Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04032014 - TWIC Agenda Pkt            TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE April 3, 2014 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee              1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, DCD)   4. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the March 6, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting. A ny handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, DCD)   5. APPROVE Revised List of Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee. (John Cunningham, DCD)   6. CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, DCD)   7. RECEIVE report regarding the Delta Water Platform and take action as appropriate. (Ryan Hernandez, DCD)   8. RECEIVE report from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and FORWARD to the Board of Supervisors for adoption of both updated plans. (Mark Boucher, Flood Control)   9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 1, 2014.   10.Adjourn   TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 1 The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 2 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 meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) 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 CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 3 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Administrative Items.  Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: (925) 674-7833 Referral History: Administrative Items Referral Update: Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): None.  Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments No file(s) attached. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 4 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the March 6, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925) 674-7833 Referral History: N/A Referral Update: County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205[d]) requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/twic Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the March 6, 2014 Committee meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments March 2014 TWI Committee Meeting Record March 2014 TWIC: Handouts/Written Testimony TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 5 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 6, 2014 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez   Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee   Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair      Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    Staff Present:John Cunningham, Principal Planner  Attendees: Stephen Kowalewski, Public Works  John Burgh, Contra Costa Water District  Jill Ray, Board of Supervisors, District II  Michael Sullivan, Parents for a Safer Environment  Matt Valdin, Parents for a Safer Environment  Susan JunFish, Parents for a Safer Environment  Shirley Shelangoski, Parents for Safer Environment  Alex Aliferis, Contra Costa Tax  John Steere, Public Works  Michele Mancuso, Public Works  Vince Guise, Agriculture Department  Michael Gibson, Alamo Improvement Association  Cece Sellgren, Public Works  Mark Watts, Smith, Watts, Martinez                   1.Introductions    See the attached sign-in sheet and "Attendees" section above.   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda. (Speakers may be limited to three minutes.)    *See Public Comments under Item 7: ACCEPT the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Activities Progress Report.   3.Staff recommends approval of the Record of Action for the February 12, 2014 Committee meeting.       Approved with a correction to the spelling of Susan Junfish (Parents for a Safer Environment).   4.REVIEW, and REVISE as appropriate, the Committee mailing list.      Approved with corrections to the names and mailing preferences for Supervisors and staff.   5.DECLARE the intention of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee to recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) update for fiscal year 2013/2014 to 2019/2020. FIX a public hearing date of April 3, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.       