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Section 6. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the County with respect to this amendment are hereby approved and confirmed. Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption. Contact: Timothy M. 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: 4823-0501-2135.4 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE The undersigned, Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, hereby certifies as follows: The foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of said County duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 19th day of November, 2019, of which meeting all of the members of said Board of Supervisors had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present; and at said meeting said resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: _____ NOES: _____ An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 96 hours before said meeting at the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief general description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting; said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption; and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the County of Contra Costa this 19th day of November, 2019. Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California 4849-6544-8871.3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Jade Turner-Bond, Esq. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE by and between COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (Amending that Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 relating to $99,810,000 County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A) Dated as of November 1, 2019 THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 AND TRANSFER TAXES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11928 4849-6544-8871.3 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE This First Amendment to Facilities Lease, dated as of November 1, 2019 (this “Amendment”), by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (the “Authority”), a joint exercise powers authority duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as sublessor, and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (the “County”), a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of California, as sublessee, amends the Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, and recorded on March 3, 2017 in the office of the Recorder of the County, under the Recorder’s Instrument No. 2017-0038518-00, by and between the County and the Authority (the “Original Facilities Lease” and together with this Amendment, as further amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority issued $99,810,000 aggregate principal amount of its Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects), 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) of which $69,000,000 remains outstanding, pursuant to a Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Trust Agreement”) by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), for the purpose of financing certain capital improvements for the County, refunding bonds and paying certain costs of issuance with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; WHEREAS, the County owns the real property described in Exhibit A to the Original Facilities Lease (the “Original Facilities”) which the County has leased to the Authority pursuant to the Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment to Site Lease, dated as of the date hereof, each between the County and the Authority, and which the Authority has leased back to the County pursuant to the Original Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in its best interests to enter into this Amendment to revise the description of the Original Facilities, provide a revised Base Rental Payment Schedule identified in Exhibit B to the Original Facilities Lease, and provide revised Lease Terms identified in Exhibit C to the Original Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, this Amendment is permitted pursuant to Section 10.06 of the Facilities Lease and Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1.01. Definitions. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Trust Agreement. SECTION 1.02. Amendments to the Original Facilities Lease. 4849-6544-8871.3 2 (a) The real property identified in Exhibit A hereto (the “Released Property”) is hereby released from the Original Facilities Lease. The Facilities Lease is terminated and shall no longer have any force or effect with respect to the Released Property. (b) The real property identified in Exhibit B hereto (the “Substitute Property”) is hereby made subject to the Facilities Lease. The Facilities Lease shall commence and be in full force and effect with respect to the Substitute Property. (c) Exhibit A of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit A identified in Exhibit C hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the Facilities Lease is in full force and effect with respect to the real property identified in Exhibit C attached hereto. (d) Exhibit B of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit B identified in Exhibit D hereto. (e) Exhibit C of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit C identified in Exhibit E attached hereto. SECTION 1.03. Facilities Lease in Full Force and Effect. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Original Facilities Lease and (as so modified) the Facilities Lease is in full force and effect; SECTION 1.04. Partial Invalidity. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants or condition of this Amendment shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. SECTION 1.05. Law Governing. This Amendment shall be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of California as the same from time to time exist. SECTION 1.06. Execution. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Amendment. It is also agreed that separate counterparts of this Amendment may separately be executed by the Authority and the County, all with the same force and effect as though the same counterpart had been executed by both the Authority and the County. 4849-6544-8871.3 S-1 [Facilities Lease] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the County have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, as Sublessor By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Sublessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 A-1 EXHIBIT A- RELEASED PROPERTY Description of the Released Property West County Detention Facility Real property in the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PORTION OF "PARCEL B" OF SUBDIVISION M.S. 79-19 FILED DECEMBER 3, 1979 IN BOOK 83 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (NO. 304210) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1992 IN BOOK 17989 PAGE 628 RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID "PARCEL B" (83 PM 4) AT THE WESTERN LINE OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 70.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°34'40" WEST, 41.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 13.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 1212.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°34'57" EAST, 80.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°47'24" WEST, 317.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 590.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7°27'29" WEST, 235.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 191.04 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°45'00", A DISTANCE OF 273.77 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 79°02'24" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2708.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 79"02'24" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°39'17", A DISTANCE OF 645.37 FEET; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 30°00'09" WEST (NORTH 30°01'03" WEST, MAP BEARING PER 83 PM 3), 24.49 FEET; AND THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 65°05'15" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°38'56", A DISTANCE OF 30.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT WILL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 58°56'48" EAST, 1517.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 45.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108°57'34", A DISTANCE OF 85.58 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF "NEW GIANT HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY" AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND IN THE INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1992 IN BOOK 18001 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 112; THENCE ALONG SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 A-2 WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 50°00'46" WEST, 674.11 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT COMPOUND 1145.80 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°26'03", A DISTANCE OF 788.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 9°20'29" EAST, 728.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°57'22" EAST 1055.66 FEET FROM POINT "A" AS DESCRIBED ABOVE (POINT "A" BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL); THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 67°55'22" EAST, 344.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8°52'11" EAST 51.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°11'00" WEST, 386.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 66°04'24" WEST, 23.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°49'08" EAST, 69.67 FEET TO A TANGENT 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46°32'33", A DISTANCE OF 56.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°43'25" WEST, 201.72 FEET TO A TANGENT 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°12'19", A DISTANCE OF 15.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°28'53" EAST, 105.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE RIGHTS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION TO PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1979 IN BOOK 9230, PAGE 459, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS: "EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ALL OIL, ASPHALTUM, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND BEING AT A VERTICAL DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) OR MORE FEET BELOW THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE GROUND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW. FURTHER EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT TO PERMIT OTHERS, TO INJECT WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND OTHER LANDS, ANY QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE, AND TO STORE SUCH NATURAL GAS WITHIN 4849-6544-8871.3 A-3 ANY OR ALL FORMATIONS IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS, AND TO WITHDRAW THE SAME FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH INJECTION AND WITHDRAWAL SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW". APN: PORTION OF 405-042-021-7 4849-6544-8871.3 A-4 Public Works Department Administration Building Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1957 IN BOOK 3025 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 274, SAID PARCEL IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDED MAY 21, 1987 IN BOOK 83 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS MAPS, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL (83 LSM 22); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN LINE THEREOF NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 80.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID LINE AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 88 ° 41' 40" EAST, 116.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 83.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 12.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 190.00 FEET AND NORTH 88° 41' 40" WEST, 211.00 FEET TO SAID WESTERN LINE THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERN LINE SOUTH 1° 18' 10" WEST, 299.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 155-280-015-1 4849-6544-8871.3 B-1 EXHIBIT B- SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-2 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-3 PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-4 PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 4849-6544-8871.3 B-5 BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-6 PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-7 PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION 4849-6544-8871.3 B-8 WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-9 PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-10 PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 B-11 BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: 4849-6544-8871.3 B-12 BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 4849-6544-8871.3 B-13 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING 4849-6544-8871.3 B-14 SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280-77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-15 APN: 373-263-003 4849-6544-8871.3 B-16 4849-6544-8871.3 C-1 EXHIBIT C NEW EXHIBIT A- DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES “EXHIBIT A Description of the Facilities” Family Law Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF BLOCK 20 AND A PORTION OF WILLOW STREET (ABANDONED) OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF MARTINEZ, FILED MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED OCTOBER 04, 1984 IN BOOK 75 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' MAPS, PAGE 38, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 85.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 52° 18' 00" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 115.18 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 52° 01' 42" EAST, 135.61 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET NORTH 37° 42' 00" WEST, 199.46 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 52° 19' 03" WEST, 235.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: Portion of 373-262-003 4849-6544-8871.3 C-2 Martinez Health Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL, BEING THE "MARTINEZ HEALTH CENTER" AS DEPICTED IN CROSSHATCH ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A-1", BEING A PORTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 372-191-022: A PORTION OF LOT H RANCHO EL PINOLE AND ALL OF BLOCKS 87, 88, 163, 164, 165, 189 AND PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 86, 89, 92, 93, 149, 150, 162, 170 AND 188 MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ AND AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED DECEMBER 24, 1969 IN BOOK 52 LICENSED SURVEY MAP, PAGE 34. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1971 IN BOOK 6381, AT PAGE 825 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF LOTS 87, 164, AND 189 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED ON MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 27, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION" FILED ON MARCH 20, 1916 IN BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 300, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 52º 12' EAST (THE BEARING NORTH 52º 12' EAST BEING TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DESCRIPTION) 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET AS SAID STREET IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 37º 48' EAST, 27.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET AS SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ"; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH 37º 48' EAST 52.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET SOUTH 52º 12' WEST, 55.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2º 28' EAST, 161.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87º 32' WEST 87.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2º 28' WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87º 32' EAST, 51.07 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG 4849-6544-8871.3 C-3 SAID SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION NORTH 52º 12' EAST 62.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: PORTION OF 372-191-022 4849-6544-8871.3 C-4 4849-6544-8871.3 C-5 Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-6 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-7 PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-8 PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WIT H THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 4849-6544-8871.3 C-9 BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-10 PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-11 PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNT Y RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION 4849-6544-8871.3 C-12 WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-13 PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-14 PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 C-15 BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: 4849-6544-8871.3 C-16 BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 4849-6544-8871.3 C-17 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING 4849-6544-8871.3 C-18 SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280-77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-19 APN: 373-263-003 4849-6544-8871.3 C-20 4849-6544-8871.3 D-1 EXHIBIT D- NEW EXHIBIT B - REVISED BASE RENTAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE “EXHIBIT B Base Rental Payment Schedule” Aggregate of all Facilities Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 803,850.00 803,850.00 6/1/2020 13,185,000 803,850.00 13,988,850.00 14,792,700.00 12/1/2020 650,244.75 650,244.75 6/1/2021 13,495,000 650,244.75 14,145,244.75 14,795,489.50 12/1/2021 493,028.00 493,028.00 6/1/2022 12,140,000 493,028.00 12,633,028.00 13,126,056.00 12/1/2022 351,597.00 351,597.00 6/1/2023 12,400,000 351,597.00 12,751,597.00 13,103,194.00 12/1/2023 207,137.00 207,137.00 6/1/2024 6,080,000 207,137.00 6,287,137.00 6,494,274.00 12/1/2024 136,305.00 136,305.00 6/1/2025 4,075,000 136,305.00 4,211,305.00 4,347,610.00 12/1/2025 88,831.25 88,831.25 6/1/2026 4,160,000 88,831.25 4,248,831.25 4,337,662.50 12/1/2026 40,367.25 40,367.25 6/1/2027 3,465,000 40,367.25 3,505,367.25 3,545,734.50 Total: 69,000,000 5,542,720.50 74,542,720.50 74,542,720.50 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-2 Family Law Center Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $ 123,431.75 $ 123,431.75 6/1/2020 $ 1,850,000 123,431.75 1,973,431.75 $2,096,863.50 12/1/2020 101,879.25 101,879.25 6/1/2021 1,895,000 101,879.25 1,996,879.25 2,098,758.50 12/1/2021 79,802.50 79,802.50 6/1/2022 1,550,000 79,802.50 1,629,802.50 1,709,605.00 12/1/2022 61,745.00 61,745.00 6/1/2023 1,550,000 61,745.00 1,611,745.00 1,673,490.00 12/1/2023 43,687.50 43,687.50 6/1/2024 1,350,000 43,687.50 1,393,687.50 1,437,375.00 12/1/2024 27,960.00 27,960.00 6/1/2025 1,200,000 27,960.00 1,227,960.00 1,255,920.00 12/1/2025 13,980.00 13,980.00 6/1/2026 1,200,000 13,980.00 1,213,980.00 1,227,960.00 Total: $10,595,000 $904,972.00 $11,499,972.00 $11,499,972.00 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-3 Martinez Health Center Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $250,183.75 $250,183.75 6/1/2020 $3,225,000 250,183.75 3,475,183.75 $3,725,367.50 12/1/2020 212,612.50 212,612.50 6/1/2021 3,300,000 212,612.50 3,512,612.50 3,725,225.00 12/1/2021 174,167.50 174,167.50 6/1/2022 2,095,000 174,167.50 2,269,167.50 2,443,335.00 12/1/2022 149,760.75 149,760.75 6/1/2023 2,155,000 149,760.75 2,304,760.75 2,454,521.50 12/1/2023 124,655.00 124,655.00 6/1/2024 1,400,000 124,655.00 1,524,655.00 1,649,310.00 12/1/2024 108,345.00 108,345.00 6/1/2025 2,875,000 108,345.00 2,983,345.00 3,091,690.00 12/1/2025 74,851.25 74,851.25 6/1/2026 2,960,000 74,851.25 3,034,851.25 3,109,702.50 12/1/2026 40,367.25 40,367.25 6/1/2027 3,465,000 40,367.25 3,505,367.25 3,545,734.50 Total: $21,475,000 2,269,886.00 23,744,886.00 23,744,886.00 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-4 Martinez Detention Facility Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $430,234.50 $430,234.50 6/1/2020 $8,110,000 430,234.50 8,540,234.50 $8,970,469.00 12/1/2020 335,753.00 335,753.00 6/1/2021 8,300,000 335,753.00 8,635,753.00 8,971,506.00 12/1/2021 239,058.00 239,058.00 6/1/2022 8,495,000 239,058.00 8,734,058.00 8,973,116.00 12/1/2022 140,091.25 140,091.25 6/1/2023 8,695,000 140,091.25 8,835,091.25 8,975,182.50 12/1/2023 38,794.50 38,794.50 6/1/2024 3,330,000 38,794.50 3,368,794.50 3,407,589.00 Total: $36,930,000 2,367,862.50 39,297,862.50 $39,297,862.50 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 E-1 EXHIBIT E NEW EXHIBIT C – Lease Terms “EXHIBIT C Lease Terms” Facility Term Maximum Extension Family Law Center 6/1/2026 6/1/2036 Martinez Health Center 6/1/2027 6/1/2028 Martinez Detention Facility 6/1/2024 6/1/2034 4849-6544-8871.3 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (Government Code Section 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing First Amendment to Facilities Lease from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), is hereby accepted by order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa on November 19, 2019, and the County consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Sublessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Jade Turner-Bond, Esq. FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (Amending that Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 $99,810,000 County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A) Dated as of November 1, 2019 THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 AND TRANSFER TAXES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11928 4810-7147-4344.3 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE This First Amendment to Site Lease, dated as of November 1, 2019 (this “Amendment”), by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (the “County”), as lessor, and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a public entity and agency, duly organized and existing pursuant to an Agreement entitled “Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement” by and between the County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the “District”), as lessee, amends the Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, and recorded on March 3, 2017 in the office of the Recorder of the County, under the Recorder’s Instrument No. 2017-0038517-00, by and between the County and the Authority (the “Original Site Lease” and together with this Amendment, as further amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Site Lease”); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority issued $99,810,000 aggregate principal amount of its Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects), 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) of which $69,000,000 remains outstanding, pursuant to a Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Trust Agreement”), by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), for the purpose of financing certain capital improvements for the County, refunding bonds and paying certain costs of issuance with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; WHEREAS, the County owns the real property described in Exhibit A to the Original Site Lease (the “Original Facilities”) which the County has leased to the Authority and which the Authority has leased back to the County pursuant to the Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (the “Original Facilities Lease”), as amended by the First Amendment to Facilities Lease, dated as of the date hereof (together with the Original Facilities Lease, as further amended, restated or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”), each by and between the County and the Authority; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in its best interests to enter into this Amendment to revise the description of the Original Facilities, and provide revised Lease Terms identified in Exhibit B to the Original Site Lease; WHEREAS, this Amendment is permitted pursuant to Section 10.06 of the Facilities Lease, Section 21 of the Site Lease and Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED as follows: SECTION 1. Amendments to the Original Site Lease (a) The real property identified in Exhibit A hereto (the “Released Property”) is hereby released from the Original Site Lease. The Site Lease is terminated and shall no longer have any force or effect with respect to the Released Property. 4810-7147-4344.3 2 (b) The real property identified in Exhibit B hereto (the “Substitute Property”) is hereby made subject to the Site Lease. The Site Lease shall commence and be in full force and effect with respect to the Substitute Property. (c) Exhibit A of the Original Site Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit A identified in Exhibit C hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the Site Lease is in full force and effect with respect to the real property identified in Exhibit C attached hereto. (d) Exhibit B of the Original Site Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit B identified in Exhibit D hereto. SECTION 2. Site Lease in Full Force and Effect. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Original Site Lease and (as so modified) the Site Lease is in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Law Governing. This Site Lease shall be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of California as the same from time to time exist. SECTION 4. Owner in Fee. The County covenants that it is the owner in fee of the Substitute Property. The County further covenants and agrees that if for any reason this covenant proves to be incorrect, the County will either institute eminent domain proceedings to condemn the property or institute a quiet title action to clarify the County’s title, and will diligently pursue such action to completion. The County further covenants and agrees that it will hold the Authority and the Bondowners harmless from any loss, cost or damages resulting from any breach by the County of the covenants contained in this Section. SECTION 5. Partial Invalidity If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants or condition of this Amendment shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. SECTION 6. Definitions Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Facilities Lease or, if not defined therein, the Trust Agreement. 4810-7147-4344.3 3 SECTION 7. Execution This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Amendment. It is also agreed that separate counterparts of this Amendment may separately be executed by the County and the Authority, all with the same force and effect as though the same counterpart had been executed by both the County and the Authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Authority have caused this First Amendment to Site Lease to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Lessor By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, Lessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 A-1 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A- RELEASED PROPERTY Description of Released Property West County Detention Facility Real property in the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PORTION OF "PARCEL B" OF SUBDIVISION M.S. 79-19 FILED DECEMBER 3, 1979 IN BOOK 83 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (NO. 304210) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1992 IN BOOK 17989 PAGE 628 RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID "PARCEL B" (83 PM 4) AT THE WESTERN LINE OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 70.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°34'40" WEST, 41.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 13.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 1212.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°34'57" EAST, 80.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°47'24" WEST, 317.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 590.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7°27'29" WEST, 235.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 191.04 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°45'00", A DISTANCE OF 273.77 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 79°02'24" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2708.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 79"02'24" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°39'17", A DISTANCE OF 645.37 FEET; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 30°00'09" WEST (NORTH 30°01'03" WEST, MAP BEARING PER 83 PM 3), 24.49 FEET; AND THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 65°05'15" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°38'56", A DISTANCE OF 30.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT WILL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 58°56'48" EAST, 1517.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 45.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108°57'34", A DISTANCE OF 85.58 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF "NEW GIANT HIGHWAY 4810-7147-4344.3 A-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY" AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND IN THE INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1992 IN BOOK 18001 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 112; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 50°00'46" WEST, 674.11 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT COMPOUND 1145.80 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°26'03", A DISTANCE OF 788.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 9°20'29" EAST, 728.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°57'22" EAST 1055.66 FEET FROM POINT "A" AS DESCRIBED ABOVE (POINT "A" BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL); THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 67°55'22" EAST, 344.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8°52'11" EAST 51.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°11'00" WEST, 386.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 66°04'24" WEST, 23.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°49'08" EAST, 69.67 FEET TO A TANGENT 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46°32'33", A DISTANCE OF 56.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°43'25" WEST, 201.72 FEET TO A TANGENT 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°12'19", A DISTANCE OF 15.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°28'53" EAST, 105.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE RIGHTS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION TO PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1979 IN BOOK 9230, PAGE 459, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS: "EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ALL OIL, ASPHALTUM, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND BEING AT A VERTICAL DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) OR MORE FEET BELOW THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE GROUND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW. 4810-7147-4344.3 A-3 FURTHER EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT TO PERMIT OTHERS, TO INJECT WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND OTHER LANDS, ANY QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE, AND TO STORE SUCH NATURAL GAS WITHIN ANY OR ALL FORMATIONS IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS, AND TO WITHDRAW THE SAME FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH INJECTION AND WITHDRAWAL SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW". APN: PORTION OF 405-042-021-7 4810-7147-4344.3 A-4 Public Works Department Administration Building Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1957 IN BOOK 3025 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 274, SAID PARCEL IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDED MAY 21, 1987 IN BOOK 83 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS MAPS, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL (83 LSM 22); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN LINE THEREOF NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 80.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID LINE AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 88 ° 41' 40" EAST, 116.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 83.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 12.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 190.00 FEET AND NORTH 88° 41' 40" WEST, 211.00 FEET TO SAID WESTERN LINE THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERN LINE SOUTH 1° 18' 10" WEST, 299.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 155-280-015-1 4810-7147-4344.3 B-1 EXHIBIT B- SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-2 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-3 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-4 BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; 4810-7147-4344.3 B-5 THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST 4810-7147-4344.3 B-6 LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-7 PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-8 LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-9 PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-10 PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 4810-7147-4344.3 B-11 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-12 BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-13 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-14 THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-15 ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works 4810-7147-4344.3 B-16 Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280- 77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. APN: 373-263-003 4810-7147-4344.3 B-17 4810-7147-4344.3 C-1 EXHIBIT C NEW EXHIBIT A- DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES “EXHIBIT A Description of Facilities” Family Law Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF BLOCK 20 AND A PORTION OF WILLOW STREET (ABANDONED) OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF MARTINEZ, FILED MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED OCTOBER 04, 1984 IN BOOK 75 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' MAPS, PAGE 38, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 85.