Approved the CRIPP for FY 2013/14 to FY 2019/2020 and directed staff to 1) bring the CRIPP to the Board TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 6  Approved the CRIPP for FY 2013/14 to FY 2019/2020 and directed staff to 1) bring the CRIPP to the Board of Supervisors and set a hearing for either April 1 or April 22, and 2) continue bringing the CRIPP to the TWI Committee as an ongoing practice. Michael Gibson (Alamo Improvement Association) spoke under public comment regarding 1) how the Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Regional Fee relates to projects in the CRIPP, 2) the description of the Danville Boulevard at Hemme Avenue project, and 3) the draft Alamo Area of Benefit project list going to the Alamo Municipal Advisory Committee.   6.APPROVE proposed process to evaluate costs and obtain community input to revise draft Community Trash Plans .       The Committee received the report and directed staff to 1) continue outreach and research, and 2) meet with the Chiefs of Staff re: how to proceed on the Plan. Public Comments were provided on this item: Alex Aliferis (Contra Costa Taxpayers Association) commented re: 1) the problem of uncovered loads, 2) trash escaping while transferring from bins to trucks, 3) low income and neighborhoods with possible language barriers, and 4) issues with the homeless population. Susan JunFish (Parents for a Safer Environment) commented re: 1) using work program labor, 2) waste reduction education for kids, 3) compostable utensils/plateware, 4) donations, and 5) a single use plastic bag ban. Matt Valdin commented re: 1) Walnut Creek's plastic bag ban, and 2) an expanded polystyrene ban.   7.ACCEPT the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Activities Progress Report.      The Committee received the report. The Committee congratulated Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, on receiving an Integrated Pest Management Innovator Award from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Public comment was provided on this item, a summary is below and where a written copy of the testimony was provided it will be attached to this record: Shirley Shelangoski, Parents for a Safer Environment, had comments related to 1) posting notices of pesticide use, 2) concerns re: IPM Committee staff conduct, and 3) the need for an IPM ordinance. Matt Valdin, Parents for a Safer Environment, had comments related to 1) the need for improved conduct from IPM staff, 2) the need for accurate "bad actor" pesticide reporting. Susan JunFish, Parents for a Safer Environment, had comments related to 1) an LD50/Kestrel report and that it be taken up by the IPM Committee, and 2) the discrepancy between poison/trapping costs from County to County. *Michael Sullivan, Parents for a Safer Environment (testimony provided at the beginning of the meeting), Parents for a Safer Environment, had comments related to 1) the need for a respectful tone from IPM staff, 2) transparency regarding contractor solicitation, 3) the lack of a vote on whether or not issues raised by PfSE were resolved or not, and 4) the need for consideration of residual activity of pesticides.   8.RECEIVE update on state and federal transportation legislative issues of concern to the County and DIRECT staff as appropriate.        The Committee received the report and directed staff 1) to work with Lara Delaney and Supervisor Karen Mitchoff's office to respond to the request from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding the Highway Trust Fund, 2) bring to the full Board of Supervisors (BOS) letters to the Contra Costa delegation and other relevant parties, communicating the County's position on the status of the school siting issue and related cyclists/pedestrian safety bills before the state legislature and to work with County Counsel to craft appropriate language, and 3) bring to the full BOS a letter to the Contra Costa Delegation and other relevant parties communicating the County's position on AB 1811 (Buchanan) High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 7   9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2014.     The next meeting of the Committee will be held on April 3rd, 2014 at 1:30 PM in Room 101 at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA.   10.Adjourn    The meeting adjourned in the afternoon of March 6, 2014.     The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.  For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 8 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 meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) 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 CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 9 March 6, 2014 To: TWIC Co-Chairs, Supervisors Mary Piepho and Candace Andersen From: Parents for a Safer Environment, Susan junFish Re: Single-use container ordinance for Contra Costa County You have probably heard that the City of Walnut Creek Council members voted 4-1 to adopt a single use plastic bag ordinance Tuesday night that includes larger stores and restaurants. We, the community members who are concerned about our future generations of children and the environment in which they develop, are absolutely elated that Walnut Creek has joined a growing list of cities adopting such an Ordinance. Parents for a Safer Environment supports a more comprehensive phase-out that includes polystyrene containers used by most restaurants. Every day that goes by without deterrence for utilizing these single-use containers, whether they be plastic bags or polystyrene (Styrofoam), we are contributing to the pollution of air, water, and food in communities that have to live next to these manufacturing industries. At the end of their brief usable life, plastic bags and polystyrene containers contribute to the pollution in our waters that harm wildlife and us. In addition, the breakdown chemicals are very toxic, such as Dioxin, which is a hormone disruptor, and reproductive and nervous system toxin. Dioxin is one of the "Dirty Dozen" persistent organic compounds according to the WHO. Research is accumulating that this persistent toxin inflicts injury for 2 generations down the line from the exposed fetus or child. Even though dioxin formation is local, it is being found ubiquitously in every community through accumulation in fat cells: it's been detected in every single woman's breast milk and every child who has been tested by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention because it gets into our air, water, and soil and has contaminated our food supply, particularly dairy products, meats and seafood. Dioxin is also a piggy-back contaminant in many pesticide products and contributes to the overall illness of our community and environment. In landfills, this accumulating trash displaces precious land into more landfills that no one wants in their community. I am submitting a short article from WHO on Dioxin and its sources for your leisurely reading. Our organization has encouraged the use of sustainable and compostable table- wares at schools and organizations that hold large events. We have found that most everyone is very supportive of taking the more ecologically responsible step. WorldCentrics has given 20% discounts to schools and non-profits and often provide donations for non-profit events such as the !PM Workshop we held last October. Since 2006 dozens of more companies have sprung up, competing for business and providing lower prices for higher volume businesses. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 10 When serious damage to our society is being incurred by irresponsible practices, swift measures need to be taken in order to benefit the community as a whole. I believe that more than our generation, our future generation will have to pay with health and environmental consequences for our short-sighted practices. As TWIC co-chairs, you are in the position of being able to recommend a single-use container Ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors and place that item on the agenda for a vote. The community wishes to see our county take this step to set a standard of encouraging those of us in the community who are slow to change. Our Contra Costa County's Clean Water Program is in favor of a strong single-use container ordinance and you will receive much support by the majority of voters for the Ordinance. Sincerely, Susan )unFish, MPH Founder & Director, Parents for a Safer Environment TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 11  1   March  6,  2014   To:   Transportation,  Water,  and  Infrastructure  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors   From:    Michael  Sullivan,  Shirley  Shelangoski,  Matt  Valdin,  and  Susan  JunFish  of         Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment   Good  Morning  Committee  members.    My  name  is  Michael  Sullivan  and  I  am  a  resident  of   Lafayette  and  a  retired  school  teacher.      Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment,  PfSE,  will  be   addressing  the  responses  by  the  IPM  Coordinator  to  the  Triennial  report’s  list  of  Unresolved   Issues.    I  thank  you  for  your  attention  to  these  issues  that  matter  very  much  to  the  public.    We   are  depending  on  each  one  of  you  to  ask  why  these  issues  have  not  been  resolved  for  years  and   be  prompted  to  help  find  clear  answers.    