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 52° 18' 00" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 115.18 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 52° 01' 42" EAST, 135.61 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET NORTH 37° 42' 00" WEST, 199.46 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 52° 19' 03" WEST, 235.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: Portion of 373-262-003 4810-7147-4344.3 C-2 Martinez Health Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL, BEING THE "MARTINEZ HEALTH CENTER" AS DEPICTED IN CROSSHATCH ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A-1", BEING A PORTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 372-191-022: A PORTION OF LOT H RANCHO EL PINOLE AND ALL OF BLOCKS 87, 88, 163, 164, 165, 189 AND PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 86, 89, 92, 93, 149, 150, 162, 170 AND 188 MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ AND AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED DECEMBER 24, 1969 IN BOOK 52 LICENSED SURVEY MAP, PAGE 34. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1971 IN BOOK 6381, AT PAGE 825 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF LOTS 87, 164, AND 189 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED ON MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 27, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION" FILED ON MARCH 20, 1916 IN BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 300, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 52º 12' EAST (THE BEARING NORTH 52º 12' EAST BEING TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DESCRIPTION) 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET AS SAID STREET IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 37º 48' EAST, 27.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET AS SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ"; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH 37º 48' EAST 52.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET SOUTH 52º 12' WEST, 55.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2º 28' EAST, 161.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87º 32' WEST 87.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2º 28' WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87º 32' EAST, 51.07 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 4810-7147-4344.3 C-3 EXTENSION OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION NORTH 52º 12' EAST 62.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: PORTION OF 372-191-022 4810-7147-4344.3 C-4 4810-7147-4344.3 C-5 Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FOUR: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-6 THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-7 THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO 4810-7147-4344.3 C-8 KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 4810-7147-4344.3 C-9 LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-10 ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-11 LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-12 LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-13 PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-14 PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 4810-7147-4344.3 C-15 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-16 BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-17 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-18 THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-19 ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works 4810-7147-4344.3 C-20 Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280- 77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. APN: 373-263-003 4810-7147-4344.3 C-21 4810-7147-4344.3 D-1 EXHIBIT D NEW EXHIBIT B- LEASE TERMS “EXHIBIT B Lease Terms Facility Term Maximum Extension Family Law Center 6/1/2026 6/1/2036 Martinez Health Center 6/1/2027 6/1/2028 Martinez Detention Facility 6/1/2024 6/1/2034 4810-7147-4344.3 Certificate of Acceptance CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (Government Code Section 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing First Amendment to Site Lease from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), is hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on behalf of the Authority on November 19, 2019, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 2019/[__] of the Authority adopted on November 19, 2019, and the Authority consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, as Lessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public RECOMMENDATION(S): Acting as the Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2019/580 authorizing the forms of and directing the execution and delivery of a First Amendment to the Facilities and Site leases related to the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds to substitue certain real property owned by the County as leased assets for the bonds. 2. DIRECT the Public Works Department, Real Estate Division, to have said First Amendment to the Site and Facilities lease documents recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On February 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Sheriff-Coroner to submit a grant proposal in response to a competitive Request for Proposals ("RFP") released by the California Board of State and Community Corrections ("BSCC") to construct a 416-bed, high security facility (the "Facility") on the campus of the West County Detention Facility ("WCDF"). At the time, the Facility design totaled 118,907 square feet and included approximately 15,000 square feet of new program and medical space to compliment efforts to provide reentry and mental health services to County inmates regardless of APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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 M. 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMS OF AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES & SITE LEASES classification. On June 8, 2017, the BSCC funded the County's application in the amount of $70 million. Since that time, County staff has been working with various State agencies on the design of the facility, completion of a comprehensive Real Estate Due Diligence (REDD) process and other logistics related to the project grant. Over this period of time, the project scope was reduced to reflect a 106,430 square foot facility, that includes 288 beds, 96 of which are specifically designed for inmates with mental health needs. Additionally, the State notified the County of the need for clear title on those portions of the WCDF campus that would include the new Facility and underground utilities that would service the building. For that reason, staff has determined it is prudent to seek release of the entire WCDF parcel as a leased asset from the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds and substitute in the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF). This issue is outlined more completely below: BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) EXISTING TITLE ENCUMBRANCES ON THE WCDF The County has leased certain real property and the improvements thereon to the Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to a Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017. The Authority has issued lease revenue bonds to finance various public capital improvements for the County, and to secure the bonds, has leased certain real property and the improvements to the County pursuant to a Facility Lease, also dated as of March 1, 2017. Under the lease revenue bond construct, the County pays base rental payments to the Authority pursuant to the Facility Lease for the use and occupancy of certain facilities, including the WCDF, which rental payments are in amounts sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds held by the Authority. REMOVAL OF TITLE ENCUMBRANCES Today's action proposes that the Authority enter into a First Amendment to the Site Lease to release that parcel of real property from the Site Lease consisting of the entire WCDF campus and substitute in the MDF. It is also proposed that the Authority enter into a First Amendment to the Facility Lease to delete said parcel of land from the real property leased pursuant to the Facility Lease consisting of the WCDF campus and substitute in the MDF. The release of such parcel from the Site Lease and the Facility Lease will not cause any reduction in the base rental payments of the County under the Facility Lease and the addition of the MDF property leased pursuant to the Facility Lease following such substitution will result in a fair rental value at least equal to the maximum amount of base rental payments becoming due in each fiscal year during the term of the amended Facility Lease. In addition, the release of property will not adversely affect the County’s use and occupancy of the facilities. The proposed amendments of the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease are permitted by Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017, pursuant to which the Bonds are issued as the amendments will accurately describe the parcels intended or preferred by the parties to be leased and will not materially adversely affect the interests of the Bondholders or result in any material impairment of the security given for the payment of the Bonds. Attached to this board order is the form of each the First Amendment to the Site and Facility Leases, which have been prepared by bond counsel in consult with the County's municipal advisor and county administration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action will result in the WCDF parcel remaining as a leased asset of the 2017 Series A lease revenue bonds. In this scenario, the State would likely not be able to issue its own lease revenue bonds against the property to fund the grant award to the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2019/580 Assistant Secretary's Certificate First Amendment to Facilities Lease First Amendment to Site Lease THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/19/2019 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2019/580 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMS OF AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE AND A FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE; AND AUTHORIZING TAKING OF NECESSARY ACTIONS AND EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District have entered into an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated June 16, 2015 pursuant to an amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of April 7, 1992 (as amended, the “Joint Powers Agreement”), between the County and the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”); WHEREAS, the County has leased certain real property and the improvements thereon to the Authority pursuant to a Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Site Lease”), by and between the County and the Authority; WHEREAS, the Authority has issued its $99,810,000 Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) to finance and refinance certain public capital improvements for the County, and to secure such Bonds the Authority has leased the Facilities (defined in the Facilities Lease) to the County pursuant to a Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”), by and between the Authority and the County; WHEREAS, the County pays base rental payments to the Authority pursuant to the Facilities Lease for the use and occupancy of the Facilities leased thereunder, such Facilities consisting of the West County Detention Facility, Public Works Department Administration Building, the Family Law Center and the Martinez Health Center, which rental payments are in amounts sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds; WHEREAS, it is proposed that the County and the Authority enter into a First Amendment to Site Lease (the “First Amendment to Site Lease”) and a First Amendment to Facilities Lease (the “First Amendment to Facilities Lease”) to: (i) release the West County Detention Facility and the Public Works Department Administration Building (the “Released Property”) from the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease; (ii) substitute the West County Detention Facility and the Public Works Department Administration Building with the Martinez Detention Facility (the “Substitute Property”) and (iii) extend the lease term of Martinez Health Center; WHEREAS, the release of the Released Property from the Site Lease and the Facilities Lease, the substitution of the Substitute Property and the extension of the lease term of the Martinez Health Center will not cause any reduction in the base rental payments of the County under the Facilities Lease and the remaining property leased pursuant to the Facilities Lease following such substitution will continue to have a fair rental value at least equal to the maximum amount of base rental payments becoming due in each fiscal year during the term of the Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, such substitution will not adversely affect the County’s use and occupancy of the Facilities and the County, following such substitution, will continue to have “Good Merchantable Title” to the Facilities as described in the Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, the First Amendment to Site Lease and First Amendment to the Facilities Lease are permitted by 6.09 of the Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017, by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, pursuant to which the Bonds were issued, as the amendment will accurately describe the parcels intended or preferred by the parties to be leased and will not materially adversely affect the interest of the Bondholder or result in any material impairment of the security given for the payment of the Bonds; WHEREAS, this Board has been presented with the substantially final form of each document referred to herein, and the Board has examined and approved each document and desires to authorize and direct the execution of such documents and the consummation of such transaction; and WHEREAS, the Authority has full legal right, power and authority under the Constitution and the laws of the State of California to enter into the transactions hereinafter authorized; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and this Board so finds and determines. Section 2. The form of First Amendment to Site Lease on file with the Secretary of the Board of Directors is hereby approved, and the Chair of the Board of Directors, the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors, the Executive Director of the Authority or the Deputy Executive Director of the Authority or any designee of any such official (the “Authorized Signatories”) and the Secretary of the Board of Directors or any Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors (the “Secretary”), each acting alone, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the Secretary to attest, the First Amendment to Site Lease in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 3. The form of First Amendment to Facilities Lease on file with the Secretary is hereby approved, and any one of the Authorized Signatories, each acting alone, is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the Secretary to attest, the First Amendment to Facilities Lease in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 4. The Authorized Signatories and other officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the transactions herein authorized and otherwise to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Section 5. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Authority with respect to this amendment are hereby approved and confirmed. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption. Contact: Timothy M. 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: 4819-4420-6758.3 SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE The undersigned, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, hereby certifies as follows: The foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of said Authority duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 19th day of November, 2019, of which meeting all of the members of said Board of Directors had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present; and at said meeting said resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: _____ NOES: _____ An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 96 hours before said meeting at the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief general description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting; said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption; and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this 19th day of November, 2019. Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 4849-6544-8871.3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Jade Turner-Bond, Esq. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE by and between COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (Amending that Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 relating to $99,810,000 County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A) Dated as of November 1, 2019 THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 AND TRANSFER TAXES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11928 4849-6544-8871.3 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO FACILITIES LEASE This First Amendment to Facilities Lease, dated as of November 1, 2019 (this “Amendment”), by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (the “Authority”), a joint exercise powers authority duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as sublessor, and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (the “County”), a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of California, as sublessee, amends the Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, and recorded on March 3, 2017 in the office of the Recorder of the County, under the Recorder’s Instrument No. 2017-0038518-00, by and between the County and the Authority (the “Original Facilities Lease” and together with this Amendment, as further amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority issued $99,810,000 aggregate principal amount of its Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects), 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) of which $69,000,000 remains outstanding, pursuant to a Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Trust Agreement”) by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), for the purpose of financing certain capital improvements for the County, refunding bonds and paying certain costs of issuance with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; WHEREAS, the County owns the real property described in Exhibit A to the Original Facilities Lease (the “Original Facilities”) which the County has leased to the Authority pursuant to the Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment to Site Lease, dated as of the date hereof, each between the County and the Authority, and which the Authority has leased back to the County pursuant to the Original Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in its best interests to enter into this Amendment to revise the description of the Original Facilities, provide a revised Base Rental Payment Schedule identified in Exhibit B to the Original Facilities Lease, and provide revised Lease Terms identified in Exhibit C to the Original Facilities Lease; WHEREAS, this Amendment is permitted pursuant to Section 10.06 of the Facilities Lease and Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1.01. Definitions. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Trust Agreement. SECTION 1.02. Amendments to the Original Facilities Lease. 4849-6544-8871.3 2 (a) The real property identified in Exhibit A hereto (the “Released Property”) is hereby released from the Original Facilities Lease. The Facilities Lease is terminated and shall no longer have any force or effect with respect to the Released Property. (b) The real property identified in Exhibit B hereto (the “Substitute Property”) is hereby made subject to the Facilities Lease. The Facilities Lease shall commence and be in full force and effect with respect to the Substitute Property. (c) Exhibit A of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit A identified in Exhibit C hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the Facilities Lease is in full force and effect with respect to the real property identified in Exhibit C attached hereto. (d) Exhibit B of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit B identified in Exhibit D hereto. (e) Exhibit C of the Original Facilities Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit C identified in Exhibit E attached hereto. SECTION 1.03. Facilities Lease in Full Force and Effect. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Original Facilities Lease and (as so modified) the Facilities Lease is in full force and effect; SECTION 1.04. Partial Invalidity. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants or condition of this Amendment shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. SECTION 1.05. Law Governing. This Amendment shall be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of California as the same from time to time exist. SECTION 1.06. Execution. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Amendment. It is also agreed that separate counterparts of this Amendment may separately be executed by the Authority and the County, all with the same force and effect as though the same counterpart had been executed by both the Authority and the County. 4849-6544-8871.3 S-1 [Facilities Lease] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the County have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, as Sublessor By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Sublessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4849-6544-8871.3 A-1 EXHIBIT A- RELEASED PROPERTY Description of the Released Property West County Detention Facility Real property in the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PORTION OF "PARCEL B" OF SUBDIVISION M.S. 79-19 FILED DECEMBER 3, 1979 IN BOOK 83 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (NO. 304210) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1992 IN BOOK 17989 PAGE 628 RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID "PARCEL B" (83 PM 4) AT THE WESTERN LINE OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 70.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°34'40" WEST, 41.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 13.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 1212.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°34'57" EAST, 80.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°47'24" WEST, 317.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 590.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7°27'29" WEST, 235.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 191.04 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°45'00", A DISTANCE OF 273.77 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 79°02'24" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2708.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 79"02'24" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°39'17", A DISTANCE OF 645.37 FEET; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 30°00'09" WEST (NORTH 30°01'03" WEST, MAP BEARING PER 83 PM 3), 24.49 FEET; AND THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 65°05'15" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°38'56", A DISTANCE OF 30.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT WILL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 58°56'48" EAST, 1517.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 45.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108°57'34", A DISTANCE OF 85.58 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF "NEW GIANT HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY" AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND IN THE INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1992 IN BOOK 18001 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 112; THENCE ALONG SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 A-2 WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 50°00'46" WEST, 674.11 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT COMPOUND 1145.80 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°26'03", A DISTANCE OF 788.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 9°20'29" EAST, 728.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°57'22" EAST 1055.66 FEET FROM POINT "A" AS DESCRIBED ABOVE (POINT "A" BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL); THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 67°55'22" EAST, 344.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8°52'11" EAST 51.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°11'00" WEST, 386.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 66°04'24" WEST, 23.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°49'08" EAST, 69.67 FEET TO A TANGENT 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46°32'33", A DISTANCE OF 56.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°43'25" WEST, 201.72 FEET TO A TANGENT 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°12'19", A DISTANCE OF 15.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°28'53" EAST, 105.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE RIGHTS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION TO PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1979 IN BOOK 9230, PAGE 459, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS: "EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ALL OIL, ASPHALTUM, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND BEING AT A VERTICAL DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) OR MORE FEET BELOW THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE GROUND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW. FURTHER EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT TO PERMIT OTHERS, TO INJECT WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND OTHER LANDS, ANY QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE, AND TO STORE SUCH NATURAL GAS WITHIN 4849-6544-8871.3 A-3 ANY OR ALL FORMATIONS IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS, AND TO WITHDRAW THE SAME FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH INJECTION AND WITHDRAWAL SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW". APN: PORTION OF 405-042-021-7 4849-6544-8871.3 A-4 Public Works Department Administration Building Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1957 IN BOOK 3025 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 274, SAID PARCEL IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDED MAY 21, 1987 IN BOOK 83 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS MAPS, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL (83 LSM 22); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN LINE THEREOF NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 80.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID LINE AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 88 ° 41' 40" EAST, 116.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 83.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 12.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 190.00 FEET AND NORTH 88° 41' 40" WEST, 211.00 FEET TO SAID WESTERN LINE THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERN LINE SOUTH 1° 18' 10" WEST, 299.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 155-280-015-1 4849-6544-8871.3 B-1 EXHIBIT B- SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-2 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-3 PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-4 PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 4849-6544-8871.3 B-5 BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-6 PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-7 PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION 4849-6544-8871.3 B-8 WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-9 PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-10 PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 B-11 BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: 4849-6544-8871.3 B-12 BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 4849-6544-8871.3 B-13 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING 4849-6544-8871.3 B-14 SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280-77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4849-6544-8871.3 B-15 APN: 373-263-003 4849-6544-8871.3 B-16 4849-6544-8871.3 C-1 EXHIBIT C NEW EXHIBIT A- DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES “EXHIBIT A Description of the Facilities” Family Law Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF BLOCK 20 AND A PORTION OF WILLOW STREET (ABANDONED) OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF MARTINEZ, FILED MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED OCTOBER 04, 1984 IN BOOK 75 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' MAPS, PAGE 38, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 85.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 52° 18' 00" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 115.18 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 52° 01' 42" EAST, 135.61 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET NORTH 37° 42' 00" WEST, 199.46 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 52° 19' 03" WEST, 235.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: Portion of 373-262-003 4849-6544-8871.3 C-2 Martinez Health Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL, BEING THE "MARTINEZ HEALTH CENTER" AS DEPICTED IN CROSSHATCH ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A-1", BEING A PORTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 372-191-022: A PORTION OF LOT H RANCHO EL PINOLE AND ALL OF BLOCKS 87, 88, 163, 164, 165, 189 AND PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 86, 89, 92, 93, 149, 150, 162, 170 AND 188 MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ AND AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED DECEMBER 24, 1969 IN BOOK 52 LICENSED SURVEY MAP, PAGE 34. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1971 IN BOOK 6381, AT PAGE 825 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF LOTS 87, 164, AND 189 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED ON MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 27, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION" FILED ON MARCH 20, 1916 IN BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 300, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 52º 12' EAST (THE BEARING NORTH 52º 12' EAST BEING TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DESCRIPTION) 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET AS SAID STREET IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 37º 48' EAST, 27.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET AS SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ"; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH 37º 48' EAST 52.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET SOUTH 52º 12' WEST, 55.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2º 28' EAST, 161.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87º 32' WEST 87.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2º 28' WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87º 32' EAST, 51.07 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG 4849-6544-8871.3 C-3 SAID SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION NORTH 52º 12' EAST 62.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: PORTION OF 372-191-022 4849-6544-8871.3 C-4 4849-6544-8871.3 C-5 Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-6 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-7 PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-8 PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WIT H THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 4849-6544-8871.3 C-9 BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-10 PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-11 PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNT Y RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION 4849-6544-8871.3 C-12 WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-13 PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-14 PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID 4849-6544-8871.3 C-15 BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: 4849-6544-8871.3 C-16 BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 4849-6544-8871.3 C-17 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING 4849-6544-8871.3 C-18 SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280-77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 4849-6544-8871.3 C-19 APN: 373-263-003 4849-6544-8871.3 C-20 4849-6544-8871.3 D-1 EXHIBIT D- NEW EXHIBIT B - REVISED BASE RENTAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE “EXHIBIT B Base Rental Payment Schedule” Aggregate of all Facilities Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 803,850.00 803,850.00 6/1/2020 13,185,000 803,850.00 13,988,850.00 14,792,700.00 12/1/2020 650,244.75 650,244.75 6/1/2021 13,495,000 650,244.75 14,145,244.75 14,795,489.50 12/1/2021 493,028.00 493,028.00 6/1/2022 12,140,000 493,028.00 12,633,028.00 13,126,056.00 12/1/2022 351,597.00 351,597.00 6/1/2023 12,400,000 351,597.00 12,751,597.00 13,103,194.00 12/1/2023 207,137.00 207,137.00 6/1/2024 6,080,000 207,137.00 6,287,137.00 6,494,274.00 12/1/2024 136,305.00 136,305.00 6/1/2025 4,075,000 136,305.00 4,211,305.00 4,347,610.00 12/1/2025 88,831.25 88,831.25 6/1/2026 4,160,000 88,831.25 4,248,831.25 4,337,662.50 12/1/2026 40,367.25 40,367.25 6/1/2027 3,465,000 40,367.25 3,505,367.25 3,545,734.50 Total: 69,000,000 5,542,720.50 74,542,720.50 74,542,720.50 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-2 Family Law Center Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $ 123,431.75 $ 123,431.75 6/1/2020 $ 1,850,000 123,431.75 1,973,431.75 $2,096,863.50 12/1/2020 101,879.25 101,879.25 6/1/2021 1,895,000 101,879.25 1,996,879.25 2,098,758.50 12/1/2021 79,802.50 79,802.50 6/1/2022 1,550,000 79,802.50 1,629,802.50 1,709,605.00 12/1/2022 61,745.00 61,745.00 6/1/2023 1,550,000 61,745.00 1,611,745.00 1,673,490.00 12/1/2023 43,687.50 43,687.50 6/1/2024 1,350,000 43,687.50 1,393,687.50 1,437,375.00 12/1/2024 27,960.00 27,960.00 6/1/2025 1,200,000 27,960.00 1,227,960.00 1,255,920.00 12/1/2025 13,980.00 13,980.00 6/1/2026 1,200,000 13,980.00 1,213,980.00 1,227,960.00 Total: $10,595,000 $904,972.00 $11,499,972.00 $11,499,972.00 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-3 Martinez Health Center Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $250,183.75 $250,183.75 6/1/2020 $3,225,000 250,183.75 3,475,183.75 $3,725,367.50 12/1/2020 212,612.50 212,612.50 6/1/2021 3,300,000 212,612.50 3,512,612.50 3,725,225.00 12/1/2021 174,167.50 174,167.50 6/1/2022 2,095,000 174,167.50 2,269,167.50 2,443,335.00 12/1/2022 149,760.75 149,760.75 6/1/2023 2,155,000 149,760.75 2,304,760.75 2,454,521.50 12/1/2023 124,655.00 124,655.00 6/1/2024 1,400,000 124,655.00 1,524,655.00 1,649,310.00 12/1/2024 108,345.00 108,345.00 6/1/2025 2,875,000 108,345.00 2,983,345.00 3,091,690.00 12/1/2025 74,851.25 74,851.25 6/1/2026 2,960,000 74,851.25 3,034,851.25 3,109,702.50 12/1/2026 40,367.25 40,367.25 6/1/2027 3,465,000 40,367.25 3,505,367.25 3,545,734.50 Total: $21,475,000 2,269,886.00 23,744,886.00 23,744,886.00 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 D-4 Martinez Detention Facility Base Rental Payment Date* Principal Interest Total Fiscal Year Total 12/1/2019 $430,234.50 $430,234.50 6/1/2020 $8,110,000 430,234.50 8,540,234.50 $8,970,469.00 12/1/2020 335,753.00 335,753.00 6/1/2021 8,300,000 335,753.00 8,635,753.00 8,971,506.00 12/1/2021 239,058.00 239,058.00 6/1/2022 8,495,000 239,058.00 8,734,058.00 8,973,116.00 12/1/2022 140,091.25 140,091.25 6/1/2023 8,695,000 140,091.25 8,835,091.25 8,975,182.50 12/1/2023 38,794.50 38,794.50 6/1/2024 3,330,000 38,794.50 3,368,794.50 3,407,589.00 Total: $36,930,000 2,367,862.50 39,297,862.50 $39,297,862.50 * Payable three Business Days before due date. 4849-6544-8871.3 E-1 EXHIBIT E NEW EXHIBIT C – Lease Terms “EXHIBIT C Lease Terms” Facility Term Maximum Extension Family Law Center 6/1/2026 6/1/2036 Martinez Health Center 6/1/2027 6/1/2028 Martinez Detention Facility 6/1/2024 6/1/2034 4849-6544-8871.3 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (Government Code Section 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing First Amendment to Facilities Lease from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), is hereby accepted by order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa on November 19, 2019, and the County consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Sublessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 4849-6544-8871.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Jade Turner-Bond, Esq. FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (Amending that Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 $99,810,000 County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects) 2017 Series A) Dated as of November 1, 2019 THIS TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 AND TRANSFER TAXES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11928 4810-7147-4344.3 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE This First Amendment to Site Lease, dated as of November 1, 2019 (this “Amendment”), by and between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (the “County”), as lessor, and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a public entity and agency, duly organized and existing pursuant to an Agreement entitled “Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement” by and between the County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the “District”), as lessee, amends the Site Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017, and recorded on March 3, 2017 in the office of the Recorder of the County, under the Recorder’s Instrument No. 2017-0038517-00, by and between the County and the Authority (the “Original Site Lease” and together with this Amendment, as further amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Site Lease”); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Authority issued $99,810,000 aggregate principal amount of its Lease Revenue Bonds (Refunding and Capital Projects), 2017 Series A (the “Bonds”) of which $69,000,000 remains outstanding, pursuant to a Trust Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2017 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Trust Agreement”), by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), for the purpose of financing certain capital improvements for the County, refunding bonds and paying certain costs of issuance with respect to the issuance of the Bonds; WHEREAS, the County owns the real property described in Exhibit A to the Original Site Lease (the “Original Facilities”) which the County has leased to the Authority and which the Authority has leased back to the County pursuant to the Facilities Lease, dated as of March 1, 2017 (the “Original Facilities Lease”), as amended by the First Amendment to Facilities Lease, dated as of the date hereof (together with the Original Facilities Lease, as further amended, restated or otherwise modified, the “Facilities Lease”), each by and between the County and the Authority; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that it is in its best interests to enter into this Amendment to revise the description of the Original Facilities, and provide revised Lease Terms identified in Exhibit B to the Original Site Lease; WHEREAS, this Amendment is permitted pursuant to Section 10.06 of the Facilities Lease, Section 21 of the Site Lease and Section 6.09 of the Trust Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED as follows: SECTION 1. Amendments to the Original Site Lease (a) The real property identified in Exhibit A hereto (the “Released Property”) is hereby released from the Original Site Lease. The Site Lease is terminated and shall no longer have any force or effect with respect to the Released Property. 4810-7147-4344.3 2 (b) The real property identified in Exhibit B hereto (the “Substitute Property”) is hereby made subject to the Site Lease. The Site Lease shall commence and be in full force and effect with respect to the Substitute Property. (c) Exhibit A of the Original Site Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit A identified in Exhibit C hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the Site Lease is in full force and effect with respect to the real property identified in Exhibit C attached hereto. (d) Exhibit B of the Original Site Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exhibit B identified in Exhibit D hereto. SECTION 2. Site Lease in Full Force and Effect. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Original Site Lease and (as so modified) the Site Lease is in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Law Governing. This Site Lease shall be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of California as the same from time to time exist. SECTION 4. Owner in Fee. The County covenants that it is the owner in fee of the Substitute Property. The County further covenants and agrees that if for any reason this covenant proves to be incorrect, the County will either institute eminent domain proceedings to condemn the property or institute a quiet title action to clarify the County’s title, and will diligently pursue such action to completion. The County further covenants and agrees that it will hold the Authority and the Bondowners harmless from any loss, cost or damages resulting from any breach by the County of the covenants contained in this Section. SECTION 5. Partial Invalidity If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants or condition of this Amendment shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. SECTION 6. Definitions Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Facilities Lease or, if not defined therein, the Trust Agreement. 4810-7147-4344.3 3 SECTION 7. Execution This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Amendment. It is also agreed that separate counterparts of this Amendment may separately be executed by the County and the Authority, all with the same force and effect as though the same counterpart had been executed by both the County and the Authority. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Authority have caused this First Amendment to Site Lease to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as Lessor By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Supervisors Attest: By: Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, Lessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 A-1 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A- RELEASED PROPERTY Description of Released Property West County Detention Facility Real property in the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PORTION OF "PARCEL B" OF SUBDIVISION M.S. 79-19 FILED DECEMBER 3, 1979 IN BOOK 83 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION (NO. 304210) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1992 IN BOOK 17989 PAGE 628 RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID "PARCEL B" (83 PM 4) AT THE WESTERN LINE OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 70.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°34'40" WEST, 41.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 13.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY OF SAID "PARCEL B" THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSES: NORTH 22°10'24" WEST, 1212.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°34'57" EAST, 80.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°47'24" WEST, 317.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 590.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7°27'29" WEST, 235.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5°12'36" EAST, 191.04 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°45'00", A DISTANCE OF 273.77 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 79°02'24" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2708.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 79"02'24" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°39'17", A DISTANCE OF 645.37 FEET; THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 30°00'09" WEST (NORTH 30°01'03" WEST, MAP BEARING PER 83 PM 3), 24.49 FEET; AND THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2728.02 FEET AND A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 65°05'15" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°38'56", A DISTANCE OF 30.90 FEET TO A POINT THAT WILL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE LEAVING SAID EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 58°56'48" EAST, 1517.79 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 45.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 108°57'34", A DISTANCE OF 85.58 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF "NEW GIANT HIGHWAY 4810-7147-4344.3 A-2 RIGHT-OF-WAY" AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND IN THE INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1992 IN BOOK 18001 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 112; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 50°00'46" WEST, 674.11 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT COMPOUND 1145.80 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°26'03", A DISTANCE OF 788.60 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 1491.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°57'36", A DISTANCE OF 259.23 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 9°20'29" EAST, 728.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°57'22" EAST 1055.66 FEET FROM POINT "A" AS DESCRIBED ABOVE (POINT "A" BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL); THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTH 67°55'22" EAST, 344.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8°52'11" EAST 51.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50°11'00" WEST, 386.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 66°04'24" WEST, 23.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23°49'08" EAST, 69.67 FEET TO A TANGENT 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46°32'33", A DISTANCE OF 56.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°43'25" WEST, 201.72 FEET TO A TANGENT 20.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°12'19", A DISTANCE OF 15.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°28'53" EAST, 105.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE RIGHTS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION TO PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1979 IN BOOK 9230, PAGE 459, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS: "EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ALL OIL, ASPHALTUM, PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND BEING AT A VERTICAL DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) OR MORE FEET BELOW THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE GROUND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW. 4810-7147-4344.3 A-3 FURTHER EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT TO PERMIT OTHERS, TO INJECT WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE WITHIN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS AND OTHER LANDS, ANY QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE, AND TO STORE SUCH NATURAL GAS WITHIN ANY OR ALL FORMATIONS IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS, AND TO WITHDRAW THE SAME FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS BY PUMPING OR OTHERWISE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH INJECTION AND WITHDRAWAL SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE FROM THE PRESENT NATURAL SURFACE OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LANDS OR WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW SAID SURFACE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINBELOW". APN: PORTION OF 405-042-021-7 4810-7147-4344.3 A-4 Public Works Department Administration Building Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED AUGUST 07, 1957 IN BOOK 3025 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 274, SAID PARCEL IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDED MAY 21, 1987 IN BOOK 83 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS MAPS, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL (83 LSM 22); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERN LINE THEREOF NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 80.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID LINE AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 88 ° 41' 40" EAST, 116.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 83.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 59.00 FEET; SOUTH 88° 41' 40" EAST, 12.00 FEET; NORTH 1° 18' 20" EAST, 190.00 FEET AND NORTH 88° 41' 40" WEST, 211.00 FEET TO SAID WESTERN LINE THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERN LINE SOUTH 1° 18' 10" WEST, 299.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 155-280-015-1 4810-7147-4344.3 B-1 EXHIBIT B- SUBSTITUTE PROPERTY Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-2 PARCEL FOUR: THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-3 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-4 BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; 4810-7147-4344.3 B-5 THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST 4810-7147-4344.3 B-6 LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-7 PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-8 LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-9 PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-10 PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 4810-7147-4344.3 B-11 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4810-7147-4344.3 B-12 BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-13 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-14 THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: 4810-7147-4344.3 B-15 ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works 4810-7147-4344.3 B-16 Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280- 77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. APN: 373-263-003 4810-7147-4344.3 B-17 4810-7147-4344.3 C-1 EXHIBIT C NEW EXHIBIT A- DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES “EXHIBIT A Description of Facilities” Family Law Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF BLOCK 20 AND A PORTION OF WILLOW STREET (ABANDONED) OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF MARTINEZ, FILED MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED OCTOBER 04, 1984 IN BOOK 75 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' MAPS, PAGE 38, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 85.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 52° 18' 00" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET SOUTH 37° 42' 00" EAST, 115.18 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 52° 01' 42" EAST, 135.61 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL TO PINE STREET NORTH 37° 42' 00" WEST, 199.46 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 52° 19' 03" WEST, 235.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: Portion of 373-262-003 4810-7147-4344.3 C-2 Martinez Health Center Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL, BEING THE "MARTINEZ HEALTH CENTER" AS DEPICTED IN CROSSHATCH ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A-1", BEING A PORTION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 372-191-022: A PORTION OF LOT H RANCHO EL PINOLE AND ALL OF BLOCKS 87, 88, 163, 164, 165, 189 AND PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 86, 89, 92, 93, 149, 150, 162, 170 AND 188 MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ AND AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF SURVEY FILED DECEMBER 24, 1969 IN BOOK 52 LICENSED SURVEY MAP, PAGE 34. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 14, 1971 IN BOOK 6381, AT PAGE 825 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF LOTS 87, 164, AND 189 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED ON MARCH 30, 1895 IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 27, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION" FILED ON MARCH 20, 1916 IN BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 300, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTH 52º 12' EAST (THE BEARING NORTH 52º 12' EAST BEING TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DESCRIPTION) 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET AS SAID STREET IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "SUNNYSIDE TERRACE EXTENSION"; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 37º 48' EAST, 27.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RICHARDSON STREET WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET AS SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE IS SHOWN ON SAID MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ"; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH 37º 48' EAST 52.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET SOUTH 52º 12' WEST, 55.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2º 28' EAST, 161.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87º 32' WEST 87.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2º 28' WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87º 32' EAST, 51.07 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 4810-7147-4344.3 C-3 EXTENSION OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SOTO STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION NORTH 52º 12' EAST 62.37 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: PORTION OF 372-191-022 4810-7147-4344.3 C-4 4810-7147-4344.3 C-5 Martinez Detention Facility Real property in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET WHERE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE IS INTERSECTED BY THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, WESTERLY, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO C. H. HAYDEN BY A. BACCILIERI AND ANNA BACCILIERI, HIS WIFE, BY DEED DATED MARCH 01, 1916 AND RECORDED MARCH 06, 1916 IN VOLUME 266 OF DEEDS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY PARALLELING THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY PARALLELING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET 100 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FOUR: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-6 THE SOUTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 22 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 50 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 22; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, IN SAID BLOCK 22, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM A. BACCILIERI TO JOSEPH KELLY, ET UX, DATED FEBRUARY 03, 1916 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 05, 1916, IN BOOK 259 OF DEEDS, PAGE 398; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID JOSEPH A. KELLY LOT, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHERLY ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 50 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIVE: BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: 1) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CARRIE L. DAVIS TO WALDO C. DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1938 IN BOOK 479, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 269. 2) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD W. REED TO CHARLOTTE R. MCHARRY, RECORDED JANUARY 02, 1942, IN BOOK 595 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 223. 3) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM FRANK J. PRICE, ET UX, TO JOSEPH CIARAMITARO, ET UX, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1943 IN BOOK 735 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 142. 4) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM RUSSELL DUHAME, ET AL TO NORA M. DUHAME RECORDED MARCH 16, 1950, IN BOOK 1450 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 481. 5) THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, TO JERROLD RUSSELL FROLAND, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1961, IN BOOK 3776 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 323. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-7 THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IN THIS CONVEYANCE IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS 7 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK. PARCEL SIX: LOT 1 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL SEVEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WHICH BEARS 69 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE OF PINE STREET, AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE LINE COMMON TO LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; SAID POINT ALSO BEING 69 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANDS FORMERLY OWNED BY FRANK RATTAN; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 34.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 4 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET 8 1/2 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM JAMES E. RODGERS, ET UX, TO A. B. WILSON, DATED MARCH 25, 1902 AND RECORDED MARCH 27, 1902 IN VOLUME 91 OF DEEDS, PAGE 372; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARD STREET, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID WILSON TRACT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET, 43 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL EIGHT: PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4 IN BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF PINE STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM W. G. REED, ET UX, TO 4810-7147-4344.3 C-8 KENNETH CYRIL DAVIS, ET AL, RECORDED JANUARY 04, 1921 IN VOLUME 377 OF DEEDS, PAGE 11; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHWEST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL NINE: LOT 2 IN BLOCK 23, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL TEN: PORTION OF BLOCK 23 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, BOOK 4706, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 419; THENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR LINE OF SAID COUNTY PARCEL, AS FOLLOWS: NORTHEASTERLY, 96 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; NORTHWESTERLY, 8 1/2 FEET AND NORTHEASTERLY 4 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SAID BLOCK 23; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ELEVEN: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET, 40 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE BOUNDARY LINE, BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 IN SAID BLOCK 24; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 AND OF LOT 3 IN SAID BLOCK, 40 FEET TO STATION; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 24 AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WARD STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 4810-7147-4344.3 C-9 LINE OF BLOCK 24, 40 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BEING THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 4 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 24 OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL TWELVE: PORTION OF BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 24, OF THE ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, NORTH 37° 40' WEST (MAGNETIC VARIATION 17° 15' EAST) 113.5 FEET TO STATION BEARING SOUTH 37° 40' EAST, 100 FEET DISTANT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK NO. 24; THENCE LEAVING WILLOW STREET AND RUNNING NORTH 50° 18' EAST, 104 FEET TO STAKE IN FENCE LINE, FROM SAID STAKE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MRS. M. PEREZ' PROPERTY BEARS NORTHEASTERLY 24 FEET DISTANT; THENCE LEAVING FENCE LINE (AS IT EXISTED IN DECEMBER, 1918) AND RUNNING SOUTH 28° 39' EAST, 119.3 FEET TO STATION POST IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET EXTENDED, SAID POST BEARS SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 33 FEET DISTANT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET (EXTENDED) WITH THE WESTERLY FACE OF CONCRETE WALL ON PROPERTY OF LEO TORMAY (FORMERLY CHAS. FISH HOME PROPERTY); THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GREEN STREET, SOUTH 52° 38' WEST, 85.25 FEET INTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTEEN: THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET WITH THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF WARD STREET, NORTH 51° 14' EAST, 40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P. J. KANE, RECORDED MARCH 30, 1921, BOOK 390 OF DEEDS, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 38° 46' EAST, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 24; THENCE SOUTH 51° 14' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF WILLOW STREET; THENCE NORTH 38° 46' WEST ALONG SAID LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FOURTEEN: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-10 ALL THAT PORTION OF WILLOW STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 23 AND BLOCK 24, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND AS CONDEMNED TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 1975 IN BOOK 7674, PAGE 371 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL FIFTEEN: LOTS 6 AND 7, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SIXTEEN: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL SEVENTEEN: WESTERLY 32 FEET 10 INCHES OF LOT 2 AND THE EASTERLY 8 FEET 7 INCHES OF LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL EIGHTEEN: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL NINETEEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-ONE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-11 LOT 9, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-TWO: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE EAST 8 FEET 7 INCHES (FRONT AND REAR MEASUREMENTS) THEREOF. PARCEL TWENTY-THREE: LOT 1, AND THE EASTERLY 17 FEET 2 INCHES OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FOUR: LOT 10, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SIX: LOT 2, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-SEVEN: LOT 5, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-EIGHT: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-12 LOT 10, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL TWENTY-NINE: LOT 3, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY: LOT 6, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-ONE: LOT 11, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET AND THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET WHICH IS ALSO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, 50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 50 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE NORTHERLY 50 FEET OF SAID LOT 1 IN BLOCK 2. PARCEL THIRTY-THREE: LOT 9, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-13 PARCEL THIRTY-FOUR: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, DISTANT ALONG SAID STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, WHICH POINT IS THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM PETER L. LYHNE AND WIFE, TO AUGUSTA BOGGESS AND HUSBAND, DATED OCTOBER 15, 1926, RECORDED DECEMBER 04, 1926, IN BOOK 74, PAGE 91, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF WILLOW STREET, SOUTH 37° 17' EAST, 50.55 FEET TO THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, IN BLOCK 2; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 12, 56.07 FEET TO THE COMMON CORNER OF LOTS 1, 2, 11 AND 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91); THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BOGGESS TRACT (74 OR 91) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THIRTY-FIVE: LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SIX: LOT 4, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-SEVEN: LOT 7, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-EIGHT: LOT 12, IN BLOCK 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT, FILED AUGUST 11, 1914, IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PARCEL THIRTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-14 PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, 200 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-ONE: PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF PINE STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHWESTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 7 AND 8, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 7; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOT 7, 4810-7147-4344.3 C-15 50 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SAID PINE STREET, 50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-TWO: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON SOUTHEASTERLY 50 FEET FROM THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID COURT STREET, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LOTS 5 AND 6, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-THREE: LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FOUR: LOTS 3 AND 4, IN BLOCK 62, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-FIVE: BEGINNING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT NO. 5 OF BLOCK 63 IN THE ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OF THE SAID SURVEY ON FILE WITH THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THENCE RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 42.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EASTERLY 100.