In  addition,  I  wish  to  add  as  a  side  comment  that  I   believe  that  a  Board  of  Supervisor  staff  could  &  should  be  a  role  model  for  the  behavior  of   county  staff  at  meetings,  and  adopt  a  more  conciliatory  and  respectful  tone…  until  that  occurs,  I   again  urge  you  to  recommend  camcorder  recording  of  meetings  and  uploading  onto  the  IPM   webpage.   Ms  Drlik  states  that  the  county  uses  purchase  orders  for  the  contractor  hired  for  the  Special   District  Grounds  maintenance  because  they  are  hired  specifically  for  pesticide  application  and   do  not  perform  IPM  services  nor  make  decisions.    We  are  told  that  the  decision  has  already   been  made  by  staff  to  apply  pesticides.    Then  I’d  ask  the  county  to  show  us  how  staff  made  the   decision  to  use  rodenticides  to  control  burrowing  rodents  in  our  county  parks  where  children   and  pets  frequent.    Second,  be  transparent  about  how  the  contractor  received  this  work.     Contractors  should  be  hired  in  part  by  their  track  record  of  implementing  IPM  at  other  agencies   and  should  be  able  to  provide  suggestions  to  staff  with  alternatives  to  conventional  and  risky   methods  like  rodenticides.  The  IPM  coordinator  states  that  the  committee  has  voted  and   resolved  this  issue  and  has  referred  PfSE  to  TWIC  for  further  resolution.    I  wish  to  be  very  clear   here.    The  IPM  Advisory  Committee  did  not  vote  on  whether  the  issues  were  resolved  or  not   but  voted  to  list  the  unresolved  issues  stated  by  the  public  in  the  Triennial  Report  for   documentation.     1) We  want  the  Public  Works  Department  to  consider  the  residual  activity  (or  half-­‐  life)  of   pesticides  prior  to  application.    Particularly  along  the  Flood  Control  District  before  a   forecasted  rain  that  can  wash  pesticides  into  the  channels  and  contaminate  the  water   that  flows  to  the  Bays.  Ms.  Drlik  states  that  pre-­‐emergents  must  be  applied  before  the   rain  to  activate  pre-­‐emergents.      She  also  says  that  it  is  not  applied  to  the  banks,  but   only  to  the  flood  control  access  roads  only.    They  feel  that  they  can  use  less  chemicals  if   they  use  pre-­‐emergents.    For  the  past  years,  Garlon  3A  with  a  half  life  of  45  days  on  soil   was  used  in  the  largest  quantity  along  the  flood  control  district,  and  this  is  not  a  pre-­‐ emergent.         TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 12  2    We  contend  that  application  of  ANY  herbicides  with  half-­‐lives  longer  than  an  impending   rain  storm  will  likely  run-­‐off  into  the  channels,  including  when  sprayed  onto  the  access   roads  that  are  adjacent  to  the  banks.    We  urge  the  county  to  cease  this  risky  practice   and  immediately  characterize  the  pesticides  being  considered  for  usage  in  a  transparent   manner  before  application.    Second,  there  are  sustainable  alternatives  such  as  1)  long-­‐ term  restoration  of  flood  control  channels  by  planting  native  grasses  and  low  growing   sedges  to  compete  out  weeds,  2)  goat  grazing    and  3)  Alternative  Work  Programs  that   provide  free  labor  for  manual  removal  of  weeds  that  are  being  done  in  many  towns  and   counties.   My  name  is  Shirley  Shelangoski  and  I’m  a  resident  of  Pleasant  Hill.       2) Ms.  Drlik  reports  that  in  2009  the  posting  policy  was  developed,  but  not  applicable  to   right  of  ways,  (which  includes  the  flood  control  district  and  roadsides).    In  2012,  the   policy  went  to  permanent  signs  with  posting  on  the  website.    We  have  seen  no  evidence   that  posting  was  ever  done  on  the  website  nor  at  treated  locations  outdoors  before  or   during  applications  in  areas  where  people  recreate  or  have  foot  access  such  as  trails  and   parks.    We  ask  this  Committee  to  address  this  “right  to  know”  problem.  Dog  owners,   bicyclists,  joggers,  and  parents  walking  kids  to  school  or  chidren  playing  in  creeks  all   have  the  right  to  have  a  choice  to  avoid  treated  areas  with  posting  at  the  site  of   treatment  and/or  onlne.     3) The  county  states  that  there  has  been  no  name-­‐calling  nor  shouting  at  the  meetings.     Ms.  Drlik  and  Jill  Ray  were  present  at  one  of  the  worst  sessions  at  the  October  29,  2013   Decision  Making  Subcommittee  when  the  Chair  screamed  and  called  a  public  member   names  for  asking  a  question  that  was  difficult  to  answer,  namely  about  why  the  county   does  not  address  runoff  risks  when  choosing  pesticides  before  a  rainstorm.    In  earlier   meetings,  I  have  witnessed  dismissiveness,  staff  interrupting  the  public  during  public   comments  and  not  allowing  community  members  to  speak  during  public  comments.       We  have  asked  that  sessions  be  taped  however  two  staff  members  and  the  Chair  who   blew  up  on  Oct  29th,  having  had  the  most  problems  refraining  from  contempt  of  the   public  have  opposed  the  recordings.    The  PfSE  Steering  Committee  has  received  reports   from  two  members  who  were  called  and  interrogated  by  Staff  on  the  veracity  of  their   statements.    One  senior  who  was  bed-­‐ridden  and  groggy  during  a  stint  of  rehabilitation   from  a  serious  fall  and  surgery  felt  very  intimidated  after  the  IPM  Coordinator   demanded  to  know  each  date  of  the  meeting  she  attended  and  said  she  could  not  have   possibly  experienced  hostile  treatment  if  she  couldn’t  remember  the  dates.    Even  young   people  do  not  remember  dates  off  hand,  but  Margaret  Lynwood  did  attend  four  IPM   related  meetings,  and  at  least  once  was  in  place  of  my  absence.    Much  of  these  civility   conflicts  would  be  resolved  by  simply  taping  the  meetings  and  uploading  them  onto  the   IPM  webpage.    Technology  is  now  inexpensive,  simple  to  use,  and  quick.   TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 13  3     4) The  public  wants  an  IPM  Ordinance  adopted  for  Contra  Costa  County.  Twice,  it  was   voted  down  by  the  IPM  Committee.  We  contend  that  erroneous  information  was   provided  that  resulted  in  the  Ordinance  being  discounted.    Counsel  mis-­‐referenced  the   county  statutes  in  the  2009  document.    Other  counties  could  not  have  adopted  an   Ordinance  and  with  no  opposition  if  their  action  was  illegal  as  stated  in  the  2013   document.    Other  counties  have  advised  PfSE  that  their  IPM  program  could  not  have   been  nearly  as  successful  without  an  IPM  Ordinance  that  provided  administrative   consequences  for  staff  who  violated  the  Ordinance.  We  do  not  oppose  further   instruction  from  an  Administrative  Bulletin,  but  it  should  complement  the  overall   mission  as  set  in  the  Ordinance.    We  wish  to  see  this  issue  looked  at  closely  by  a   subcommittee  and  the  two  short  documents  that  PfSE  submitted  reviewed.    Simply   saying  that  the  issue  has  been  revisited  multiple  times  does  not  make  It  resolved  if  there   was  never  a  thorough  evaluation.     My  Name  is  Matt  Valdin.    I  hold  a  Masters  Degree  in  Environmental  Sciences  from  UCSB  and   work  with  PfSE.   Added  verbally  at  the  meeting:  “I  want  to  second  Michael’s  comment  about  the  need  for  the   Board  of  Supervisor  staff  to  show  more  respect  to  the  public.”   5) Ms.  Drlik  states  that  bad  actors  as  well  as  all  pesticides  are  reported  in  the  Annual   Report  and  that  the  IPM  Committee  voted  to  include  only  Bad  Actors  identified  on  the   PANNA  database.    This  is  true,  but  Ms  Drlik  and  Mr  Kent  perhaps  forgot  to  state  when   presenting  the  Annual  Report,  that  major  misidentification  of  Bad  Actors  resulted  in   under-­‐reporting  in  the  tune  of  thousands  of  pounds  annually.    Staff  and  Committee   members  who  attended  Dr  Kegley’s  presentation  acknowledged  that  the  county  should   identify  at  least  the  acutely  toxic  pesticides  with  the  “danger”  label  as  Bad  Actors  from   that  time  forward.     The  full  IPM  Advisory  Committee  voted  for  staff  to  begin  reporting  all  the  “danger”   labeled  chemicals  staff  missed  as  Bad  Actors  in  the  past  years.    This  is  a  major   acknowledgement  of  characterization  of  pesticides  being  used  and  should  have  been   mentioned  in  the  Annual  Report  but  was  not.  A  change  in  identifying  Bad  Actor   Pesticides  will  impact  the  accurate  tracking  of  Bad  Actor  usage  from  year  to  year.    In   2002  when  the  Board  of  Supervisors  passed  the  IPM  Policy,  they  also  accepted  the   Public  &  Environmental  Health  Advisory  Board  (or  PEHAB’s)  advice  to  phase  out  bad   actors  whenever  possible,  therefore  the  distinct  tracking  began  at  inception  of  the  IPM   policy.   