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF SAID BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SAID BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF BLOCK 63, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4810-7147-4344.3 C-16 BEING THE SOUTHERLY 42.00 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF THE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ. PARCEL FORTY-SIX: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 50 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL OR WELCH SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 36 FEET, MORE OR LESS, THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET INTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING A 36' X 100' PORTION OF LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 63, WHOSE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY IS DISTANT 50 FEET FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THOMPSON STREET. PARCEL FORTY-SEVEN: THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FORTY-EIGHT: THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, AT THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET, 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM WM. A. SMITH TO O. K. SMITH, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1923 IN VOLUME 459 OF DEEDS, PAGE 174; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 40 FEET TO THE CORNER COMMON TO LOTS 2, 3, 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 7 AND LOTS 1 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FORTY-NINE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-17 THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM R. H. LATIMER TO LEANDER JOHNSON, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1907, IN BOOK 125 OF DEEDS, PAGE 448, AS FOLLOWS: BEING THE NORTH HALF OF LOTS 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL FIFTY: PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT DISTANT 42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MELLUS STREET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EASTERLY AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET, 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE OF LOTS 6 AND 7, 36 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 100 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF COURT STREET SOUTHERLY 36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-ONE: THE SOUTH 14 FEET OF LOTS 3 AND 4, AND THE NORTH 22 FEET OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, DISTANT THEREON 86 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO HAROLD F. STRATTON, ET UX, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1924, BOOK 449 OF DEEDS, PAGE 411; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF COURT STREET, 36 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO R. REININGHAUSE, RECORDED JUNE 28, 1923, BOOK 438 OF DEEDS, PAGE 436; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID REININGHAUSE PARCEL (438 D 436), 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 63; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN SAID LOTS 6 AND 7 BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 63, 36 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE O_ SAID STATTON TRACT (449 D 411); THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-TWO: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-18 THE NORTH PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THOMPSON STREET WITH THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING WESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 IN SAID BLOCK; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LINE BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, 60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED WM. H. HANLON, ET UX, TO W. O. BARNES, DATED MAY 16, 1929 AND RECORDED MAY 17, 1929 IN BOOK 172 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 153; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, 100 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF PINE STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST NAME LINE, 60 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-THREE: PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 AND 3, IN BLOCK 63, ADDITIONAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ, AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 63, BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF COURT STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THOMPSON STREET, 100 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE, 50 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID THOMPSON STREET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEAST LINE, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL FIFTY-FOUR: ALL OF GREEN STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL FIFTY-FIVE: 4810-7147-4344.3 C-19 ALL OF THAT PORTION OF PINE STREET LYING BETWEEN WARD AND MELLUS STREETS AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. THE MELLUS STREET BOUNDARY LINE BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BLOCK 63 OF THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP (D MAPS 83). EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN GREEN STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. PARCEL FIFTY-SIX: ALL OF THOMPSON STREET LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COURT STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE "ADDITIONAL SURVEY" PORTION OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL SURVEYS OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ" FILED MARCH 30, 1895, IN BOOK D OF MAPS, PAGE 83, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF WILLOW STREET (FORMERLY OAK STREET) AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF AUSTIN TRACT ADDITION TO MARTINEZ" FILED AUGUST 11, 1914 IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS, PAGE 262, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN PINE STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ BY QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 30, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-146283 IN BOOK 10071, PAGE 35 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED ALL THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY GRANT DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017-0207639 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING FROM THE PARCELS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED Real property comprising the Courts Annex building, being a portion of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility complex in the City of Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California, being a portion of Blocks 22 and 62, a portion of (abandoned) Green Street and a portion of (abandoned) Pine Street all as shown on the Subdivision Map entitled “Map of the Original and Additional Surveys of the Town of Martinez”, filed March 30, 1895, in Book D of Maps, at page 83, Contra Costa County records described as follows: Commencing on the southerly right of way line of Ward Street at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of Block 22 as shown on said Subdivision map (D Maps 83); thence along the westerly line of Lot 2 and Lot 7 of said Block 22 south 37°44’12” east 179.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly line north 52°15’29” east 6.07 feet to the northwesterly building corner of the Courts Annex building as shown on architectural plan sheet A4.1 dated January 31, 1978, prepared by Kaplan & McLaughlin Architects – Planners, on file at the Contra Costa County Public Works 4810-7147-4344.3 C-20 Department, said corner being the Point of Beginning of this exception description; thence from said Point of Beginning, along the exterior building face of said Courts Annex building the following ten (10) courses: thence north 52°15’29” east 15.00 feet; thence north 37°44’31” west 7.97 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 40.77 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.93 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 31.10 feet; thence south 37°44’31” east 7.94 feet; thence north 52°15’29” east 19.57 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 27.04 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 5.13 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 59.53 feet; thence leaving said exterior building face south 52°15’29” west 7.42 feet; thence south 37°44’ 31” east 7.50 feet to the northerly face of the interior wall of column line 3 as shown on said architectural plans (sheet A4.1); thence along said interior wall line south 52°15’29” west 77.02 feet; thence leaving said line north 37°44’31” west 8.43 feet; thence south 52°15’29” west 15.27 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the westerly exterior building line of said Courts Annex building; thence along said prolonged line and said exterior line north 37°44’31” west 84.07 feet; thence continuing along the exterior lines south 52°15’29” west 1.60 feet; and north 37°44’31” west 9.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. Not including any cantilevered portions of the upper floors of the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility jail building lying within the airspace above the Courts Annex building. Containing an area of 10,349 square feet (0.238 Acres) of land, more or less. Bearings are based on Contra Costa County Property Map “County Detention Facility” (M-280- 77) dated March 1977, on file at the Public Works Department. Exhibit “B”, a plat is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. APN: 373-263-003 4810-7147-4344.3 C-21 4810-7147-4344.3 D-1 EXHIBIT D NEW EXHIBIT B- LEASE TERMS “EXHIBIT B Lease Terms Facility Term Maximum Extension Family Law Center 6/1/2026 6/1/2036 Martinez Health Center 6/1/2027 6/1/2028 Martinez Detention Facility 6/1/2024 6/1/2034 4810-7147-4344.3 Certificate of Acceptance CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (Government Code Section 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing First Amendment to Site Lease from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), is hereby accepted by order of the undersigned officer on behalf of the Authority on November 19, 2019, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 2019/[__] of the Authority adopted on November 19, 2019, and the Authority consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, as Lessee By: John M. Gioia Chair of the Board of Directors Attest: By: Lisa Driscoll Deputy Executive Director and Assistant Secretary of the Board of Directors 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public 4810-7147-4344.3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On ________________, 2019, before me, ________________________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my name and official seal. [Affix seal here] Signature of Notary Public RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-673 with Louisiana State University, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers for medical students, for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide Louisiana State University medical students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefitting from the students’ services to patients. Under Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-673, Louisiana State University medical students will receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through September 30, 2024. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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, 925-370-5741 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #76-673 with Louisiana State University CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to close the Prewett Library in Antioch on Friday, November 29, 2019 and December 23, 26 & 27, 2019 to coincide with the holiday closure of the Antioch Community Center for annual maintenance projects. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Antioch Community Center where the Prewett County Library is located will be closed for several days during the holidays to perform a number of annual maintenance projects. The County Librarian is requesting approval to close the Prewett Library on Friday, November 29, 2019 (the day after Thanksgiving) and December 23, 26 and 27, 2019. The library is already scheduled to be closed on December 24 and 25 to coincide with the closure of the rest of the facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The presence of library staff will impede the ability of community center staff to perform their annual maintenance projects. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Prewett Library Holiday Closures RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Sustainability Committee a proposal by the Sustainability Commission that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Climate Emergency Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. BACKGROUND: Many jurisdictions across the country, particularly in California and the Bay Area are adopting resolutions declaring a climate emergency, calling for various actions to mobilize resources to address this crisis. The Sustainability Commission recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution due to the impacts of a changing climate affecting the quality of life, economy, and well-being of Contra Costa County. Most recent issues related to this include the wildfires and public safety power shutoffs. Attached are examples of recently adopted Climate Emergency Resolutions adopted by Sonoma County (2018); Austin, Texas (2019); San Mateo County (2019); the City of Alameda (2019); the State of California (2019); the City of Richmond (2018); and the City of Hayward (2019). Actions adopted by these jurisdictions that could be included in a climate emergency resolution include: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Jody London, 925-674-7871 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:REFER to the Sustainability Committee Deliberation on Adoption of a Climate Emergency Resolution, As Recommended by the Sustainability Commission BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (1) Establishing an advisory group that will help the County anticipate and plan for an economy that is less dependent on fossil fuel extraction and processing, and helps plan for a transition from a fossil-fuel dependent economy. As the State of California adopts policies and goals for reducing pollution and addressing climate change, the County should consider what this will mean for County revenues, jobs, health, and infrastructure. (2) Directing the County Administrator to establish an interdepartmental task force that will focus on implementing the County’s Climate Action Plan and identifying additional actions, policies, and programs the County can undertake to reduce and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. (3) Identifying potential resources to support work in Contra Costa County to reduce and adapt to a changing climate.The Sustainability Commission advises that the Board refer this topic to the Sustainability Committee and direct the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare a report for the Sustainability Committee to evaluate whether the County should adopt a Climate Emergency Resolution. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have the opportunity to join the State, and other Bay Area cities and counties to take a serious and proactive approach to this issue by adopting a resolution. ATTACHMENTS Sonoma County Climate Emergency Resolution Austin, Texas Climate Emergency Resolution San Mateo County Climate Emergency Resolution City of Alameda Climate Emergency Resolution State of California Executive Order City of Richmond, CA Climate Emergency Resolution City of Hayward Climate Emergency Resolution County of Sonoma State of California THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. ATTEST. MAY 0 8 2018 ~~E~~etary ~'.!ECfiETARY Item Number: 25 ~~~~~~~~~ Date: May 8, 2018 Resolution Number: 18-0166 r 3/5 Vote Required Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Reaffirming Its Intent To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions As Part Of A Coordinated Effort Through The Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority And To Adopt Local Implementation Measures As Identified In Climate Action Plan 2020 and Beyond Whereas, climate change is a real and increasingly urgent threat that demands action at every level of government; and Whereas, actions taken by local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs} provide multiple benefits by providing energy and cost savings, air quality and public health improvements, local job creation, resource conservation, climate resilience, and enhanced equity; and Whereas, the State of California has adopted policy targets to reduce GHGs by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050; and Whereas, the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 includes a section on Energy which includes strong policy language related to the reduction of GHGs; and Whereas, Sonoma County participates in a coordinated, countywide collaboration to address climate change via the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA); and WHEREAS, the success of the RCPA depends on the participation of and collaboration with all local jurisdictions, and a commitment to pool resources towards common goals; and WHEREAS, the RCPA has adopted the same GHG reduction targets as the State of California; and WHEREAS, the RCPA has established twenty goals to reduce GHG emissions and nine goals to prepare for local climate impacts; and I '· Resalution:#18·0166. Date: May 8, 2018' Page 2 ",'il,1 WHEREAS~.t.h~ RCPA ;;i,n9 Sonoma County collaborated through the Climate Action Plan . 2029,~n,d ~ey~n~ p,r,ojed to develop Measures specific to Sonoma County that will result in the reduction of GHG and result in substantial environmental and community benefits. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that Sonoma County agrees to work towards the RCPA's countywide target to reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and Be It Further Resolved, that Sonoma County adopts the following goals to reduce GHG emissions, and will pursue local actions that support these goals: 1. Increase building energy efficiency 2. Increase renewable energy use 3. Switch equipment from fossil fuel to electricity 4. Reduce travel demand through focused growth 5. Encourage a shift toward low·carbon transportation options 6. Increase vehicle and equipment fuel efficiency 7. Encourage a shift toward low·carbon fuels in vehicles and equipment 8. Reduce idling 9. Increase solid waste diversion 10. Increase capture and use of methane from landfills 11. Reduce water consumption 12. Increase recycled water and greywater use 13. Increase water and waste·water infrastructure efficiency 14. Increase use of renewable energy in water and wastewater systems 15. Reduce emissions from livestock operations 16. Reduce emissions from fertilizer use 17. Protect and enhance the value of open and working lands 18. Promote sustainable agriculture 19. Increase carbon sequestration 20. Reduce emissions from the consumption of goods and services; and Be It Further Resolved, that Sonoma County will continue to work to increase the health and resilience of social, natural, and built resources to withstand the impacts of climate change; and Be It Further Resolved, that Sonoma County has the goal of increasing resilience by pursuing local actions that support the following goals: 1. Promote healthy, safe communities 2. Protect water resources 3. Promote as sustainable, climate·resilient economy 4. Mainstream the use of climate projections Resolution #18-0166 Date: May 8, 2018 Page 3 5. Manage natural buffer zones around community resources 6. Promote agricultural preparedness and food security 7. Protect infrastructure 8. Increase emergency preparedness and prevention 9. Monitor climate change and its effects. Be It Further Resolved, that Sonoma County will support these goals through its own actions and through collaboration with other local governments through the efforts of the Regional Climate Protection Authority; and Be It Further Resolved that Sonoma County intends to implement its local measures from the Climate Action Plan 2020 and Beyond planning project. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was duly adopted this eighth day of May 2018, by the following vote: Supervisors: Gorin: Aye Rabbitt: Aye Zane: Aye Hopkins: Aye Gore: Aye Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 So Ordered. Austin, Texas RESOLUTION NO. . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA * * * * * * RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DECLARATION OF A CLIMATE EMERGENCY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY THAT DEMANDS ACCELERATED ACTIONS ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND CALLS ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL PARTNERS TO JOIN TOGETHER TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE ______________________________________________________________ RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, that WHEREAS, according to the Intergovernmental Plan on Climate Change (IPCC), increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) will cause global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by as early as 2030; and WHEREAS, for San Mateo County, rising global temperatures will cause sea levels to rise (up to six feet or more by 2100 under certain scenarios), contribute to increasingly extreme weather including intense rainfall, storms and heat events, and heighten risk of large wildfires; and WHEREAS, the consequences of climate change pose risks to life, safety and critical infrastructure in San Mateo County and throughout the world, and threaten physical, social and mental well-being; and WHEREAS, climate change impacts will be most acutely felt by children, the elderly, those with preexisting physical and mental health conditions, low income or communities of color, and residents with unstable economic or housing situations; and Adopted September 2019 WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment indicates that in the County over 160,000 children under the age of 18 years, and over 100,000 older adults, are vulnerable to risks posed by sea level rise; and WHEREAS, the County has taken a number of actions to address climate change, including: helping to launch Peninsula Clean Energy; facilitating the Regional Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) program that brings together the County and its 20 cities to plan and implement measures to reduce GHG emissions; launching Climate Ready SMC to better prepare San Mateo County for the changing climate; and facilitating the formation of the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District in partnership with the City/County Association of Governments; and WHEREAS, in 2015 the County reduced GHG emissions by 21.8% below 2005 levels; and WHEREAS, the current pace of climate actions may still fall short of reducing the projected harm to people and places and accelerated actions need to be taken to reduce our GHG emissions and implement solutions to prepare and protect our communities; and WHEREAS, by declaring a climate emergency, the County of San Mateo will join the City and County of San Francisco, County of Santa Clara, other Bay area cities, including Berkeley, Alameda, Richmond, Santa Cruz, Hayward and Oakland, and over 1,000 national, international and local jurisdictions with similar declarations that are committed to reducing GHG emissions and planning for climate change; and WHEREAS, the County invites all cities and other local jurisdictions and agencies to also approve a Climate Emergency Declaration to create a unified Countywide voice around climate change and to strengthen the call for state and federal actions and funds to address the economic, social, public health, and national security threats posed by the climate crisis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo declares a climate emergency that threatens the economic and social well-being, health and safety, and security of the County of San Mateo. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will continue to educate residents about the seriousness of climate change, invest in climate solutions, and address the current and future impacts of climate change . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that health, socio-economic and racial equity considerations should be included in policymaking and climate solutions at all levels and across all sectors as the consequences of climate change have significant impacts on all County residents, but especially the young, the elderly, low income or communities of color, and other vulnerable populations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that County commits to completing the Government Operations and Unincorporated Area Climate Action Plans that will include measurable climate-related goals and actions to attain carbon neutrality in advance of the State of California’s 2045 goal. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County will develop and enact resiliency policies and plans to ensure continuous operation of County services and facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will achieve its climate action and resiliency goals through cross departmental partnerships within the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will collaborate and coordinate with the 20 cities in the County, and other local partners like Peninsula Clean Energy and the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District, to achieve carbon neutrality throughout San Mateo County and to implement other actions to address climate change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Office of Sustainability to report annually to the Board, starting in April 2020, on progress towards meeting resiliency goals and achieving carbon neutrality in advance of 2045. * * * * * * CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.______ ENDORSE DECLARATION OF A CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND REQUEST REGIONAL COLLABORATION ON AN IMMEDIATE JUST TRANSITION AND EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION EFFORT TO RESTORE A SAFE CLIMATE WHEREAS, as of February 2019, 194 United Nations member governments recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement, agreeing to keep warming "well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" and to "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increa se to 1.5°C"; and WHEREAS, the death and destruction already caused by global warming of approximately 1°C has increased and intensified wildfires, floods, rising seas, diseases, droughts, and extreme weather, and WHEREAS, national and international security experts have identified climate change as a significant threat to the security of the United States and the stability of the international community, and WHEREAS, the State of California Ocean Protection Council, in its 2018 Rising Seas in California report, projects an increase between a medium-high risk aversion scenario of 6.9 feet of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay by 2100 and an extreme risk aversion scenario of 10 feet; and WHEREAS, restoring a safe and stable climate requires an emergency mobilization to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, to rapidly and safely draw down or remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere, and to implement measures to protect all people and species from the consequences of current fa cts and projections of additional, abrupt climate change; and WHEREAS, core to a socially just response is ensuring equity is centered in climate actions in a framework that ensures sustainability for present and future generations and supports self-determination and the maintenance of culture, tradition, and deep democracy, while supporting the belief that people around the world have a right to clean, healthy and adequate air, water, land, food, education, and shelter, as well as living wages and the attainment of basic human needs for all; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda and community members including Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) have begun a robust process to create a newly revised and expanded Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (Plan) that identifies Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 that meet or exceed legislated federal and California objectives and targets; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda, as the Bay Area’s largest island city, faces an existential crisis from sea-level rise and must act as a global and regional leader by transitioning to an ecologically, socially, and economically regenerative economy and by acting at emergency speed in a unified regional climate adaptation and mobilization effort. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Alameda declares that a climate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, civilization, humanity and the natural world; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda commits to citywide action that is rooted in equity, self-determination, culture, tradition, deep democracy, and the belief that people locally and around the world have right to clean, healthy and adequate air, water, land, food, education and shelter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an urgent global climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming is needed as quickly as possible towards zero net emissions no later than 2030, and that the City of Alameda should actively participate in an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere, and accelerate adaptation and resilience strategies in preparation for intensifying climate impacts; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda commits to educating our residents about the climate emergency and wo rking to catalyze a just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort at the local, state, national, and global levels to provide maximum protection for our residents to include Alameda’s unhoused population, indigenous, low-income, and/or communities of color specifically, as well as all the people and species of the world; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda underscores the need for full community participation, inclusion, and support, and recognizes that the residents of Alameda, community organizations (including CASA), faith, youth, labor, business, academic institutions, homeowners' associations, and environmental, economic, science- based, racial, gender, family and disability justice and indigenous, immigrant and women's rights organizations and other such allies will be integral to the leadership of the mobilization effort; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda acknowledges that there is still time to act and that as a city, known to come together in support of large efforts and committed to addressing this crisis, we can work together to make the necessary change in order to do so; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda joins a nationwide call for a regional just transition away from fossil fuels and urgent climate mobilization collaborative effort focused on transforming our region, enacting policies that dramatically reduce heat-trapping emissions, and rapidly catalyzing a mobilization at all levels of government to restore a safe climate; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda City Council supports the City’s ongoing development of a Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, including the development of measurable climate-related goals for 2030 and 2050; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda City Council recognizes that in order to meet these goals, the City must continue to formulate and implement subsequent phases of mitigation and resiliency plans as soon as practicable, alo ng with priority programs and projects both locally and with regional partners to secure a sustainable environment, infrastructure, commerce and living conditions for all residents; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alameda City Council directs the Interim City Manager to work with the Department of Public Works to identify, within the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, a Climate point person and appropriate internal structure to support ongoing climate action and accountability and identify a reporting timeline and process for identifying progress in meeting the plan’s goals, including adding a Climate Impacts section to all council staff reports that provides meaningful information on how proposed actions will impact GHG reduction efforts. * * * * * I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regul ar meeting assembled on the 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the offi cial seal of said City this 20th day of March, 2019. ___________________ Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Michael H. Roush, Interim City Attorney City of Alameda ATTACHMENT II HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-____ Introduced by Council Member __________ RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE DECLARATION OF A CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND REQUESTING REGIONAL COLLABORATION ON AN IMMEDIATE JUST TRANSITION AND EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION EFFORT TO RESTORE A SAFE CLIMATE WHEREAS, In April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement, agreeing to keep warming “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”; and WHEREAS, The death and destruction already caused by global warming of approximately 1°C demonstrates has increased and intensified wildfires, floods, rising seas, diseases, droughts, and extreme weather; and WHEREAS, Climate change and the global economy’s conflict with ecological limits are contributing to mass extinction of species, which could devastate much of life on Earth for the next 10 million years; and WHEREAS, A recent state report, Rising Seas in California, projects a conservative estimate of between 1 and 3.4 feet of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay by 2100; and WHEREAS, The range of projections in the state report includes the possibility of up to 10 feet of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay by 2100, a scenario consistent with rapid Antarctic ice sheet mass loss that would be catastrophic to Hayward and every other coastal community; and WHEREAS, The United States of America has disproportionately contributed to the climate and ecological crises and has repeatedly obstructed global efforts to transition toward a sustainable economy, and thus bears an extraordinary responsibility to rapidly solve these crises; and WHEREAS, Restoring a safe and stable climate requires an emergency mobilization to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, to rapidly and safely draw down or remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere, and to implement measures to protect all people and species from the consequences of abrupt climate change; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, Justice requires that frontline communities, which have historically borne the brunt of the extractive fossil-fuel economy, participate actively in the planning and implementation of this mobilization effort at all levels of government and that they benefit first from the transition to a renewable energy economy; and WHEREAS, Fairness demands a guarantee of high-paying, good-quality jobs with comprehensive benefits for all and many other tenets of a Green New Deal effort as the mobilization to restore a safe climate is launched; and WHEREAS, The term “Just Transition” is a framework for a fair shift to an economy that is ecologically sustainable, equitable and just for all its members; and WHEREAS, Just transition strategies were first forged by a ‘blue-green’ alliance of labor unions and environmental justice groups who saw the need to phase out the industries that were harming workers, community health and the planet, while also providing just pathways for workers into new livelihoods; and WHEREAS, Just transition initiatives shift the economy from dirty energy to energy democracy, from funding highways to expanding public transit, from incinerators and landfills to zero waste, from industrial food systems to food sovereignty, from car- dependent sprawl and unbridled growth to smart urban development without displacement, and from rampant, destructive over-development to habitat and ecosystem restoration; and WHEREAS, Core to a just transition is equity, self-determination, culture, tradition, deep democracy, and the belief that people around the world have a fundamental human right to clean, healthy and adequate air, water, land, food, education and shelter; and WHEREAS, The City of Hayward’s Climate Action Plan, updated with the adoption of the Hayward 2040 General Plan in 2014, includes GHG emission reduction targets of 61.7% by the year 20430 and 82.5% by 2050 using the year 2005 as the baseline; and WHEREAS, The City of Hayward can act as a global leader by both converting to an ecologically, socially and economically regenerative economy, and by catalyzing a unified regional just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, the City of Hayward declares that a climate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, civilization, humanity and the natural world. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward commits to a citywide just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming, which, with appropriate financial and regulatory assistance from the County of Alameda and State and Federal authorities, reduces citywide GHG emissions as quickly as possible towards zero net emissions, immediately initiates an effort to safely draw down carbon from the Page 3 of 4 atmosphere, and accelerates adaptation and resilience strategies in preparation for intensifying climate impacts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward commits to educating our residents about the climate emergency and working to catalyze a just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort at the local, state, national, and global levels to provide maximum protection for our residents as well as all the people and species of the world. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward underscores the need for full community participation, inclusion, and support, and recognizes that the residents of Hayward, and community organizations, faith, youth, labor, business, academic institutions, homeowners’ associations and environmental, economic, science-based, racial, gender, family and disability justice and indigenous, immigrant and women’s rights organizations and other such allies who will be integral to and in the leadership of the mobilization effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward commits to keeping of the outcomes to vulnerable communities central to all just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort planning processes and invites and encourages such communities to actively participate in order to advocate directly for their needs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward joins a nation-wide call for a regional just transition and urgent climate mobilization collaborative effort focused on transforming our region, enacting policies that dramatically reduce heat-trapping emissions, and rapidly catalyzing a mobilization at all levels of government to restore a safe climate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Hayward calls on the State of California, the United States of America, and all national and sub-national governments and peoples worldwide to initiate a just transition and urgent climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming by restoring near pre-industrial global average temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations, that immediately halts the development of all new fossil fuel infrastructure, rapidly phases out all fossil fuels and the technologies which rely upon them, ends human-induced greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, initiates an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere, transitions to regenerative agriculture, ends the potential for a sixth mass extinction, and creates high-quality, good- paying jobs with comprehensive benefits for those who will be impacted by this transition. Page 4 of 4 IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2019 ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk of the City of Hayward APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________________ City Attorney of the City of Hayward RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the monetary donation report from the Animal Services Department, which describes the source and value of each gift received by Animal Services from July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Animal Benefit Fund was created by the Animal Services Department in 1988 to allow the Department to receive donations from individuals, animal welfare organizations and businesses, to support animal health and welfare projects that are not funded by departmental or general County revenue. On April 19, 2016 the Board of Supervisors delegated specific authority to the Animal Services Director as it related to the Animal Benefit Fund. The Animal Services Director was granted authorization to accept any monetary donation, gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department as allowed under Government Code section 25355 and solicit donations for the benefit of shelter animals. Along with this delegated authority, the Animal Services Director is required to file a report with the Board of Supervisors every quarter APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Kim Carter, 925-608-8413 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Animal Services Monetary Donation Report for July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) that describes the source and value of each gift. Attached is the donation report that provides details of all monetary donations received by the Animal Services Department from July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019. Moving forward the department will submit the donation report to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to accept the report will delay information the Board has requested. ATTACHMENTS Donation Report July-Sept 2019 Sub Date Coll. Obj Posted Org 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794820 9/27/2019 $111.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794826 9/27/2019 $70.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE ANIMAL C & W 25 DP794834 9/27/2019 $38.08 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794920 9/27/2019 $100.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794809 9/27/2019 $29.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794922 9/27/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794820 9/27/2019 $229.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794809 9/27/2019 $95.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794763 9/27/2019 $20.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP794826 9/27/2019 $40.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794823 9/27/2019 $5.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP794820 9/27/2019 $25.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794667 9/25/2019 $31.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794694 9/25/2019 $53.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794667 9/25/2019 $195.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794627 9/25/2019 $395.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794198 9/23/2019 $70.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP794222 9/23/2019 $70.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794264 9/18/2019 $6.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794285 9/18/2019 $25.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP794264 9/18/2019 $5.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794285 9/18/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794287 9/18/2019 $100.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794287 9/18/2019 $82.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP794285 9/18/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794183 9/17/2019 $174.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794219 9/17/2019 $114.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794233 9/17/2019 $77.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794233 9/17/2019 $51.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP794203 9/17/2019 $47.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP794183 9/17/2019 $21.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP794203 9/17/2019 $267.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793854 9/13/2019 $25.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793937 9/13/2019 $137.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793887 9/12/2019 $94.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA CC 25 DP793972 9/12/2019 $237.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PETDATA WF 25 DP793972 9/12/2019 $167.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP793887 9/12/2019 $17.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE CCAS WEB 25 DP793972 9/12/2019 $10.01 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793882 9/11/2019 $222.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP793794 9/11/2019 $92.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793794 9/11/2019 $72.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793770 9/11/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793759 9/11/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP793509 9/6/2019 $54.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP793404 9/6/2019 $10.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793404 9/6/2019 $30.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793372 9/6/2019 $45.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793365 9/6/2019 $125.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793509 9/6/2019 $85.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793473 9/6/2019 $30.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793397 9/6/2019 $3,685.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793062 8/30/2019 $126.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP793059 8/30/2019 $60.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792875 8/30/2019 $0.57 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP793077 8/29/2019 $145.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792981 8/28/2019 $115.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792858 8/28/2019 $10.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792590 8/28/2019 $3,701.44 000000 3340 ActivityFundDeptOrgObjDescriptionTCReferenceAmountPO #Task Option Sub Date Coll. Obj Posted OrgActivityFundDeptOrgObjDescriptionTCReferenceAmountPO #Task Option 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792983 8/28/2019 $10.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792982 8/28/2019 $22.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-CCAS WEB 25 DP792982 8/28/2019 $30.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATATION ANIMAL C & W 25 DP792958 8/28/2019 $38.08 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792985 8/28/2019 $60.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792985 8/28/2019 $103.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792983 8/28/2019 $163.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792981 8/28/2019 $65.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792615 8/23/2019 $77.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792615 8/23/2019 $37.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792614 8/23/2019 $47.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792447 8/23/2019 $75.01 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792517 8/21/2019 $25.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-CCAS WEB 25 DP792515 8/21/2019 $20.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792515 8/21/2019 $44.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792521 8/21/2019 $53.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792517 8/21/2019 $68.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792521 8/21/2019 $153.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792515 8/21/2019 $169.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-CCAS WEB 25 DP792521 8/21/2019 $200.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE AB 25 DP792229 8/16/2019 $100.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792088 8/16/2019 $200.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-CCAS WEB 25 DP792016 8/15/2019 $25.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792094 8/15/2019 $115.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 CHRG CRED-DONATE AB 25 DP791643 8/15/2019 ($86.00)000000 3339 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791643 8/15/2019 $86.00 000000 3339 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791935 8/15/2019 $10.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792019 8/15/2019 $10.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791934 8/15/2019 $20.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792019 8/15/2019 $72.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP792016 8/15/2019 $98.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791642 8/15/2019 $240.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP792008 8/15/2019 $6,526.38 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792094 8/15/2019 $19.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP792016 8/15/2019 $72.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791951 8/13/2019 $92.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791952 8/13/2019 $31.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791951 8/13/2019 $125.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791679 8/9/2019 $88.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791682 8/9/2019 $76.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791679 8/9/2019 $69.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791682 8/9/2019 $8.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791678 8/9/2019 $98.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791486 8/7/2019 $90.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791488 8/7/2019 $55.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791488 8/7/2019 $15.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791486 8/7/2019 $39.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791496 8/7/2019 $80.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791458 8/7/2019 $100.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 REF; DONATION ROMO-REYES 52 G-496057 8/7/2019 ($65.00)000000 0000 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791464 8/7/2019 $3.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791108 8/2/2019 $2,927.77 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791238 8/2/2019 $1,000.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791019 8/2/2019 $22.20 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP791240 8/2/2019 $20.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791216 8/1/2019 $195.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791216 8/1/2019 $28.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791112 7/31/2019 $79.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791112 7/31/2019 $94.00 000000 3340 Sub Date Coll. Obj Posted OrgActivityFundDeptOrgObjDescriptionTCReferenceAmountPO #Task Option 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791040 7/30/2019 $174.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791035 7/30/2019 $173.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP791039 7/30/2019 $97.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791039 7/30/2019 $87.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP791035 7/30/2019 $20.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP790731 7/26/2019 $0.40 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATATION-ANIMAL C & W 25 DP790738 7/25/2019 $38.08 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790742 7/25/2019 $33.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP790672 7/25/2019 $70.00 000000 3339 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790742 7/25/2019 $87.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790601 7/24/2019 $100.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790600 7/24/2019 $42.50 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790600 7/24/2019 $104.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790641 7/24/2019 $64.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790601 7/24/2019 $32.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790593 7/23/2019 $142.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790593 7/23/2019 $56.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790306 7/19/2019 $69.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790308 7/19/2019 $30.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP790290 7/19/2019 $3.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790308 7/19/2019 $78.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790306 7/19/2019 $79.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790304 7/19/2019 $191.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790294 7/18/2019 $151.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790294 7/18/2019 $10.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP790206 7/17/2019 $201.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP790145 7/17/2019 $100.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP790206 7/17/2019 $220.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP790144 7/17/2019 $40.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE AB 25 DP789908 7/12/2019 $145.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789856 7/11/2019 $47.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP789856 7/11/2019 $288.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP789839 7/11/2019 $50.00 000000 3340 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP789729 7/10/2019 $50.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP789724 7/10/2019 $15.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789740 7/10/2019 $17.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789743 7/10/2019 $17.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789729 7/10/2019 $22.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-CCAS WEB 25 DP789724 7/10/2019 $25.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP789640 7/10/2019 $40.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP789639 7/10/2019 $80.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789754 7/10/2019 $82.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP789743 7/10/2019 $142.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789724 7/10/2019 $182.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-AB 25 DP789652 7/10/2019 $4,613.06 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE PET DATA WF 25 DP789740 7/10/2019 $5.00 000000 3330 133200 0369 0369 9800 9965 DONATE-PET DATA CC 25 DP789755 7/10/2019 $29.00 000000 3330 TOTAL $34,667.58 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 1108-2.212 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of any personal property belonging to Contra Costa County and found by the Board of Supervisors not to be required for public use. The property for disposal is either obsolete, worn out, beyond economical repair, or damaged beyond repair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Public Works would not be able to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Nida Rivera, (925) 313-2124 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles & Equipment ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2003 FORD F-150 TRUCK # 225 (59189 MILES) 2FTRX17L83CA65653 C. BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1976 CATERPILLAR BULLDOZER # 857 (2699 HRS) 10K13143 B. WORN OUT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1961 SEMI LOW BED TRAILER # 793 () 48153E01414 B. WORN OUT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1988 INTL . S2600 WATER TENDER # 838 (144305 MILES) 1HTZV0UR3JH553370 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2008 CHEVY TAHOE SUV # 3698 (93189 MILES) 1GNFK03058R264796 B. WORN OUT HEALTH SERVICES 2002 ISUZU NPR HD BOX TRUCK # 5723 (125631 MILES) 4KLC4B1RX2J800974 C. BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR PUBLIC WORKS 1998 FORD F-800 DUMP TRUCK # 6419 (85228 MILES) 1FDXF80E8WVA10449 B. WORN OUT EHS/COMM SERVICES 2001 CHEVY G-25 CARGO VAN # 4577 (141075 MILES) 1GBFG25R711164869 B. WORN OUT AGRICULTURE 2005 FORD RANGER TRUCK # 5050 (73973 MILES) 1FTYR10E15PA54447 B. WORN OUT AGRICULTURE 2003 FORD E-250 CARGO VAN # 4686 (97136 MILES) 1FTNE24L03HA61894 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2005 CARSON TRAILER # 8601 () 4HXEN12243CO52861 B. WORN OUT EHS/COMM SERVICES 1998 FORD E-150 PASSENGER VAN # 4475 (97650 MILES) 1FMRE11L8WHA90396 B. WORN OUT RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan priorities for the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs serving lower income persons/families, as recommended by the Affordable Housing Finance Committee, Finance Committee and Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No general fund impact. CDBG, HOME and ESG funds are provided to the County on a formula allocation basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HOPWA funds are provided through HUD to the City of Oakland, as administering agent. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA NUMBER): CDBG - 14.218 HOME - 14.239 ESG - 14.231 HOPWA - 14.241 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Kristin Sherk, (925) 674-7887 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Priorities BACKGROUND: 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Priorities: The Contra Costa County Consortium, a partnership of four cities (Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek) and Contra Costa County, receives funds each year from the federal government for housing and community development activities . To receive federal funds, the Consortium must submit a strategic plan – the Consolidated Plan – every five years to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that identifies local needs and how these needs will be addressed. The Consolidated Plan must also demonstrate how the Consortium will meet national goals set by the U.S. Congress to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for persons of extremely-low, very-low, and low income. The preparation of the FY 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan began with holding three public community meetings and two service provider (housing and non-housing) group meetings during the months of March through June 2019. Individuals and representatives of various public agencies, community organizations, and service providers throughout the County were invited to attend these meetings. These meetings covered various topics, including but not limited to: Affordable housing; Persons with disabilities; Single parents/female-headed households; Homelessness; Economic Development (business assistance and job creation/retention); Seniors; and Youth and Families The Consortium also solicited input from community organizations, public agencies, and the general public through an on-line survey that was accessible beginning in the month of March through the end of July 2019. A hard copy of the survey is attached (Attachment A). Consortium staff and a housing data consultant compiled and analyzed the survey data to come to the following observations: Services to homeless populations or to those at imminent risk of homelessness ranked high as a priority for continued CDBG support. 1. Affordable Housing activities are also a high priority. Of the eligible activities for affordable housing, the following were the highest ranking; 1) housing for “Special Needs Populations” (especially seniors/elderly), 2) preservation of existing affordable housing, 3) rehabilitation assistance to existing housing, and 4) emergency repairs for low-income homeowners. 2. Job Development/Creation and Pollution/Property Cleanup ranked the highest of the Economic Development services. 3. General Infrastructure and Public Facilities Improvements are also a priority with the following rankings; 1) improvements and/or construction of streets and sidewalks, 2) senior centers, 3) youth/neighborhood centers, 4) park and recreational centers, and 5) childcare centers ranking the highest. 4. Although the Consolidated Plan is still underway, County CDBG staff substantially completed the Needs Assessment section. Taking in to consideration the information collected from individual consultations, community meetings, focus group meetings and the survey information, County CDBG staff proposes to continue the four main priorities for the next five-year period (2020-2025), as follows: Affordable Housing (New unit Development and Rehabilitation of existing units);1. Homelessness (Providing or Improving Emergency Shelter and Provision of Services); 2. Non-Housing Community Development (Public Services, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, Economic Development); and 3. Administration (Administration of the various Federal Programs). 4. Affordable Housing Finance Committee, Family and Human Services and Finance Committee Meetings: The Affordable Housing Finance Committee (AHFC), the Finance Committee, and the Family and Human Services (FHS) Committee met respectively on October 4, 2019, November 4, 2019, and November 13, 2019. The AHFC, FHS and Finance Committee all recommended the four listed Consolidated Plan priorities for the next five-year period. As the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan is still in the process of being completed, staff indicated that the final draft of the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan will be brought to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration at a future meeting in April or May 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not approving the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan priorities would delay the Consolidated Plan process and the CDBG/HOME/ESG/HOPWA application process, which could jeopardize the County's allocations from HUD of the various federal programs. ATTACHMENTS Survey of Community Needs Page 1 of 8 Survey of Needs for Development of the 2020-25 Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan Help create the future of YOUR community! The Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, and the County of Contra Costa (on behalf of all the other towns and cities in Contra Costa) receive federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) funding every year. Over a five- year period, these funds are expected to total over $60 million!! These federal funds, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) can be used to build new affordable rental housing, provide first-time homebuyer assistance, rehabilitate existing housing, rehabilitate homes for lower income and senior households, build new supportive housing for people with special needs, improve or construct public facilities including community centers and parks, improve infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, etc.) in lower income neighborhoods, provide employment training and training to small business owners, and provide a wide variety of services for lower income families and individuals, and homeless persons, and SO MUCH MORE! Every five years, YOU, your friends, your neighbors, and your community have the opportunity to help identify your community’s greatest needs, and determine how these funds are spent to help address those needs. This survey will take approximately 15 minutes, so please be prepared to give it your thoughtful consideration. THANK YOU for caring about your community by providing feedback to help direct the funding of federal programs over the next five years. NOTICE: Reasonable accommodation or other assistance and/or support services needed to complete this survey may be provided upon request. Please call 925-779-7037 to request reasonable accommodations. Let’s get started with some basic questions: 1. How did you hear about this survey? Check all that apply □ Newspaper □ Website □ Email □ Word of mouth □ Other________________________________ 2. Have you ever heard of CDBG, HOME, ESG or HOPWA before? Check one □ Yes □ No 3. Please tell us about yourself (check all that apply): □ I’m a resident of a city, town or neighborhood in Contra Costa County □ I work for a nonprofit agency, including affordable housing developers □ I work in business □ I work for local government □ I am a current consumer or client of affordable housing or social services □ I am a former consumer or client of affordable housing or social services 4. In which age group are you? □ Under 18 □ 18-24 □ 25-61 □ 62+ Page 2 of 8 5. What city(s) or town(s) are you going to be making comments on today? Select one only: □ Antioch □ Concord □ Pittsburg □ Walnut Creek □ Urban County (all other communities) 6. If you selected Urban County above, PLEASE check the specific cities, towns, or communities that you will be commenting on. Check as many as apply. □ Alamo □ Bay Point □ Bethel Island □ Brentwood □ Byron □ Clayton □ Crockett □ Danville □ Discovery Bay □ El Cerrito □ El Sobrante □ Hercules □ Knightsen □ Lafayette □ Martinez □ Moraga □ North Richmond □ Oakley □ Orinda □ Pacheco □ Pinole □ Port Costa □ Pleasant Hill □ Richmond □ Rodeo □ San Pablo □ San Ramon □ Other_______________________ 7. Please share what type of household you live in: □ Single person household □ Single parent household □ Couple □ Family with minor children □ Unaccompanied youth (14-24) □ Currently homeless □ Related adults living together □ Unrelated adults living together □ Formerly homeless □ Disabled household □ Senior (age 62+) household □ Other _________________________ Thank you for that introduction – this information will help us ensure that the data you provide helps to improve YOUR city or area of concern. Homelessness in Contra Costa Let’s begin the survey by getting your view of what people who are experiencing homelessness or those who are at risk of homelessness in your community may need. 8. What level of need is there for HOUSING and SERVICES for homeless individuals in your community?  