Unfortunately,  the  county  is  still  under-­‐reporting  additional  Bad  Actor  groups  of   chemicals  that  are  even  more  hazardous.    Toxic  Release  Inventory  listed  reproductive   TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 14  4   and  developmental  toxins  and  salted  products  of  Bad  Actor  Parents  are  also  not  tracked   as  Bad  Actors.    We  trust  that  each  of  you  on  the  Committee  expect  accuracy  and  would   move  quickly  to  resolve  this  issue.     6) PfSE  requested  in  Sept,  2012  that  the  County  address  a  study  concluding  that  Kestrels   (and  likely  other  birds  of  prey)  are  20-­‐30x  more  sensitive  to  Diphacinone,  a  1st   generation  rodenticide  used  in  open  space  by  our  Ag  Department.    Studies  done  to   approve  the  Diphacinone  for  the  market  were  tested  on  fowls  that  were  much  more   tolerant.    A  special  permit  has  to  be  obtained  to  experiment  with  birds  of  prey  like   Kestrels  so  few  toxicity  studies  are  done  with  these  protected  birds  of  prey.         In  January,  2013  Susan  JunFish  compiled  LD50  and  rodents/predator  weight  data  from   both  the  Cornell  University  and  the  UC  Davis  IPM  Cooperative  Extension  programs.    LD   50  literally  means  the  lethal  dose  in  which  50%  of  the  animals  die  from  being   administered  a  substance.      It  is  a  measurement  of  acute  toxicity  of  the  worst  kind,   death.    When  you  see  LD50  numbers,  you  know  you  are  dealing  with  an  acute  toxicity   study.      The  purpose  of  this  white  paper  was  to  calculate  whether  it  was  even  possible   for  a  Kestrel  or  other  predator  with  a  known  LD50  to  Diphacinone,  to  eat  enough   poisoned  rodent  such  as  a  ground  squirrel  to  reach  even  close  to  its  LD50,  or  amount  of   poison  killing  a  median  number  of  its  kind.    A  ground  squirrel  and  rat  had  low  tolerance   relatively  and  a  larger  bird  of  prey  would  have  to  eat  many  to  get  secondary  poisoning.       My  name  is  Susan  JunFish  and  I  will  finish  our  public  comments.    The  following  is  a  detailed   version  of  my  verbal  3  min  public  comments  to  answer  staff’s  responses  in  the  Triennial   Report..   A  Kestrel  is  the  size  of  a  large  dove,  and  would  likely  only  attack  a  mouse  or  a  smaller   prey.    It  turns  out  that  mice  have  an  unusually  high  LD  50,  about  10  times  more  than   rats  or  ground  squirrels,  which  means  that  given  the  same  weight,  the  mouse  can   accumulate  in  its  body,  10x  more  diphacinone  than  the  other  rodents  before  dying.     Multiplying  the  high  end  of  tolerance  of  300  mgs/kg  for  mice  with  the  weight  of  a  large   mouse  of  .04  kg,  provides  an  LD50  of  12  mg  of  diphacinone  before  it  kills  50%  of  that   mice  population.    That  means  perhaps  half  of  the  mice  population  with  12  mg  of   diphacinone  in  its  body  are  still  foraging  and  not  dead  yet,  being  susceptible  to  being   caught  by  a  Kestrel  or  other  predator.    The  LD50  for  a  Kestrel  to  Diphacinone  is  97  mg/kg   and  their  weight  can  be  a  small  as  .08  kg.    It  takes  as  little  as  7.8  mg  to  kill  a  kestrel,   whereas  a  mouse  can  potentially  be  foraging  about  with  12  mg  of  diphacinone  in  its   body,  which  could  easily  kill  a  Kestrel.   We  appreciate  that  Commissioner  Guise  eventually  commented  on  the  paper  a  year   later  when  no  one  else  in  the  county  would.    Although  the  study  was  not  refuted,  the     TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 15  5   county  still  maintains  that  diphacinone  is  not  causing  secondary  poisonings  based  upon   the  assumption  that  birds  of  prey  and  other  wildlife  are  not  being  found  dead  near  the   treatment  areas.       First,  the  assumption  of  ground  squirrels  and  other  rodents  eating  poisoned  grains  dying   almost  exclusively  in  their  burrows  is  unlikely.    Second,  since  diphacinone  can  take  a   week  to  kill,  and  longer  for  mice,  it  is  very  likely  that  these  animals  are  in  essence   walking  storage  houses  of  diphacinone  since  1st  generation  rodenticides  kill  slowly.    