No Need  Low  Medium  High 9. First we’ll focus on the HOUSING options for persons who are homeless, and level of need you see in your community. Please rate the need for the following: Emergency Shelters for: Men: No Need Low Medium High Women: No Need Low Medium High Families: No Need Low Medium High Couples only: No Need Low Medium High Unaccompanied Youth under age 18 No Need Low Medium High Transitional age youth (age 18-24): No Need Low Medium High Permanent Rental Support Plus Services (that help them stay housed, live independently) No Need Low Medium High Other Housing Options (without services): No Need Low Medium High Transitional Housing (up to 2 yrs) for: Victims of domestic violence: No Need Low Medium High Transition age youth (age 18-24): No Need Low Medium High Persons re-entering community from institutions like prison, jail, hospitals, mental facilities No Need Low Medium High Persons completing drug treatment programs  No Need  Low Medium High Board & Care: No Need Low Medium High Other Housing Needs for Homeless ________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 10. Now please rate the need for SERVICES to help people experiencing homelessness: More outreach to streets & encampments No Need Low Medium High More multi-service centers/programs No Need Low Medium High Life skills training No Need Low Medium High Job training No Need Low Medium High Alcohol & drug addiction treatment No Need Low Medium High Mental health services No Need Low Medium High Physical health services No Need Low Medium High Education services No Need Low Medium High Childcare services No Need Low Medium High Legal services No Need Low Medium High Food services No Need Low Medium High Money management No Need Low Medium High Eviction prevention counseling No Need Low Medium High Diversion services (financial & services assistance to help divert people from emergency shelter) No Need Low Medium High Prevention services (financial & service assistance for people AT RISK of homelessness) No Need Low Medium High Other: _____________________________________________________ 11. What do you see as barriers for people experiencing homelessness who are trying to access housing and services? Transportation No Need Low Medium High No telephone No Need Low Medium High People don’t know who to call No Need Low Medium High Lack of housing in my community No Need Low Medium High The eligibility criteria can be too narrow No Need Low Medium High Agencies lack sufficient capacity/ resources No Need Low Medium High Lack of services in my community No Need Low Medium High Fear of arrest No Need Low Medium High Fear of deportation No Need Low Medium High Other barriers ___________________________________________________ If you would like to know more about efforts in Contra Costa County to serve people experiencing homelessness, please visit the County Homeless Program’s website at http://cchealth.org/homeless. Page 4 of 8 Services for Lower Income Persons Now let’s talk about other groups of people in your community and the services that they may need. In this question, we will NOT be talking about people experiencing homelessness, homeless housing, or homeless services, which were discussed in the previous section. We will also NOT discuss Economic Development efforts and Housing, which are coming up soon! 12. Please rate the need for SERVICES in your community in these categories: GENERAL Crisis intervention/emergency services: No Need Low Medium High Information & referral (connecting people with resources): No Need Low Medium High Food & Hunger (like food banks and feeding programs): No Need Low Medium High Credit Counseling: No Need Low Medium High Foreclosure counseling: No Need Low Medium High Crime awareness/prevention: No Need Low Medium High Landlord and tenant counseling: No Need Low Medium High Fair Housing counseling, advocacy, legal representation (to combat discrimination): No Need Low Medium High SENIORS Legal services: No Need Low Medium High Senior grocery & food programs: No Need Low Medium High Senior Center-based programs/services: No Need Low Medium High Adult Day health care (disabled seniors): No Need Low Medium High Care management and assessment: No Need Low Medium High Transportation: No Need Low Medium High Wellness calls and home visits: No Need Low Medium High YOUTH FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES Recreation, sports, classes, camps, arts: No Need Low Medium High After School Programs , Recreation: No Need Low Medium High After School Programs, Educational (like tutoring): No Need Low Medium High Child Care: No Need Low Medium High Transportation: No Need Low Medium High Mental health and support services: No Need Low Medium High Page 5 of 8 ABUSED AND NEGLECTED YOUTH Services for sexually assaulted children: No Need Low Medium High Services for child victims of domestic violence: No Need Low Medium High Services for foster youth/wards of the court: No Need Low Medium High Services for at-risk youth/gang prevention: No Need Low Medium High PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES INCLUDING HIV/AIDS Independent living skills training/aids: No Need Low Medium High Outreach/information & referral/socialization: No Need Low Medium High Adult day health care for non-seniors with disabilities: No Need Low Medium High Advocacy/investigation in nursing homes and care facilities: No Need Low Medium High VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Emergency shelter: No Need Low Medium High Transitional housing: No Need Low Medium High Counseling & services:No Need Low Medium High Other:______________________________________________________ MIGRANT FARM WORKERS Job training and support services: No Need Low Medium High English literacy training: No Need Low Medium High ILLITERATE ADULTS (teaching adults to read) No Need Low Medium High HEALTH- related services: Mental Health services: No Need Low Medium High Alcohol addiction services: No Need Low Medium High Drug abuse services: No Need Low Medium High HIV/AIDs services: No Need Low Medium High Healthy homes testing & remediation (lead-based paint, carbon monoxide, etc.) No Need Low Medium High Page 6 of 8 13. Moving on to PUBLIC FACILITIES, tell us about the needs of your community for the following, either because you don’t have one and need it, or because it needs renovation or improvements: Senior Center: No Need Low Medium High Youth Center: No Need Low Medium High Child Care Centers/Preschool Daycare: No Need Low Medium High Community Centers: No Need Low Medium High Parks and Recreation Facilities: No Need Low Medium High Library: No Need Low Medium High Nonprofit facilities: No Need Low Medium High Facilities for persons with Disabilities: No Need Low Medium High Improve the accessibility to public facilities for disabled: No Need Low Medium High Other Public Facility Improvements: No Need Low Medium High Other/Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Now let’s talk briefly about the PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, which is so often overlooked but is an important part of what makes a community feel safe, secure, and an attractive place to visit. Please rate the needs you have for the following: Street improvements: No Need Low Medium High Street Lighting: No Need Low Medium High Sidewalk improvements: No Need Low Medium High Flood control/drainage/water improvements, etc.: No Need Low Medium High Curb cuts for disabled, strollers, etc.: No Need Low Medium High Beautification/enhanced public space: No Need Low Medium High Historic preservation: No Need Low Medium High Attractive downtown business district: No Need Low Medium High Accessibility/Safety for disabled: No Need Low Medium High Other: ___________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 Housing In this section, let us know about needs for housing for persons with special needs, affordable rental housing, and the homeownership needs of lower income residents. Please rate the need for: 15. Housing for Persons with Special Needs Seniors/Elderly: No Need Low Medium High Frail Elderly: No Need Low Medium High Persons with HIV/AIDS: No Need Low Medium High Victims of domestic violence: No Need Low Medium High Large households (5 or more persons): No Need Low Medium High Single parent households: No Need Low Medium High Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions: No Need Low Medium High Persons with mental illness: No Need Low Medium High Persons with developmental disabilities: No Need Low Medium High Persons with significant physical disabilities: No Need Low Medium High Persons who are homeless: No Need Low Medium High 16. Affordable Rental Housing Rehabilitation of existing housing developments: No Need Low Medium High Preservation of existing affordable rental housing: No Need Low Medium High Lead-based paint screening & abatement of rentals: No Need Low Medium High Energy efficiency improvements: No Need Low Medium High Construction of new affordable rental housing: No Need Low Medium High New construction near mass transit: No Need Low Medium High New construction of work-force housing: No Need Low Medium High One-time rental assistance for struggling renters: No Need Low Medium High 17. Help for lower income homeowners. Please rate the need for: Foreclosure counseling: No Need Low Medium High Home purchase counseling: No Need Low Medium High First time homebuyer financial assistance: No Need Low Medium High Modifications for persons with disabilities: No Need Low Medium High Emergency repairs for lower income homeowners: No Need Low Medium High Rehabilitation assistance for lower income homeowners: No Need Low Medium High Energy efficiency improvements: No Need Low Medium High Lead-based paint screening and abatement: No Need Low Medium High New construction of below market rate homes: No Need Low Medium High Other housing needs: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 Economic Development Finally, let’s discuss your thoughts on the needs of businesses and employees. 18. Here is a list of common types of Economic Development activities. Please check all the needs that you see in your community. Job training with placement services and follow-up: No Need Low Medium High Technical assistance to small businesses: No Need Low Medium High Training for small business owners/start-ups: No Need Low Medium High Job development and creation: No Need Low Medium High Banking/lending for commercial development: No Need Low Medium High Retail development: No Need Low Medium High Small business loans: No Need Low Medium High Storefront improvements in low income areas: No Need Low Medium High Pollution/property cleanup: No Need Low Medium High Other economic development needs: ______________________________________________________________________ 19. Any final thoughts or comments you would like to leave us with? ______________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ That’s it – you are done! Thank you SO much for the time you have spent in completing this survey. If you would like to receive the results of survey, want to be included in future notices regarding the development of the 2020-25 Consolidated Plan, and/or want to receive a copy of the completed plan, include your email here: _____________________________________________________________________________ Email Address Please mail your survey to City of Antioch, below, or drop off at any of these locations: City of Antioch Community Development Dept. c/o Teri House 200 H St. Antioch, CA 94509 City of Concord Community & Economic Development Dept. c/o Brenda Kain 1950 Parkside Dr. Concord, CA 94519 City of Pittsburg Community Access Dept. c/o Melaine Venenciano 65 Civic Ave. Pittsburg, CA 94565 City of Walnut Creek Community & Economic Development Dept. c/o Cara Bautista-Rao 1666 N. Main St., Flr 2 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development c/o Kristin Sherk 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa Health, Housing & Homeless Services c/o Jaime Jenett 2400 Bisso Lane, Suite D, 2nd Floor Concord, CA 94520 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Contra Costa County Public Law Library Board of Trustees Fiscal Year 2018/19 Report. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact BACKGROUND: Per Resolution No. 2011/497, each Advisory Body shall submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the report is not accepted, the Board will not have an official record of the Public Law Library Board of Trustees activities in the past year. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Jami Napier, 335-1908 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa County Public Law Library Board of Trustees Fiscal Year 2018/19 Report ATTACHMENTS FY 2018/19 Public Law Library Report RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute an amendment to the Option Agreement and Agreement to Settle Litigation between the County and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District, extending the term of the District’s option to purchase approximately five acres of County-owned property located at 1750 Oak Park Blvd. and 75 Santa Barbara Road in Pleasant Hill. (Project No. WO113B) FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase price under the option agreement is $3 million. If the District exercises its option to purchase the subject property, proceeds from the sale will be deposited in the General Fund to reimburse the County for expenses incurred in connection with the sale. Sale proceeds that exceed expenses will be deposited into the County Library Fund, fund 120600. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Karen Laws, 925. 957-2456 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Option Agreement between the County and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District BACKGROUND: On April 18, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved the Option Agreement and Agreement to Settle Litigation (Option Agreement) between the County and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (District). Under the Option Agreement, the District has an exclusive option to purchase the County-owned real property located in Pleasant Hill at 1750 Oak Park Blvd and 75 Santa Barbara Road (together, Parcel 1) for potential recreation and park purposes. On July 24, 2018, the County, the District and the City of Pleasant Hill entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the future use of Parcel 1 and 10 adjacent acres at 1700 Oak Park Blvd. The MOU contemplates the District acquiring approximately five acres of the 1700 Oak Park Blvd. property. The remaining 5 acres at 1700 Oak Park Blvd is the potential site of a new Pleasant Hill Library. The Option Agreement currently expires on December 31, 2019. The purpose of amending the Option Agreement is to provide more time for the County, the District, and the City to pursue the project contemplated by the MOU. Under the proposed amendment, the Option Agreement will either expire when the 5-acre site at 1700 Oak Park Blvd. is conveyed to the District as contemplated in the MOU, or April 1, 2021, whichever occurs first. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not extending the term of the Option Agreement could have a negative impact on the parties’ ability to complete the transactions contemplated by the MOU. ATTACHMENTS First Amendment to Option Agreement Recording requested by, and after recording return to: Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District 141 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 With a copy to: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94533 Attn: Real Property Division APN: 149-271-014 For Recorder’s use only FIRST AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO SETTLE LITIGATION BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE PLEASANT HILL RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT This document amends the OPTION AGREEMENTAND AGREEMENT TO SETTLE LITIGATION BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE PLEASANT HILL RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (“Option Agreement”), which was entered into by and between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District, a special district existing under the laws of the State of California (“District”). The County and the District may each be referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. The Option Agreement was recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County on May 11, 2017 at DOC-2017-0082234-00. B. On August 30, 2019, the City of Pleasant Hill released its Environmental Impact Report for the Oak Park Properties Specific Plan (“Project”). C. The Parties are working cooperatively to pursue the Project together with the City of Pleasant Hill and Mount Diablo Unified School District. 1. The Parties are working cooperatively to implement a July 24, 2018 Memorandum of Understanding executed by the Parties and the City of Pleasant Hill. 2. The County is working cooperatively to implement its July 1, 2018 Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with the Mount Diablo Unified School District. D. The Parties wish to extend the Option Agreement to provide more time to pursue the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the Parties contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Section 2(b) of the Option Agreement is amended to read as follows: Option Term. The term of this Option (the “Option Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on the earlier of the following: (i) April 1, 2021, or (ii) Completion of the “Recreation Site Conveyance” referenced in Section 4(B) of the July 24, 2018 Memorandum of Understanding executed by the Parties and the City of Pleasant Hill regarding the Oak Park Properties Project, which completion the Parties shall memorialize through the concurrent recordation of a document indicating that this Option has expired/terminated. 2. Section 19 of the Option Agreement is amended to read as follows: Integrated Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement, together with the July 24, 2018 Memorandum of Understanding referenced herein, contains all the agreements of the parties concerning the subject hereof and cannot be amended or modified except by a written instrument executed and delivered by both parties. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, either oral or written, between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not expressed herein. In addition, there are no representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, either oral or written, between or among the parties upon which any party is relying upon in entering this Agreement that are not expressed herein. 3. In all other respects, the Option Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 4. This amendment is effective upon execution by both Parties. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By: _________________________ Brian Balbas, Public Works Director [signature must be notarized] PLEASANT HILL RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT By: _______________________________ Michelle Lacy General Manager [signature must be notarized] Recommended for Approval: By: __________________________ Karen A. Laws Principal Real Property Agent Approved as to Form: By: __________________________ Osa L. Wolff General Counsel Approved as to Form: Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel By: __________________________ Assistant County Counsel 1177879.1 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan as amended and restated, effective January 1, 2020, and AUTHORIZE the Plan Administrator to take all necessary actions to implement the revised plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact to County in implementing the revised plan. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan (“Plan”) provides eligible employees with options among certain taxable and nontaxable benefits, including medical, dental and vision plans, Health Care Spending Accounts (HCSA), the Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), and Health Savings Accounts (HSA) offered through the County or Public Employees' Medical & Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The Plan is intended to qualify as a cafeteria plan under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Code. The Plan is amended to implement the automatic enrollment of health plan participants in the Premium Conversion Program (“PCP”), which uses pre-tax earnings APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Dianne Dinsmore 925-335-1776 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Section 125 Benefits Plan revision- Enrollment of Health Plan Participants in the Premium Conversion Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to pay for a participant’s share of their healthcare plan premiums. The amended Plan states that healthcare premium deductions will automatically be taken on a pre-tax basis under the PCP, rather than as an election, to ensure health plan participants benefit from the use of pre-tax monies. The Plan was last amended and restated on January 1, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the amended Plan, which allows for automatic enrollment in the Premium Conversion Program (“PCP”), some employees may not receive the benefit of using pre-tax deductions to pay for their share of healthcare deductions under the Section 125 Plan. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on October 16, 2019, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval must be contained within each CCHP provider’s credentials file. Approval of this list of providers as recommended by the CCHP Medical Director will enable the Contra Costa Health Plan to comply with this requirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s Providers would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the NCQA. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Heather Wong C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Networ ATTACHMENTS October 16, 2019 CCHP Credentialing, Recredentialing List Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director October 16 , 2019 CREDENTIALING PROVIDER S OCTOBER 2019 Name Specialty Clark, Tyler, MD Surgery – Orthopaedic Danielyan, Arman, MD Psychiatry / Child & Adolescent Psychiatry DeSouza, Neha, MD Hematology/Oncology Holt, Scott, HAD Hearing Aid Dispensing Kundu, Nirvana, MD Pain Medicine La Torre, Danielle, MA Qualified Autism Provider Law, Jason, MD Nephrology Purcell, Genevieve, CNM Midwife Uhm, Suji, MD Family Planning Wang, Chenghua, BS, RBT Qualified Autism Professional Willis, Chelsy, BA Qualified Autism Professional Wilson, Susan, MD Family Planning CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER OCTOBER 2019 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Premier Surgery Ce nter Surgery Center Petaluma RECREDENTIALING PROVIDER S OCTOBER 2019 Name Specialty Ally, Zahora, MD Radiation Oncolog y Bader, Semon, MD Surgery – Orthopaedic Barocio, Azucena, PA Primary Care Family Medicine Bell, David, MD Orthopaedic Surgery/ Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Bennett, Amy, OT Occupational Therapy Berjis, Sahar, RD Dietitian Brandel, Joseph, MD Surgery – General Carter, Kristine, NP Mid-Level OB/GYN Cherry, Suraj, MD Opht halmology Enz, Jose, MD Primary Care Pediatrician Giessman, Dale, DC Chiropractic Medicine Guptill, Marie, LAc Acupuncture Halstenrud, Terri, PT Physical Therapy Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director October 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDER S OCTOBER 2019 Name Specialty Iota-Herbei, Claudia, MD Nephrology Jensen, Kirk, MD Surgery – Orthopaedic Jimenez, Lau ra, PT Physical Therapy Jumper, James, MD Ophthalmology Kelly, Laura, PT Physical Therapy Kram, Jerrold, MD Sleep Medicine Malhotra, Akshiv, MD Hematology/Oncology Mariotti, Eric, MD Surgery – Plastic Ramachandra, Srinivas, MD Surgery – Vascular Rice, Bruce, MD Otolaryngology Ruddy, John, MD Sleep Medicine Sayo, Legson, PT Physical Therapy Sharma, Gauri, DO Hematology/Oncology Sutton, Brenda, OD Optometry Vance, William, DPT Physical Therapy Volpe-Johnstone, Theresa, PhD Qualified Autism Provid er Wang, Kathryn, DPT Physical Therapy Wills, Robinson, DPT Physical Therapy Wood, Monica, MFT Mental Health Services R ECREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER OCTOBER 2019 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Professional Healthcare at Home, LLC dba: Kindred at Home - Home Health - Pleasant Hill Home Health Pleasant Hill Bopl-October 16, 2019 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT quarterly report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body. FISCAL IMPACT: No specific fiscal impact. This is a quarterly report of the County's assets in the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Public Agencies Post-Retirement Health Care Plan Trust. BACKGROUND: On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors directed the formation of a Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body (consisting of the County Administrator, County Finance Director, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Auditor-Controller, and Health Services Finance Director). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller, Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Patrick Godley, HSD Chief Financial Officer C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Quarterly Report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) At its meeting of August 4, 2011, the body discussed and reviewed final report formats with HighMark Capital Management and made recommendations regarding a final standardized quarterly report. The attached report is in the standardized format. The following is the investment summary for the period ending September 30, 2019: Investment Summary Third Quarter 2019 Beginning Value $308,513,961.45 Net Contributions/Withdrawals -48,355.64 Fees Deducted -49,253.52 Income Received 1,547,089.24 Market Appreciation 1,666,191.60 Net Change in Accrued Income -169,028.21 Market Value $311,460,604.92 Additional Materials - A Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body web-page can be found at the following address: http://ca-contracostacounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2915. The page describes the function of the body, posts quarterly meeting materials, and all pertinent trust and plan documents. ATTACHMENTS Quarterly Report (Q3, 2019) PARS: County of Contra Costa Third Quarter 2019 Presented by Andrew Brown, CFA Revised This presentation has been prepared for the sole use of the intended recipient.While the information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable,any other reproduction or use of this information may necessitate further disclosures in order to ensure that the presentation is accurate,balanced,and conforms to all applicable regulatory requirements. DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS U.S.Economic and Market Overview After posting strong returns for the first half of 2019,domestic equity markets offered modest returns in the third quarter.Equity returns were supported by accommodative monetary policy from the Federal Reserve (Fed),with the Fed cutting rates by a quarter-point twice in the quarter. Investors also were somewhat relieved by corporate earnings that,while showing some levels of decline on a year-over-year basis,were still encouraging that the second half of the year would witness positive readings.On the other hand,the third quarter witnessed several developments that may prove challenging to future equity returns.First,while there has been an occasional encouraging sign related to the U.S. and China’s trade conflict,both sides seem to be settling into positions that could extend the conflict.Secondly,the U.S.House of Representatives’began a formal impeachment investigation into President Trump.While there could be numerous market outcomes related to these proceedings,some investors seem to be most worried that this could give support to the emergence of a progressive Democratic presidential candidate such as Bernie Sanders,or more likely Senator Elizabeth Warren.In that we are still a little more than one year away from the elections,it is too soon to discount the potential outcome of the 2020 elections.But some investors are beginning to wonder,and possibly worry,about what the impact might be to the market if policies supported by Senator Warren would come to fruition.Third,the on-going drama related to the United Kingdom’s Brexit,continues to march toward a potential October 31 deadline.However,there have been many deadlines established previously…Finally,geopolitically significant events such as the protests in Hong Kong,combined with the attacks on two Saudi Arabian oil installations contributed negatively to investor sentiment. Economic data has slowed this year.Non-Farm payroll additions,while still in positive territory,are not as strong as they were in 2018.Perhaps this is to be expected given the 3.5%unemployment rate.The weakness in the Purchasing Manager Indices was one of the low-lights of the quarter.The ISM Manufacturing indicator offered a September reading of 47.8,and the non-manufacturing ISM slowed to a September reading of 52.6.Readings below the 50-level have been historically been associated with economic slowdowns.Personal Consumption grew 2.3% year-over-year,in August 2019,but was below the average level of the last few years.On top of the August reading for consumption,retail sales figures in September registered a -0.3%(month over month)rate of growth.Given the weakening economic data and the inverted yield curve, the Fed took action and lowered rates twice during the quarter.Easier monetary policy takes time to benefit the economy however,and there is some debate that given the current low level of interest rates,is there much impact to be garnered from these two Fed cuts,or is it more designed to support investor confidence? 3 PARS: County of Contra Costa Market Overview/Performance Discussion Total Plan The County of Contra Costa OPEB Plan returned 0.97%net of investment fees in the third quarter,which trailed the County’s Plan benchmark target of 1.25%.Investment contribution from the equity managers was disappointing in the quarter,mainly in the large cap segment.Three of the five large cap managers underperformed the benchmark in the quarter,with both large cap growth managers:Harbor Capital Appreciation (-2.1%)and T.Rowe Price Growth (-1.2%)registering performance that was in the bottom quartile of the Morningstar US Fund Large Growth Universe.Performance was also disappointing from the large cap value manager:Dodge &Cox Stock Fund,where the +0.2%return ranked in the 86th percentile of the Morningstar US Fund Large Value Universe.The Plan’s small cap equity managers,also registered disappointing performance,underperforming both their style benchmarks,and their corresponding peer universes.With the MSCI-EAFE Index (-1.07%), MSCI-Emerging Market Index (-4.25%)and the MSCI-ACWI Index (-0.03%)all registering negative returns,the international/global equity segments did not offer much in the way of positive contribution in the quarter.A modest positive came from the performance of the MFS Global Equity R6 Fund which returned 0.54%.An additional positive was the Plan maintained a slight underweight to the international equity segment. The Plan did benefit from an overweight to REIT equity,which was the strongest contributing sector,with the Wilshire REIT Index up +7.9%. Finally,while we have moved to an underweight allocation to the alternative asset class segment,the performance of all four alternative managers outperformed the benchmark target in the third quarter. Domestic Equity Domestic large cap stocks (Russell 1000 Index)gained a modest 1.42%in the quarter.Large cap growth stocks barely outperformed large cap value stocks (1.49%vs.1.36%)in the quarter,but what was noteworthy was the September performance where the Russell 1000 Value Index returned 3.57%vs.the Russell 1000 Growth Index return of 0.01%.While it seems that growth stocks have been the market leader for several years now (perhaps due to the performance of growth-related bell-weathers such as Microsoft,Apple,and Visa),large cap value has actually outperformed large cap growth over the past year (4%vs.3.7%).Small cap stocks,as measured by the Russell 2000 Index were in negative territory in the quarter,returning -2.4%.Conventional wisdom would think small cap stocks would be less impacted by the fall-out related to trade war activities.However,some market participants point to the decline in small cap stocks as perhaps being an early indicator of possible future recession risks.For the trailing twelve month period ending September 30,2019,the Russell 2000 Index was down -8.9%.The leading equity market in the third quarter was once again REITs,up 7.9%,which likely reflect investor’s thirst for yield,and for investments that have less of a connection with global trade issues. 4 PARS: County of Contra Costa Domestic Equity •The Plan’s large cap equity segment returned 0.95%in the quarter,which trailed the Russell 1000 Index return of 1.42%. •The iShares Russell 1000 ETF 1.38%in the quarter. •The Columbia Contrarian Core Fund returned 1.91%in the quarter,which outperformed the benchmark.The Fund ranked in the 33rd percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Large Blend Universe. •The Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund returned -2.11%in the quarter,which trailed the Russell 1000 Growth Index’s return of 1.49%. The Fund ranked in the 81st percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Large Growth Universe. •The T.Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund returned -1.15%in the quarter,which trailed the Russell 1000 Growth Index.The Fund ranked in the 72nd percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Large Growth Universe. •The Dodge and Cox Stock Fund gained 0.21%in the quarter,and lagged the Russell 1000 Value Index’s return of 1.36%.The Fund ranked in the 86th percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Large Value Universe. •The Vanguard Growth and Income Fund registered a 1.52%return in the quarter,which slightly exceeded the Russell 1000 Index.The Fund ranked in the 51st percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Large Blend Universe. •The mid cap equity segment returned 0.52%in the quarter,which was in-line with the Russell Mid Cap Index return of 0.48%. •The iShares Russell Mid Cap ETF returned 0.43%in the quarter. •The small cap equity segment returned -3.36%in the quarter,which lagged the Russell 2000 Index return of -2.4%. •The iShares Russell 2000 ETF returned -2.42%in the third quarter. •The Victory RS Small Cap Growth Fund returned -7.29%in the quarter,which trailed the Russell 2000 Growth Index.The fund ranked in the 84th percentile of the Morningstar U.S.Fund Small Growth Universe. •The Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Value Fund returned -1.31%in the quarter,and underperformed the Russell 2000 Value Index’s return of -0.57%.The Fund ranked in the 67th percentile of Morningstar’s U.S.Fund Small Value Universe. 5 PARS: County of Contra Costa Real Estate REIT equity performance was by far and away the strongest area for the Plan in the third quarter with the Wilshire REIT Index returning 7.9%. Monetary policy remains supportive for REIT equity as the Fed has moved to a dovish tone in it’s interest rate policy,by implementing two ¼ point rate cuts.Performance for the sector was positive across most industries with triple-net (11.5%),apartment/residential (10.4%),healthcare (11.2%),and data centers (15.3%)showing strong performance.Regional mall (-1%)and Agriculture/Land (0%)were sectors that showed underperformance in the quarter.Currently the Plan has a slight overweight to this asset class,which we expect to benefit from the underlying trends in employment,low interest rates,and consumer confidence.Some counter trends that we are monitoring include slowing growth in the lodging/leisure sector,and a slowdown in the office segment as the decline in demand from co-working firms such as We Work,may potentially impact demand in the upcoming year.Finally,the expected closures of retail stores is always a data point to monitor as on-line shopping grabs a larger percentage of retail expenditures.As we are somewhat late in the economic cycle,the slowdown in economic fundamentals will likely impact certain sectors of the REIT universe. The Vanguard REIT ETF returned 7.40%which ranked in the 42nd percentile of Morningstar’s U.S.Fund Real Estate Universe International/Global Equity Global stocks ended the volatile third quarter with modest losses.Currency had a meaningful influence on quarterly performance.The developed markets,as represented by the MSCI-EAFE Index returned -1.07%,and emerging markets (MSCI-Emerging Market Index)declined -4.25%in dollar terms.In local currency terms however,the developed markets index returned +1.75%.The strong appreciation of the dollar and corresponding weakness in developed market currencies impacted returns in dollar terms.The on-going trade issues between the U.S.and China weighed on foreign markets.Additionally,concerns surrounding the inverted U.S.yield curve worried some that the U.S.was headed into a recession –which would have negative consequences on international markets.European stocks were under pressure from concerns that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would take a hardline in efforts to execute the ‘Brexit’.The UK economy contracted in the second quarter of 2019.Additionally,concerns from the German Bundesbank that Germany might be headed to a recession,due to a slow down in German trade statistics were worrisome.Eurozone economic growth is a huge concern as the second quarter posted a 0.8%annualized rate of growth The decline in emerging market stocks certainly reflected the fears from the U.S.-China trade situation,but the declines spread across all geographies:Latin America (-5.6%),emerging Europe (-2.6%),and emerging Asia (-3.4%)all were down in the quarter.Finally,the Middle East and Africa saw Saudi Arabia (-9.5%)and South Africa (-12.6%)post notable declines.Aside from currency issues,geopolitical issues related to the drone strike on two major Saudi Arabian oil installations and elections in Argentina,which saw the populist Fernandez winning the primary election against the business-friendly incumbent,setting up for a win in the general election in October,were impactful. 6 PARS: County of Contra Costa Purchasing Mangers’Index (PMI)data continued to decline globally.Nearly all major markets experienced continued declines in manufacturing business activity.Non-manufacturing services PMI fared modestly better.Eurozone,Japan,as well as other smaller countries’industrial production began declining on a year-over-year basis in late 2018,and continue to decline in 2019.With the weakness,that many attribute to trade related issues,PMI’s are indicating further contraction in the manufacturing sector. •The Plan’s international/global equity segment returned -0.6%in the quarter.This return outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index return of -1.07%but trailed the MSCI ACWI Index return of -0.03%. •The iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF returned -1.12%in the quarter. •The Dodge &Cox International Stock Fund returned -1.66%in the quarter and underperformed the MSCI EAFE Index.The Fund ranked in the 52nd percentile of the Foreign Large Value Universe as measured by Morningstar. •The MFS International Growth Fund returned -1.17%in the quarter which slightly lagged the MSCI EAFE Index.The Fund ranked in the 48th percentile for Foreign Large Growth managers as measured by Morningstar. •The iShares MSCI ACWI Index ETF returned 0.03%in the quarter. •The American Funds New Perspective Fund recorded a -0.42%return in the quarter,which trailed the MSCI ACWI Index and ranked in the 59th percentile within the Morningstar World Large Stock Universe •The MFS Global Equity R6 Fund returned 0.54%,which outperformed the benchmark and ranked in the 30th percentile of the Morningstar World Large Stock Universe. •The Hartford Schroders Emerging Market Equity Fund returned -2.68%during the quarter and outperformed the MSCI Emerging Market benchmark return of -4.25%.The Fund ranked in the 28th percentile of the Morningstar Diversified Emerging Market Universe. Fixed Income Interest rates continued to decline in the third quarter,resulting in a 2.3%gain for the Bloomberg Barclays U.S.Aggregate Index,and an impressive 8.5%year-to-date return.U.S.Treasuries gained 2.4%this quarter,while investment-grade corporate bonds returned 3.1%, outperforming equal duration Treasuries by a modest 4 basis points for the quarter and 407 basis points year-to-date.Corporate bond spreads ended the third quarter unchanged at a +122 basis point spread to the treasury curve,despite increased volatility in August and was narrower by 37 basis points since the year began. Non-investment grade corporates gained 1.3%in the quarter,18 basis points better than equivalent duration Treasuries,and a solid 11.4%year- to-date,654 basis points ahead of Treasuries.This robust performance,however,is partially due to the underperformance in last year’s fourth quarter when high yield bonds lagged Treasuries by a substantial 680 basis points. 7 PARS: County of Contra Costa Fixed Income (Cont.) Agency mortgage-backed security spreads were unchanged during the quarter,outperforming Treasuries by 4 basis points.The slight outperformance in the third quarter resulted in a year-to-date total return of 5.6%,only 5 basis points behind equal duration Treasuries. The Fed cut the Fed Funds rate in both July and September by 25 basis points each,to a new target range of 1.75-2.00%.This is the first monetary easing since the 2008 credit crisis and comes on the heels of nine ¼point hikes between 2015 and 2018.As a result,U.S.Treasury rates experienced a significant decline in the month of August as concerns about slower global economic growth,a prolonged trade war,Brexit worries and apprehension that the Federal Reserve was falling even further behind in aggressively cutting rates drove a rush into safe-haven assets.Fed officials pivoted from interest rate hikes at the beginning of the year,to rate cuts,as market expectations and an inverted yield curve signaled the potential that the U.S.was at risk of falling into recession.The ten-year Treasury yield,which reached a high of nearly 3.25%last November,ended the third quarter at 1.67%. Soon after the third quarter ended,the Fed announced a limited quantitative easing campaign whereby it will increase purchases of U.S. Treasury bills to $80 billion per month,from $20 billion,at least through June 2020.The aim is to stabilize money market rates and to alleviate the NY Fed’s need to do overnight and term repos. The portfolio continues to overweight corporate credit and securitized debt,while underweighting U.S.Treasuries relative to the Bloomberg Barclays U.S.Aggregate Index.We are positioned more heavily in the intermediate part of the curve relative to the long end.Furthermore,the portfolio targets an effective duration modestly below that of the Aggregate Index.During the quarter though,this contributed to the relative underperformance as long maturity bonds rallied. •The Plan’s fixed income segment returned 2.15%in the quarter,which slightly lagged the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index return of 2.27%. •The separately managed fixed income portfolio returned 2.0%which trailed the benchmark.The portfolio would have ranked approximately in the 68th percentile of the Morningstar Intermediate Core Bond Universe. •The PIMCO Total Return Bond Fund posted a 2.36%return in the quarter,which ranked in the 20th percentile of Morningstar’s U.S.Intermediate-Term Core-Plus Bond Universe.The Fund outperformed the Index. •The Prudential Total Return Bond Fund returned 2.68%in the quarter.This ranked in the 2nd percentile of Morningstar’s U.S. Intermediate-Term Core-Plus Bond Universe and outperformed the benchmark. 8 PARS: County of Contra Costa Alternative Investments The Alternatives portion of the Plan returned 1.41%and outperformed the Wilshire Liquid Alternative Index return of 0.42%All managers generated returns in excess of the benchmark.The leading performance in the space came from the Eaton Vance Global Macro Fund,which gained 2.03%.Positive contributions were posted from exposure to most geographic areas which the fund invested in,with Eastern Europe and Middle East &Africa delivering the bulk of the gains.Long local bond and sovereign credit positions in Ukraine,a long Egyptian Pound position, long positions in Serbian debt,and a long Icelandic local bond holding represented highlights for the quarter.The only region offering losses in the quarter was Latin America,where a long position in the Argentine Peso and a long position in the Brazilian currency the Real,declined in the quarter.At the end of the quarter,the managers foreign currency positioning was net long versus both the U.S.dollar and the Euro.Foreign currency positioning included:long positions in the Ukrainian Hryvnia,long currency holdings in Taiwan,and a long position in the Thai Bhat. The Blackrock Strategic Income Fund produced a 0.89%return for the third quarter.Positive performance was driven by their duration position (+35 bps),structured credit (+26 bps),absolute return strategy (+17 bps),U.S.high yield (+14 bps),European credit (+10 bps)and U.S. investment grade corporate holdings (+7 bps).The only significant detractor was emerging market debt which decline by -15 basis points.The duration is currently at 3.7 years which is the highest it has been in years,according to the managers.The strategy’s duration usually falls within a 0 to 3 years range.The team believes that the Fed is committed to extending the economic expansion,and this would likely lead to a 25 bps cut before the end of the year.The team also favors highly liquid high yield corporate issues as a proxy for the continued economic expansion. The BlackRock Event Driven Fund posted a 1.54%return for the quarter,resulting in a peer ranking of 23 in the Morningstar Market Neutral category.While hard catalyst situations was the largest contributor (+1.39%)for the quarter,soft catalyst and credit also contributed 5bps and 11bps respectively.The fund has increased their exposure to hard catalyst situations from 82%of long market value in Q2 to 86%given the robust opportunity set in mergers and acquisitions.The remaining 14%is allocated 7%in soft catalyst situations and 7%in credit.Going forward, we should continue to see the majority of exposure and returns coming by way of M&A with opportunities presenting themselves in soft catalyst and credit strategies. The Western Asset Macro Opportunities Fund returned 0.78%.Duration and curve positioning was the most significant contributor to performance.The effective duration of the Fund was 4.8 years at the end of the quarter.Emerging market debt contributed to performance with Brazil,Mexico and Russia areas that aided performance.Foreign exchange positioning was mainly additive to performance due to long positions in the Russian Ruble and Argentine Peso strengthening relative to the U.S.dollar.Investment-grade credit positions were a slight positive.The portfolio managers are under the belief that with global growth moderating and inflation contained,spread product especially financials/banks should outperform sovereign debt.Additionally,the team sees emerging markets more attractive than developed market debt. 9 PARS: County of Contra Costa Alternative Investments (Cont’d) •The alternative investment segment returned 1.41%in the third quarter,which exceeded the Wilshire Liquid Alternatives Index return of 0.42%. •The BlackRock Strategic Income Opportunity Fund returned 0.89%,which exceeded the benchmark,and ranked in the 40th percentile of Morningstar’s Non-Traditional Bond Universe. •The Eaton Vance Global Macro Absolute Return Fund gained 2.03%which ranked in the 6th percentile of Morningstar’s Non- Traditional Universe •The Western Asset Macro Opportunities Fund returned 0.78%in the third quarter and ranked in the 50th percentile of Morningstar’s Non-Traditional Universe. •The BlackRock Event Driven Equity Fund returned 1.54%in the quarter and ranked in the 23rd percentile of the Morningstar US Fund Market Neutral Universe Asset Allocation/Portfolio Transitions There were no changes in investment managers in the quarter. In September the County Board of Supervisors approved a revision to the investment policy for the Plan.The Plan’s policy benchmark was revised to reflect an asset allocation target of 56%stocks,43%fixed income,and 1%cash.Alternatives were removed from the policy benchmark allocation,but alternatives can remain as an allowable investment category.In the month of September,we began to transition the portfolio allocation to reflect the new policy targets.Our allocation as of the end of the quarter was 53.5%stocks,40%fixed income,5% alternatives,and 1.5%cash.We effectively have migrated to an underweight equity position in the most recent quarter.Our concerns prompting a reduction to stocks are focused on the global slowdown,issues related to Brexit,the somewhat expensive large cap equity market, and the concerns surrounding the trade tensions between the U.S.and China. 10 PARS: County of Contra Costa Manager Watch List Name of Fund Date on watch list Date exiting watch list Recommendation Rationale Columbia Contrarian Core Fund 3Q 2018 Retain on Watch List Originally,the Annualized return trailed the benchmark return on a 3-year basis,triggering inclusion on the manager watch list. Disappointing annual performance in 2018 will linger for several quarters with respect to the 3- year rolling return.The manager has posted encouraging 2019 performance,outperforming the underlying benchmark every quarter and posting the strongest return of all large cap equity managers in 2019.We will maintain the Watch rating. Dodge & Cox International 3Q 2018 Retain on Watch List Underperformance relative to the benchmark. The managers are underperforming the MSCI- EAFE Index,however with respect to their peer universe,they are performing respectably. MFS International Growth R6 N/A Not placed on Watch David Antonelli one of three co-portfolio managers for the Fund has announced that he will retire from the firm in 18 months.The other two co-managers will stay on and maintain their duties.Mr.Antonelli has worked for MFS for 27 years.We interviewed the team on-site in mid- October.We are comfortable that the remaining two members (who have been co-PMs since 2012/2015)will be able to meet our expectations. MFS relies on a centralized research platform, which,while not diluting the importance of the PMs,does offer a key component to the success of the strategy.And there are no changes to the centralized research team.While PM turnover is one factor in a fund being placed on Watch,we are comfortable,after meeting with the team,that they can overcome the pending turnover.We have decided to not place the manager on the watch list. 11 PARS: County of Contra Costa 12 6/30/2019 6/30/2019 9/30/2019 9/30/2019 Target Asset Allocation Market Value % of Total Market Value % of Total Allocation Large Cap Equities Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 9,262,257 3.0%9,324,664 3.0%-- iShares Russell 1000 ETF 20,313,587 6.6%23,960,808 7.7%-- Vanguard Growth & Income Adm 10,809,008 3.5%9,369,321 3.0%-- Dodge & Cox Stock Fund 7,730,627 2.5%7,945,384 2.6%-- Harbor Capital Appreciation Retirement 3,859,270 1.3%3,778,001 1.2%-- T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 3,856,833 1.3%3,812,540 1.2%-- Total Large Cap Equities 55,831,583$ 18.1%58,190,719$ 18.7%19.0% Range Range 13-32% Mid Cap Equities iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF 17,028,841 5.5%17,053,224 5.5%-- Total Mid Cap Equities 17,028,841$ 5.5%17,053,224$ 5.5%6.0% Range Range 2-10% Small Cap Equities iShares Russell 2000 ETF 12,429,893 4.0%12,314,536 4.0%-- Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 6,002,064 2.0%6,257,824 2.0% Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 6,234,679 2.0%6,097,132 2.0% Total Small Cap Equities 24,666,636$ 8.0%24,669,491$ 7.9%9.0% Range Range 4-12% International Equities DFA Large Cap International I 4,497,581 1.5%4,798,325 1.5%-- iShares MSCI EAFE ETF 13,627,012 4.4%11,917,519 3.8%-- Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund 4,604,094 1.5%4,852,772 1.6%-- MFS® International Growth R6 4,584,410 1.5%4,712,302 1.5%-- Hartford Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y 6,074,085 2.0%3,993,421 1.3%-- Total International Equities 33,387,182 10.8%30,274,338$ 9.7%10.0% Range Range 4-16% Global Equities MSCI iShares ACWI Index ETF 12,097,727 3.9%10,980,048 3.5% American Funds New Perspective R6 4,539,507 1.5%4,662,061 1.5% MFS Global Equity FD CL R5 #4818 4,593,025 1.5%4,670,500 1.5% Total Global Equities 21,230,259$ 6.9%20,312,609$ 6.5%8.0% Range Range 4-12% Asset Allocation Period Ending September 30, 2019 PARS: County of Contra Costa 13 6/30/2019 6/30/2019 9/30/2019 9/30/2019 Target Asset Allocation Market Value % of Total Market Value % of Total Allocation Real Estate Vanguard Real Estate ETF 13,863,038 4.5%15,797,762 5.1% 13,863,038$ 4.5%15,797,762$ 5.1%4.0% Range Range 0-8% Fixed Income Core Fixed Income Holdings 79,363,165 25.8%86,568,212 27.8%-- PIMCO Total Return Instl Fund 16,165,340 5.3%18,852,721 6.1%-- Prudential Total Return Bond Q 16,171,243 5.3%18,886,670 6.1%-- Total Fixed Income 111,699,748$ 36.3%124,307,604$ 40.0%43.0% Range Range 30-50% Alternatives BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl 4,514,787 1.5%4,688,205 1.5%-- BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K 3,045,055 1.0%3,917,401 1.3%-- Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 3,804,027 1.2%3,902,460 1.3%-- Western Asset Macro Opportunities IS 4,601,208 1.5%3,125,540 1.0%-- Total Alternatives 15,965,077$ 5.2%15,633,605$ 5.0%0.0% Range Range 0-10% Cash Money Market 14,087,047 4.6%4,635,731 1.5%-- Total Cash 14,087,047$ 4.6%4,635,731$ 1.5%1.0% Range Range 0-5% TOTAL 307,759,412$ 100.0%310,875,084$ 100.0%100.0% Asset Allocation Period Ending September 30, 2019 PARS: County of Contra Costa *Ending Market Value differs from total market value on the previous page due to differences in reporting methodology. The ab ove ending market value is reported as of trade date and includes accruals. The Asset Allocation total market value is reported as of settlement date. 14 Investment Summary Third Quarter 2019 Year to Date 2019 Beginning Value 308,513,961.45 260,226,787.74$ Net Contributions/Withdrawals -48,355.64 15,910,069.09 Fees Deducted -49,253.52 -146,746.53 Income Received 1,547,089.24 5,006,762.73 Market Appreciation 1,666,191.60 30,500,068.75 Net Change in Accrued Income -169,028.21 -36,336.86 Ending Market Value*311,460,604.92$ 311,460,604.92$ * Investment Summary Third Quarter 2018 Year to Date 2018 Beginning Value 269,670,257.66 254,664,786.12$ Net Contributions/Withdrawals -109,484.73 15,840,653.74 Fees Deducted -48,396.64 -145,010.02 Income Received 1,443,879.28 3,848,578.56 Market Appreciation 4,761,005.50 1,473,025.06 Net Change in Accrued Income 140,831.83 176,059.44 Ending Market Value*275,858,092.90$ 275,858,092.90$ * Investment Summary Period Ending September 30, 2019 PARS: County of Contra Costa Investment Strategy As of September 30, 2019 Tactical Asset Allocation Asset Class % Portfolio Weighting Rationale Target Current Portfolio Over/Under Weighting Cash 1.0%1.5%+0.5% Fixed Income 38.0%40.0%+2.0%▪We anticipate the Federal Reserve will cut rates between 1-2 times between now and the end of 2020,although market participants are beginning to discount further cuts from the Fed.The trillions of dollars of global sovereign debt trading at negative yields will likely keep a bid in the fixed income markets.Inflation expectations seem to be anchored at 2%. Alternatives 10.0%5.0%-5.0%▪We maintain an allocation to alternatives,reflecting our desire to be underweight to equities.As well,it is difficult to be overweight fixed income markets after the Barclays Aggregate Index is up 10%over the past twelve months. Real Estate (REITS)4.0%5.0%+1.0%▪With the Fed likely poised to reverse their interest rate hiking policy,we see support for REIT equity.REIT fundamentals will likely be aided by positive unemployment trends,consumer spending,and GDP growth.Valuations are not cheap when compared to fixed income,and other equity categories,hence the small overweight to REITs.REITs have historically performed well in late-cycle periods. Global Equity 7.0%6.5%-0.5%▪A variety of global economic readings are indicating a deceleration in global growth.Lingering uncertainty or outright escalation of countervailing tariffs in the China/US trade war,and/or a “hard”Brexit could serve to further slow global growth and possibly cause a recession.Global Purchasing manager (PMI)readings declined further in the quarter,but this downturn can be mainly attributed to trade war uncertainties. International (Developed)9.0%8.5%-0.5%▪Global trade represents a larger percentage of GDP for many international nations,than it does for the U.S.As such,uncertainties with global trade that arise from renewing NAFTA,trade skirmishes with China,and threats of applying tariffs on European auto manufacturers, create an overhang on international equities.Global Purchasing Manager surveys declined over the quarter,which is a developing concern.Global central banks are offering policy supportive of maintaining interest rates at low levels.The MSCI-EAFE Index trades at roughly a forward PE level of 14X,which compels us to maintain a weighting near the policy index. International (Emerging)0.0%1.25%+1.25%▪Risks involving the trade war getting worse,and the dollar potentially strengthening,are two unfavorable trends impacting growth and EPS.Earnings revisions have been negative.Current valuations at 11.5X next year’s earnings offer a modest positive. Total Domestic Equity 31.0%32.25%+1.25% Large Cap 17.0%18.75%+1.75%▪We assume a 17X PE ratio for large cap equity,which is slightly overvalued versus historical valuation levels.We estimate earnings for 2020 will show a mid-single digit growth rate.The risks from being ‘late’in the cycle temper our enthusiasm to large cap equities. Mid Cap 6.0%5.5%-0.50%▪Mid-Cap valuations are currently at a 17X PE ratio.We maintain a slight underweight allocation. Small Cap 8.0%8.0%-•High teens earnings growth and a higher exposure to the U.S.economy (less international exposure)are two attractive attributes for small cap equity.Valuations are more reasonable after small cap equities have sold off by -9%over the previous 12 months.Higher beta and higher levels of leverage compel us to maintain an underweight. 15 PARS: County of Contra Costa Inception Date: 02/01/2011 * Benchmark from February 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013: 18% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 8 % MSCI ACWI Index, 10% MSCI EAFE Index, 45% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T Bill Index. From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015: 17% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 7% MSCI AC World US Index, 9% MSCI EAFE Index, 38% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 10% HFRI FOF Market Defensive Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index. From July 1, 2015: 17% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 7% MSCI AC World Index, 9% MSCI EAFE Index, 38% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 10% Wilshire Liquid Alternative Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index ** Dynamic Alternatives Index represents the HFRI FOF Market Defensive Index from 07/01/2013 until 06/30/2015, and then the W ilshire Liquid Alternatives Index from 07/01/2015 forwards. Returns are gross-of-fees unless otherwise noted. Returns for periods over one year are annualized. The information presented ha s been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Secu rities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee, and may lose value. 16 PARS: County of Contra Costa 3 Months Year to Date (9 Months) 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years Inception to Date (104 Months) Cash Equivalents .52 1.67 2.20 1.40 .89 .52 Lipper Money Market Funds Index .49 1.59 2.11 1.31 .80 .46 Fixed Income ex Funds 2.00 8.63 10.13 3.14 3.56 3.85 Total Fixed Income 2.15 8.91 10.42 3.37 3.67 3.97 BBG Barclays US Aggregate Bd Index 2.27 8.52 10.30 2.92 3.38 3.54 Total Equities .30 18.22 1.35 10.16 7.80 8.92 Large Cap Funds .95 19.02 2.23 12.94 10.27 11.44 Russell 1000 Index 1.42 20.53 3.87 13.19 10.62 12.37 Mid Cap Funds .52 21.67 3.29 10.57 8.61 9.78 Russell Midcap Index .48 21.93 3.19 10.69 9.10 11.24 Small Cap Funds -3.36 14.98 -7.90 9.33 8.84 10.69 Russell 2000 Index -2.40 14.18 -8.89 8.23 8.19 9.52 International Equities -.60 15.01 .89 8.16 4.53 5.15 MSCI AC World Index -.03 16.20 1.38 9.71 6.65 7.44 MSCI EAFE Index -1.07 12.80 -1.34 6.48 3.27 4.23 MSCI EM Free Index -4.25 5.89 -2.02 5.97 2.33 1.21 REIT Funds 7.53 28.15 20.27 7.41 9.94 9.85 Wilshire REIT Index 7.88 27.21 18.39 7.21 10.17 10.35 Alternatives 1.41 5.29 4.13 -.48 .78 Dynamic Alternatives Index .42 5.03 1.13 1.85 1.06 .14 Total Managed Portfolio .99 13.32 4.96 6.50 5.52 6.13 Total Account Net of Fees .97 13.27 4.89 6.42 5.43 6.02 Contra Costa Policy Benchmark 1.25 13.29 5.31 6.69 5.84 6.59 Selected Period Performance PARS/COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PRHCP Account 6746038001 Period Ending: 9/30/2019 Revised COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 17 3-Month YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 (7/13)1.91 33 21.86 17 3.85 41 11.34 63 9.77 40 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I -1.15 72 18.99 71 2.21 47 16.47 26 13.15 21 Harbor Capital Appreciation Retirement -2.11 81 18.62 75 -0.82 77 16.34 28 12.74 27 Dodge & Cox Stock (10/14)0.21 86 13.38 87 -2.00 83 11.34 13 8.10 32 Vanguard Growth & Income Adm (12/16)1.52 51 19.28 58 2.32 63 12.67 40 10.52 21 iShares Russell 1000 ETF (3/15)1.38 57 20.42 34 3.76 44 13.04 28 10.49 23 Russell 1000 TR USD 1.42 --20.53 --3.87 --13.19 --10.62 -- iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF (3/15)0.43 44 21.75 17 3.08 24 10.54 24 8.94 18 Russell Mid Cap TR USD 0.48 --21.93 --3.19 --10.69 --9.10 -- Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 (9/16)-1.31 67 14.96 28 -8.51 45 6.20 27 7.66 14 Russell 2000 Value TR USD -0.57 --12.82 ---8.24 --6.54 --7.17 -- Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 (2/19)-7.29 84 21.96 23 -6.42 45 16.10 15 11.94 19 Russell 2000 Growth TR USD -4.17 --15.34 ---9.63 --9.79 --9.08 -- iShares Russell 2000 ETF (3/15)-2.42 76 14.10 54 -8.96 61 8.21 35 8.20 29 Dodge & Cox International Stock -1.66 52 11.00 19 -2.75 26 5.26 28 0.64 69 MFS International Growth R6 -1.17 48 16.76 52 3.06 26 10.07 11 7.35 12 MFS Global Equity R6 (3/15)0.54 30 21.71 10 6.99 14 10.75 29 8.40 21 iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (3/15)-1.12 44 12.80 35 -1.40 40 6.42 25 3.21 38 iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (3/15)0.03 48 16.31 49 1.51 51 10.02 34 6.90 42 American Funds New Perspective R6 (3/15)-0.42 59 18.45 27 2.88 36 12.38 14 9.72 11 DFA Large Cap International I (12/18)-0.99 36 12.98 30 -2.04 50 6.45 23 3.13 44 MSCI EAFE NR USD -1.07 --12.80 ---1.34 --6.48 --3.27 -- MSCI ACWI NR USD -0.03 --16.20 --1.38 --9.71 --6.65 -- Hartford Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq F (11/12)-2.68 28 9.88 31 0.23 45 7.55 17 3.81 14 MSCI EM Free Index -4.25 --5.89 ---2.02 --5.97 --2.33 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS For Period Ending September 30, 2019 PARS: County of Contra Costa COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 18 3-Month YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Vanguard Real Estate ETF (6/17)7.40 42 28.13 35 19.85 29 7.06 52 9.93 39 Wilshire REIT Index 7.88 --27.21 --18.39 --7.21 --10.17 -- Core Fixed Income Portfolio 2.00 68 8.63 35 10.13 38 3.14 16 3.56 10 PIMCO Total Return Instl 2.36 20 8.58 62 10.08 31 3.56 24 3.58 33 PGIM Total Return Bond R6 (5/16)2.68 2 10.74 3 12.25 1 4.43 5 4.66 3 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 2.27 --8.52 --10.30 --2.92 --3.38 -- BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl (3/19)1.54 23 5.78 13 7.20 3 6.77 1 5.53 -- BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K (7/13)0.89 40 6.10 40 5.55 24 3.89 31 2.88 36 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 (7/13)2.03 6 6.53 32 5.59 24 2.56 66 2.88 36 Western Asset Macro Opportunities IS (2/19)0.78 50 10.23 5 12.59 1 5.85 5 5.20 2 Dynamic Alternatives Index 0.42 --5.03 --1.13 --1.85 --1.06 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. ALTERNATIVE FUNDS REIT EQUITY FUNDS For Period Ending September 30, 2019 BOND FUNDS PARS: County of Contra Costa COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 19 . 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 (7/13)-8.81 82 21.89 28 8.77 73 3.25 7 13.14 27 36.04 15 18.68 -- T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I -0.89 37 33.84 15 1.58 63 10.93 --8.83 --39.20 --18.92 -- Harbor Capital Appreciation Retirement -0.96 37 36.68 5 -1.04 --10.99 --9.93 --37.66 --15.69 -- Dodge & Cox Stock (10/14)-7.07 31 18.33 24 21.28 6 -4.49 62 10.40 54 40.55 2 22.01 2 Vanguard Growth & Income Adm (12/16)-4.61 31 20.80 54 12.12 24 2.03 16 14.16 13 32.74 37 17.05 19 iShares Russell 1000 ETF (3/15)-4.91 37 21.53 37 11.91 27 0.82 30 13.08 28 32.93 35 16.27 29 Russell 1000 TR USD -4.78 --21.69 --12.05 --0.92 --13.24 --33.11 --16.42 -- iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF (3/15)-9.13 30 18.32 27 13.58 61 -2.57 30 13.03 8 34.50 46 17.13 43 Russell Mid Cap TR USD -9.06 --18.52 --13.80 ---2.44 --13.22 --34.76 --17.28 -- Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 (9/16)-15.20 49 13.53 11 20.97 80 3.52 1 5.83 25 37.72 --23.55 -- Russell 2000 Value TR USD -12.86 --7.84 --31.74 ---7.47 --4.22 --34.52 --18.05 -- T. Rowe Price New Horizons I 4.17 4 31.67 9 7.95 69 4.54 --6.10 --49.11 --16.20 -- Russell 2000 Growth TR USD -9.31 --22.17 --11.32 ---1.38 --5.60 --43.30 --14.59 -- iShares Russell 2000 ETF (3/15)-11.02 36 14.66 24 21.36 43 -4.33 44 4.94 44 38.85 35 16.39 34 Dodge & Cox International Stock -17.98 81 23.94 72 8.26 2 -11.35 98 0.08 9 26.31 8 21.03 16 DFA Large Cap International I (12/18)-14.14 44 25.37 48 3.16 23 -2.86 72 -5.24 49 20.69 39 17.75 58 MFS International Growth R6 -8.79 9 32.58 31 2.79 6 0.40 52 -5.01 57 13.94 78 19.77 29 MFS Global Equity R6 (3/15)-9.51 62 24.04 41 7.43 27 -1.34 48 4.08 33 27.93 34 23.14 -- iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (3/15)-13.83 37 24.94 58 0.96 47 -0.90 46 -5.04 46 22.62 18 17.22 66 iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (3/15)-9.15 45 24.35 39 8.22 21 -2.39 62 4.64 28 22.91 63 15.99 51 American Funds New Perspective R6 (3/15)-5.56 18 29.30 16 2.19 77 5.63 6 3.56 40 27.23 38 21.19 14 MSCI EAFE NR USD -13.79 --25.03 --1.00 ---0.81 ---4.90 --22.78 --17.32 -- MSCI ACWI NR USD -9.42 --23.97 --7.86 ---2.36 --4.16 --22.80 --16.13 -- Hartford Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y (11/12)-15.42 45 41.10 18 10.53 ---12.68 ---4.61 ---2.28 --21.73 -- MSCI EM PR USD -16.64 --34.35 --8.58 ---16.96 ---4.63 ---4.98 --15.15 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. For Period Ending December 31, 2018 LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS PARS: County of Contra Costa COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 20 . 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Vanguard Real Estate ETF (6/17)-5.95 58 4.95 57 8.53 17 2.37 65 30.29 33 2.42 27 17.67 30 Wilshire US REIT TR USD -4.84 --4.18 --7.24 --4.23 --31.78 --1.86 --17.59 -- Core Fixed Income Portfolio .14 24 3.49 59 3.63 37 0.78 14 4.74 70 -1.40 41 5.42 69 PIMCO Total Return Instl -0.26 39 5.13 10 2.60 63 0.73 15 4.69 71 -1.92 60 10.36 12 PGIM Total Return Bond R6 (5/16)-0.63 57 6.71 2 4.83 13 0.09 44 7.25 5 -0.91 28 9.96 14 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 0.01 --3.54 --2.65 --0.55 --5.97 ---2.02 --4.21 -- BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K (7/13)-0.47 46 4.97 37 3.65 ---0.30 --3.89 --3.28 --9.92 -- AQR Equity Market Neutral I (2/16)-11.73 95 5.84 24 5.85 18 17.60 1 ------------ Eaton Vance Glbl Macr Absolute Return I (7/13)-3.29 81 4.29 47 4.00 61 2.63 7 3.03 18 -0.24 58 4.11 79 Dynamic Alternatives Index -4.24 --5.07 --2.29 ---5.19 --6.39 --0.54 ---1.67 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. REIT EQUITY FUNDS ALTERNATIVE FUNDS For Period Ending December 31, 2018 BOND FUNDS PARS: County of Contra Costa Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 COFYX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Large Blend ÙÙÙ 11/8/2012 0.63 9,897.46 9/30/2019 Guy W. Pope Asset Alloca�on % Cash 1.9 US Equity 95.8 Non­US Equity 2.2 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 9/30/2019 Russell 1000 TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Large Blend 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 Russell 1000 TR USD US Fund Large Blend 21.86 3.85 11.34 9.77 18.95 2.84 11.74 8.70 11.20 20.53 3.87 13.19 10.62 13.23 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 Russell 1000 TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 20.0 25.0 Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 Russell 1000 TR USD US Fund Large Blend ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 1.9 21.9 3.9 11.3 9.8 1.4 20.5 3.9 13.2 10.6 13.2 1.5 18.9 2.8 11.7 8.7 11.2 Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 Russell 1000 TR USD US Fund Large Blend ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 ReturnColumbia Contrarian Core Inst3 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 9.77 12.32 1.67 ­0.85 1.01 97.18 0.71 2.07 10.62 12.02 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.80 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­500M ­250M 0M 250M 500M Columbia Contrarian Core Inst3 US Fund Large Blend Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Vanguard Growth & Income Adm VGIAX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Large Blend ÙÙÙÙ 5/14/2001 0.23 11,271.60 6/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 2.0 US Equity 97.4 Non­US Equity 0.6 US Bond 0.0 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Vanguard Growth & Income Adm 6/30/2019 S&P 500 TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Large Blend 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Vanguard Growth & Income Adm Russell 1000 TR USD US Fund Large Blend 20.53 3.87 13.19 10.62 13.23 19.28 2.32 12.67 10.52 13.24 18.95 2.84 11.74 8.70 11.20 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 Vanguard Growth & Income Adm S&P 500 TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 20.0 25.0 Vanguard Growth & Income Adm S&P 500 TR USD US Fund Large Blend ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 1.5 19.3 2.3 12.7 10.5 13.2 1.4 20.5 3.9 13.2 10.6 13.2 1.5 18.9 2.8 11.7 8.7 11.2 Vanguard Growth & Income Adm Russell 1000 TR USD US Fund Large Blend ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Blend Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 TR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 ReturnVanguard Growth & Income Adm ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 10.52 11.89 0.70 ­0.23 0.99 99.32 0.80 0.98 10.84 11.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.82 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­750M 0M 750M 1,500M 2,250M Vanguard Growth & Income Adm US Fund Large Blend Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Dodge & Cox Stock DODGX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Large Value ÙÙÙÙ 1/4/1965 0.52 69,398.18 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 2.0 US Equity 86.4 Non­US Equity 11.6 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Dodge & Cox Stock 9/30/2019 S&P 500 TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Large Value 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Dodge & Cox Stock Russell 1000 Value TR USD US Fund Large Value 13.38 ­2.00 11.34 8.10 12.01 17.81 4.00 9.43 7.79 11.46 16.41 1.85 9.50 7.06 10.24 4 4 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Value Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 Dodge & Cox Stock S&P 500 TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Value ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 25.0 Dodge & Cox Stock S&P 500 TR USD US Fund Large Value ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­5.0 ­2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 0.2 13.4 ­2.0 11.3 8.1 12.0 1.4 17.8 4.0 9.4 7.8 11.5 1.5 16.4 1.8 9.5 7.1 10.2 Dodge & Cox Stock Russell 1000 Value TR USD US Fund Large Value ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Value Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value TR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 ReturnDodge & Cox Stock ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 10.84 11.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.82 0.00 8.10 13.94 3.79 ­3.14 1.09 86.53 0.51 5.23 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­1,000M ­500M 0M 500M Dodge & Cox Stock US Fund Large Value Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement HNACX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Large Growth ÙÙÙÙ 3/1/2016 0.58 29,807.12 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 0.4 US Equity 86.5 Non­US Equity 13.1 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement 9/30/2019 Russell 1000 Growth TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Large Growth 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement Russell 1000 Growth TR USD US Fund Large Growth 18.62 ­0.82 16.34 23.30 3.71 16.89 13.39 14.94 20.46 1.89 14.52 10.94 12.61 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement Russell 1000 Growth TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement Russell 1000 Growth TR USD US Fund Large Growth ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 ­2.1 18.6 ­0.8 16.3 1.5 23.3 3.7 16.9 13.4 14.9 ­0.5 20.5 1.9 14.5 10.9 12.6 Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement Russell 1000 Growth TR USD US Fund Large Growth ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 ReturnHarbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 13.39 12.88 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.96 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 3/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­600M ­400M ­200M 0M 200M Harbor Capital Apprecia�on Re�rement US Fund Large Growth Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I PRUFX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Large Growth ÙÙÙÙ 8/28/2015 0.52 54,204.67 9/30/2019 Joseph B. Fath Asset Alloca�on % Cash 0.5 US Equity 87.3 Non­US Equity 12.2 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I 9/30/2019 S&P 500 TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Large Growth 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I Russell 1000 Growth TR USD US Fund Large Growth 23.30 3.71 16.89 13.39 14.94 20.46 1.89 14.52 10.94 12.61 18.99 2.21 16.4732 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I S&P 500 TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I S&P 500 TR USD US Fund Large Growth ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 ­1.1 19.0 2.2 16.5 1.5 23.3 3.7 16.9 13.4 14.9 ­0.5 20.5 1.9 14.5 10.9 12.6 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I Russell 1000 Growth TR USD US Fund Large Growth ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Large Growth Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth TR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 ReturnT. Rowe Price Growth Stock I ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: S&P 500 TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 10.84 11.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.82 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 8/1/2015 to 9/30/2019 2017 2019 ­2,250M ­1,500M ­750M 0M 750M T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I US Fund Large Growth Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 UBVFX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Small Value ÙÙÙÙ 4/30/2013 0.87 5,305.00 8/31/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 2.3 US Equity 97.2 Non­US Equity 0.5 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 8/31/2019 Russell 2000 Value TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Small Value 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 Russell 2000 Value TR USD US Fund Small Value 14.96 ­8.51 6.20 7.66 12.82 ­8.24 6.54 7.17 10.06 12.26 ­9.29 5.15 5.20 9.49 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Value Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Value TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 Russell 2000 Value TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Value ­20.0 ­15.0 ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 Russell 2000 Value TR USD US Fund Small Value ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Value TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­15.0 ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 ­1.3 15.0 ­8.5 6.2 7.7 ­0.6 12.8 ­8.2 6.5 7.2 10.1 ­0.5 12.3 ­9.3 5.2 5.2 9.5 Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 Russell 2000 Value TR USD US Fund Small Value ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Value Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Value TR USD Std Dev 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 ReturnUndiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Value TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 7.66 16.49 4.09 0.76 0.97 89.30 0.40 5.43 7.17 16.08 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.38 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­500M ­250M 0M 250M 500M Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Val R6 US Fund Small Value Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 RSEJX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Small Growth 7/12/2017 1.06 2,096.22 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 3.1 US Equity 88.9 Non­US Equity 8.0 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 9/30/2019 Russell 2000 Growth TR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Small Growth 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 Russell 2000 Growth TR USD US Fund Small Growth 15.34 ­9.63 9.79 9.08 12.25 21.96 ­6.42 16.68 ­7.60 11.34 9.31 11.74 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Growth Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Growth TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 Russell 2000 Growth TR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Growth ­22.5 ­15.0 ­7.5 0.0 7.5 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 22.5 30.0 Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 Russell 2000 Growth TR USD US Fund Small Growth ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Growth TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­15.0 ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 ­7.3 22.0 ­6.4­4.2 15.3 ­9.6 9.8 9.1 12.2 ­4.2 16.7 ­7.6 11.3 9.3 11.7 Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 Russell 2000 Growth TR USD US Fund Small Growth ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Small Growth Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Growth TR USD Std Dev 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 ReturnVictory RS Small Cap Growth R6 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: Russell 2000 Growth TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 9.08 16.91 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.48 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 7/1/2017 to 9/30/2019 2017 2018 2019 ­750M ­500M ­250M 0M 250M Victory RS Small Cap Growth R6 US Fund Small Growth Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I DFALX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Foreign Large Blend ÙÙÙ 7/17/1991 0.23 5,349.69 8/31/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 1.0 US Equity 1.7 Non­US Equity 97.3 Other 0.0 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I 8/31/2019 MSCI World ex USA NR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Foreign Large Blend 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I MSCI ACWI Ex USA NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Blend 12.98 ­2.04 6.45 3.13 4.86 12.07 ­2.14 5.47 2.85 4.48 11.56 ­1.23 6.33 2.90 4.45 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Blend Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI World ex USA NR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I MSCI World ex USA NR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Blend ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I MSCI World ex USA NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Blend ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA NR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­5.0 ­2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 ­1.0 13.0 ­2.0 6.5 3.1 4.9 ­1.8 11.6 ­1.2 6.3 2.9 4.5 ­1.3 12.1 ­2.1 5.5 2.8 4.5 DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I MSCI ACWI Ex USA NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Blend ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Blend Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA NR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 ReturnDFA Large Cap Interna�onal I ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI World ex USA NR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 3.13 12.07 1.34 0.11 0.98 97.72 0.17 1.84 3.06 12.17 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.17 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­200M ­100M 0M 100M 200M DFA Large Cap Interna�onal I US Fund Foreign Large Blend Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock DODFX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Foreign Large Value ÙÙÙ 5/1/2001 0.63 47,225.36 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 2.0 US Equity 9.4 Non­US Equity 88.6 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock 9/30/2019 MSCI EAFE NR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Foreign Large Value 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock MSCI ACWI Ex USA Value NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Value 6.94 ­4.51 5.24 0.89 3.05 11.00 ­2.75 5.26 0.64 4.92 8.85 ­4.61 4.12 1.34 3.50 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Value Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EAFE NR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock MSCI EAFE NR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Value ­15.0 ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 10.0 15.0 Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock MSCI EAFE NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Value ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Value NR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­7.5 ­5.0 ­2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 ­1.7 11.0 ­2.7 5.3 0.6 4.9 ­2.8 6.9 ­4.5 5.2 0.9 3.1 ­1.6 8.8 ­4.6 4.1 1.3 3.5 Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock MSCI ACWI Ex USA Value NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Value ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Value Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Value NR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 ­3.0 ­1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 ReturnDodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EAFE NR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 0.64 14.93 3.27 12.24 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.18 0.00 3.99 ­2.66 1.15 88.67 ­0.03 5.35 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­2,000M ­1,000M 0M 1,000M 2,000M Dodge & Cox Interna�onal Stock US Fund Foreign Large Value Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 MGRDX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Foreign Large Growth ÙÙÙÙ 5/1/2006 0.77 9,974.65 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 1.1 US Equity 7.0 Non­US Equity 91.9 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 9/30/2019 MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Foreign Large Growth 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Growth 16.21 2.03 7.37 4.86 5.82 16.76 3.06 10.07 7.35 7.38 16.99 0.76 7.51 5.00 6.11 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Growth Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Growth ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 25.0 MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Growth ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­5.0 ­2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 ­1.2 16.8 3.1 10.1 7.4 7.4 ­0.8 16.2 2.0 7.4 4.9 5.8 ­1.2 17.0 0.8 7.5 5.0 6.1 MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD US Fund Foreign Large Growth ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Foreign Large Growth Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ReturnMFS Interna�onal Growth R6 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI Ex USA Growth NR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 4.86 12.32 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.31 0.00 7.35 11.65 1.68 2.64 0.92 94.60 0.54 2.88 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­400M ­200M 0M 200M 400M MFS Interna�onal Growth R6 US Fund Foreign Large Growth Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y HHHYX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts 10/24/2016 1.15 3,588.18 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 3.1 Non­US Equity 96.9 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y 9/30/2019 MSCI EM NR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y MSCI EM NR USD US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts 9.86 0.14 5.89 ­2.02 5.97 2.33 3.37 7.92 ­0.13 4.88 1.54 2.87 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Diversified Emerging Mkts Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EM NR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y MSCI EM NR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Diversified Emerging Mkts ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y MSCI EM NR USD US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EM NR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­8.0 ­6.0 ­4.0 ­2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 ­2.7 9.9 0.1 ­4.2 5.9 ­2.0 6.0 2.3 3.4 ­3.6 7.9 ­0.1 4.9 1.5 2.9 Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y MSCI EM NR USD US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Diversified Emerging Mkts Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EM NR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 ­3.0 ­1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 ReturnHar�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI EM NR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 2.33 15.55 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.08 0.00 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 2017 2018 2019 ­200M 0M 200M 400M Har�ord Schroders Emerging Mkts Eq Y US Fund Diversified Emerging Mkts Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. MFS Global Equity R6 MWEMX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund World Large Stock ÙÙÙÙ 6/1/2012 0.81 2,971.48 9/30/2019 Mul�ple Asset Alloca�on % Cash 0.6 US Equity 55.9 Non­US Equity 43.6 Total 100.0 Holdings­Based Style Map Micro Small Mid Large GiantDeep­Val Core­Val Core Core­Grth High­Grth MFS Global Equity R6 9/30/2019 MSCI World NR USD 9/30/2019 US Fund World Large Stock 9/30/2019 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le MFS Global Equity R6 MSCI ACWI NR USD US Fund World Large Stock 16.20 1.38 9.71 6.65 8.35 21.71 6.99 10.75 8.40 15.87 0.90 8.92 6.28 8.10 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ World Large Stock Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI World NR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 MFS Global Equity R6 MSCI World NR USDReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ World Large Stock ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15.0 20.0 25.0 MFS Global Equity R6 MSCI World NR USD US Fund World Large Stock ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI NR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.5 21.7 7.0 10.7 8.4 0.0 16.2 1.4 9.7 6.7 8.3 ­0.3 15.9 0.9 8.9 6.3 8.1 MFS Global Equity R6 MSCI ACWI NR USD US Fund World Large Stock ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ World Large Stock Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI ACWI NR USD Std Dev 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 ReturnMFS Global Equity R6 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: MSCI World NR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 7.18 11.63 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.53 0.00 8.40 11.62 1.64 1.32 0.97 94.60 0.63 2.72 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­200M ­100M 0M 100M 200M MFS Global Equity R6 US Fund World Large Stock Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l N e t Flow Monthly Return Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019 Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. PIMCO Total Return Instl PTTRX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond ÙÙÙÙ 5/11/1987 0.71 68,381.00 6/30/2019 Mul�ple PIMCO Total Return Instl ­ Fixed­Inc Sectors (Morningstar) Por�olio Date: 6/30/2019 % Government 6.8 Government Related 31.6 Conver�ble 1.0 Corporate Bond 12.9 Agency Mortgage­Backed 19.9 Non­Agency Residen�al Mortgage­Backed 2.4 Asset­Backed 4.9 Cash & Equivalents 10.6 Swap 2.1 Forward/Future 6.6 Other 1.2 Total 100.0 Morningstar Style Box ­ PIMCO Total Return Instl Por�olio Date: 6/30/2019 Morningstar Fixed Income Style Box™ Not Available Fixed­Income Stats Average Eff Dura�on 5.0 Average Eff Maturity 7.1 Average Coupon 4.3 Average Price 113.4 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le PIMCO Total Return Instl BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond 8.45 9.15 8.52 10.30 2.92 3.17 3.38 3.28 3.75 4.37 8.58 10.08 3.56 3.58 4.323212 2 3 1 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 PIMCO Total Return Instl BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD BBgBarc US Universal TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus BondReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Intermediate Core­Plus Bond Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 12.0 PIMCO Total Return Instl BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD BBgBarc US Universal TR USD ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Universal TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 2.4 8.6 10.1 3.6 3.6 4.3 2.1 8.8 10.1 3.2 3.6 4.1 1.9 8.5 9.2 3.2 3.3 4.4 PIMCO Total Return Instl BBgBarc US Universal TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 ReturnPIMCO Total Return Instl ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Informa�on Ra�o (geo) Tracking Error 3.38 3.08 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.00 3.58 3.15 1.05 0.37 0.93 81.63 0.14 1.36 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­40,000M ­20,000M 0M 20,000M PIMCO Total Return Instl Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. PGIM Total Return Bond R6 PTRQX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond ÙÙÙÙÙ 12/27/2010 0.39 49,272.24 9/30/2019 Mul�ple PGIM Total Return Bond R6 ­ Fixed­Inc Sectors (Morningsta Por�olio Date: 9/30/2019 % Government 12.8 Government Related 4.2 Conver�ble 1.3 Corporate Bond 24.8 Agency Mortgage­Backed 2.2 Non­Agency Residen�al Mortgage­Backed 1.2 Commercial Mortgage­Backed 9.8 Asset­Backed 18.6 Cash & Equivalents 3.4 Forward/Future 19.5 Other 2.2 Total 100.0 Morningstar Style Box ­ PGIM Total Return Bond R6 Por�olio Date: 9/30/2019 Morningstar Fixed Income Style Box™Low Med High Ltd Mod Ext Fixed­Income Stats Average Eff Dura�on 6.4 Average Eff Maturity ­ Average Coupon 3.9 Average Price 104.8 YTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le PGIM Total Return Bond R6 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond 8.52 10.30 2.92 3.38 3.75 10.74 12.25 4.43 4.66 8.45 9.15 3.17 3.28 4.37 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 Rolling Returns Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Rolling Window: 3 Years 3 Months shi� Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2019 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 PGIM Total Return Bond R6 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD BBgBarc US Universal TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus BondReturnPerformance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Intermediate Core­Plus Bond Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 12.0 14.0 PGIM Total Return Bond R6 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD BBgBarc US Universal TR USD ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Universal TR USD Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 2.7 10.7 12.3 4.4 4.7 2.1 8.8 10.1 3.2 3.6 4.1 1.9 8.5 9.2 3.2 3.3 4.4 PGIM Total Return Bond R6 BBgBarc US Universal TR USD US Fund Intermediate Core­Plus Bond ReturnRisk­Reward Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 ReturnPGIM Total Return Bond R6 ­ Risk Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD Inv Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Informa�on Ra�o (geo) Tracking Error 3.38 3.08 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.00 4.66 3.45 0.54 1.07 1.08 91.84 1.23 1.01 Monthly Es�mated Fund­Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­750M 0M 750M 1,500M 2,250M PGIM Total Return Bond R6 Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl BILPX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Market Neutral ÙÙÙÙÙ 12/19/2007 1.63 3,563.84 9/30/2019 Mark McKenna Correla�on Matrix Time Period: 1/1/2008 to 9/30/2019 1 2 3 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.83 0.01 1.00 1 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl 2 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 3 S&P 500 TR (1989) 1.00 to 0.80 0.80 to 0.60 0.60 to 0.40 0.40 to 0.20 0.20 to 0.00 0.00 to ­0.20 ­0.20 to ­0.40 ­0.40 to ­0.60 ­0.60 to ­0.80 ­0.80 to ­1.00 Return Distribu�on - BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 ­15.0 ­11.0 ­7.0 ­3.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 13.0 15.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market NeutralNumber of PeriodsYTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market Neutral 5.78 7.20 6.77 5.53 9.88 0.36 ­0.13 1.22 0.73 0.48 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 4 Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­6.0 ­5.0 ­4.0 ­3.0 ­2.0 ­1.0 0.0 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market Neutral Performance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Market Neutral ­15.0 ­10.0 ­5.0 0.0 5.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 10.0 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market Neutral ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Market Neutral Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years ­2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 1.5 5.8 7.2 6.8 5.5 9.9 0.5 0.4 ­0.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market Neutral ReturnRisk-Reward Time Period: 10/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ­7.0 ­4.0 ­1.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 11.0 BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl US Fund Market NeutralReturn BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl - Risk Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Market Neutral Inv Bmk1 +/­ Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 0.22 1.73 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 ­0.23 0.00 5.68 13.83 9.31 7.13 3.28 17.18 0.37 13.24 5.46 12.10 9.31 7.13 2.28 ­82.82 0.59 13.24 Monthly Es�mated Fund-Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­100M 0M 100M 200M 300M BlackRock Event Driven Equity Instl Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l M o n t h l y R e t u r n Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K BSIKX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ÙÙÙÙ 3/28/2016 0.74 33,259.84 7/31/2019 Mul�ple Correla�on Matrix Time Period: 4/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 1 2 3 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.59 ­0.14 1.00 1 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K 2 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 3 S&P 500 TR (1989) 1.00 to 0.80 0.80 to 0.60 0.60 to 0.40 0.40 to 0.20 0.20 to 0.00 0.00 to ­0.20 ­0.20 to ­0.40 ­0.40 to ­0.60 ­0.60 to ­0.80 ­0.80 to ­1.00 Return Distribu�on - BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 ­2.0 ­1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal BondNumber of PeriodsYTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond 4.92 3.17 6.10 2.86 5.55 1.99 3.89 2.61 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­4.5 ­3.8 ­3.0 ­2.3 ­1.5 ­0.8 0.0 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Performance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Nontradi�onal Bond ­4.0 ­2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 6.0 8.0 10.0 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.0 6.8 0.9 6.1 5.5 3.9 0.5 4.9 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.6 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnRisk-Reward Time Period: 10/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ­1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K US Fund Nontradi�onal BondReturn BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K - Risk Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Inv Bmk1 +/­ Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 3.604.21 1.841.67 0.000.69 0.00 1.00 100.00 1.18 0.00 1.22 0.71 61.67 1.67 1.20 0.61 ­0.17 0.69 1.22 ­0.29 ­38.33 0.49 1.20 Monthly Es�mated Fund-Level Net Flow Time Period: 3/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­1,500M ­750M 0M 750M 1,500M BlackRock Strategic Income Opps K Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l M o n t h l y R e t u r n Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 EGMSX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond 5/31/2017 0.72 3,561.35 7/31/2019 Mul�ple Correla�on Matrix Time Period: 6/1/2017 to 9/30/2019 1 2 3 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.36 ­0.16 1.00 1 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 2 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 3 S&P 500 TR (1989) 1.00 to 0.80 0.80 to 0.60 0.60 to 0.40 0.40 to 0.20 0.20 to 0.00 0.00 to ­0.20 ­0.20 to ­0.40 ­0.40 to ­0.60 ­0.60 to ­0.80 ­0.80 to ­1.00 Return Distribu�on - Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 ­2.0 ­1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal BondNumber of PeriodsYTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond 4.92 3.17 2.86 1.99 2.61 6.53 5.592 2 3 3 3 3 3 Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­4.5 ­3.8 ­3.0 ­2.3 ­1.5 ­0.8 0.0 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Performance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Nontradi�onal Bond ­4.0 ­2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 6.0 8.0 10.0 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.5 2.0 6.5 5.6 0.5 4.9 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.6 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnRisk-Reward Time Period: 10/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ­1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 US Fund Nontradi�onal BondReturn Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 - Risk Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Inv Bmk1 +/­ Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 2.32 1.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.22 0.00 2.15 2.36 1.20 ­0.08 0.81 42.15 0.10 1.83 ­0.18 0.47 1.20 ­0.08 ­0.19 ­57.85 ­0.12 1.83 Monthly Es�mated Fund-Level Net Flow Time Period: 5/1/2017 to 9/30/2019 2017 2018 2019 ­1,500M ­1,000M ­500M 0M 500M Eaton Vance Glb Macr Absolt Retrn R6 Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l M o n t h l y R e t u r n Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS LAOSX Key Informa�on Morningstar Category Morningstar Ra�ng Overall Incep�on Date Expense Ra�o Fund Size (Mil) Por�olio Date Manager Name US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ÙÙÙÙÙ 8/30/2013 1.21 1,625.50 8/31/2019 Mul�ple Correla�on Matrix Time Period: 9/1/2013 to 9/30/2019 1 2 3 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.40 ­0.12 1.00 1 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS 2 BBgBarc US Agg Bond TR USD 3 S&P 500 TR (1989) 1.00 to 0.80 0.80 to 0.60 0.60 to 0.40 0.40 to 0.20 0.20 to 0.00 0.00 to ­0.20 ­0.20 to ­0.40 ­0.40 to ­0.60 ­0.60 to ­0.80 ­0.80 to ­1.00 Return Distribu�on - Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 ­6.0 ­5.0 ­4.0 ­3.0 ­2.0 ­1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal BondNumber of PeriodsYTD Peer group quar�le 1 year Peer group quar�le 3 years Peer group quar�le 5 years Peer group quar�le 10 years Peer group quar�le Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond 4.92 3.17 2.86 1.99 2.61 10.23 12.59 5.85 5.201 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 Drawdown Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ­10.0 ­8.0 ­6.0 ­4.0 ­2.0 0.0 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Performance Rela�ve to Peer Group Peer Group (5­95%): Funds ­ U.S. ­ Nontradi�onal Bond ­4.0 ­2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnReturns As of Date: 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0.8 10.2 12.6 5.8 5.2 0.5 4.9 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.6 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond ReturnRisk-Reward Time Period: 10/1/2016 to 9/30/2019 Std Dev 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 ­1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS US Fund Nontradi�onal BondReturn Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS - Risk Time Period: Since Incep�on to 9/30/2019 Calcula�on Benchmark: US Fund Nontradi�onal Bond Inv Bmk1 +/­ Bmk1 Return Std Dev Downside Devia�on Alpha Beta R2 Sharpe Ra�o (arith) Tracking Error 2.18 2.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.66 0.00 6.71 6.13 2.70 2.91 2.21 52.33 0.96 4.89 4.53 4.12 2.70 2.91 1.21 ­47.67 0.29 4.89 Monthly Es�mated Fund-Level Net Flow Time Period: 10/1/2014 to 9/30/2019 2015 2017 2019 ­100M ­50M 0M 50M 100M Western Asset Macro Opportuni�es IS Es�mated Fund­ L e v e l M o n t h l y R e t u r n Source: Morningstar Direct, as of September 31, 2019. Informa�on provided herein was obtained from third­party sources deemed reliable. HighMark and its affiliates make no representa�ons or warran�es with respect to the �meliness, accuracy, or completeness of the informa�on and bear no liability for any loss arising from its use. RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee the matter of a Draft Racial Equity Plan for 2019-2024. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This action refers the matter to the Public Protection Committee for their consideration and action. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County staff have participated in the Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE) since 2016, working diligently towards developing and achieving racial equity outcomes in Contra Costa County. This participation has resulted in the development of a Draft Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP). This referral is requested for the Public Protection Committee to review the Draft REAP and provide further direction to staff. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/19/2019 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: Sonia Bustamante 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: November 19, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:November 19, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Refer to the Public Protection Committee the matter of a Draft Racial Equity Plan CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Draft REAP will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review.