The   predators  and  pets  in  the  meanwhile  have  easier  access  to  these  poisoned  rodents  that   tend  to  become  disoriented  and  lose  their  agility.    Third,  as  shown  by  the  UCLA  bobcat   study,  acute  or  immediate  death  is  not  the  only  way  to  devastate  wildlife.    Low  levels  of   rodenticides  found  in  Bobcats  were  found  over  a  course  of  a  year  to  cause  what   appeared  to  be  a  slow  death  from  a  frequently  occurring  parasite  that  healthy  bobcats   with  no  rodenticides  in  their  bodies  did  not  incur.    The  common  animal  mite,  also  called   Mange,  was  correlated  to  the  death  of  nearly  every  bobcat  that  had  even  small  levels  of   rodenticide  in  their  body,  including  one  with  diphacinone  alone.    Bobcats  with  no   rodenticides  in  their  bodies  were  tolerating  the  mange.    The  authors  concluded  that  low   levels  of  rodenticides  can  still  cause  demise  of  wildlife  by  perhaps  weakening  their   immune  system  and  making  them  susceptible  to  illness  and  premature  death.    I  will   leave  4  sets  of  handouts  referencing  this  paper  and  photos  of  a  bobcat  from  the  study.     This  finding  is  not  very  surprising  since  public  health  researchers  have  known  for  years   from  laboratory  experiments  on  rodents  that  cumulative  stress  on  the  body  can  lower   the  immune  system.    Stress,  whether  it  be  pesticides,  radiation,  viral  infection,  or  even   emotional  stress,  have  all  been  shown  to  contribute  to  the  demise  of  one’s  health  and   lead  to  chronic  illness.         The  colony  collapse  disorder  crises  in  our  country  with  honey  bees  dying  has  been  so  far   linked  to  susceptible  bees  to  a  common  parasite  when  the  bees  have  been  exposed  to   sub-­‐lethal  or  minute  levels  of  a  class  of  pesticides  called  neonicotinoids.    Again,  the   immune  system  crashes  and  cannot  protect  the  organism  from  a  naturally  occurring   virus  that  other  bees  deal  with  fine,  but  in  the  presence  of  this  pesticide,  the  bee   appears  to  perhaps  become  disoriented  and  does  not  return  to  the  hive.    It  is  not  clear,   but  wildlife  that  is  poisoned  with  rodenticides  often  act  disoriented.    I  have  seen  on   various  occasions,  rats  staggering  in  the  dark  during  an  evening  walk,  coyotes  and  foxes   acting  disoriented  and  confused  and  not  scampering  away  from  approaching  people.     These  are  common  signs  of  rodenticide  poisoning  or  other  severe  illness.     There  were  only  about  250  dead  carcasses  submitted  to  the  CA  Department  of  Fish  and   Games  for  autopsy  that  was  determined  to  be  from  rodenticide  poisonings  from  1999-­‐ TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 16  6   2011,  a  12-­‐year  period.    The  average  detection  rate  of  finding  rodenticides  is  65%  in  any   given  carcass.    CDFG  found  only  20  autopsies  per  year,  indicating  a  very  small  number,   probably  fewer  than  30  a  year  that  were  autopsied  by  this  state  agency  from  submittals   coming  from  all  over  the  state  as  shown  in  the  database.      In  this  CDFG  data,  the   predominant  rodenticide  found  is  the  2nd  generation  rodenticides.    However,  a  handful   of  autopsies  found  only  diphacinone:  in  a  bald  eagle,  a  coyote,  a  bobcat,  and  a  wild   boar.    I  have  provided  a  copy  of  the  print  out.     8. The  CCC  Ag  Department  conducted  &  concluded  that  trapping  was  too  costly  over  100   miles  of  critical  infrastructure.  The  study  concluded  it  cost  $5074  per  linear  mile  for   trapping  as  opposed  to  $220  per  linear  mile  with  rodenticides,  asserting  that  trapping  is   over  23X  or  2,300%  more  expensive  than  using  rodenticides.    All  the  presentations  we   received  from  great  speakers  did  not  address  the  less  know  emerging  problems  of  the   1st  generation  rodenticides  like  diphacinone.      Commissioner  Guise  also  concluded  that   that  using  perches,  owl  boxes  and  trapping  are  not  feasible  and  we  would  beg  to  differ   seeing  other  counties  successfully  using  all  these  alternatives  in  a  financially  feasible   manner.     If  Santa  Clara  County  has  paid  $7,500  for  every  300  ground  squirrels  caught  and   removed  by  a  contractor,  we  believe  that’s  a  pretty  good  deal  considering  that  our   rodenticide  program  costs  over  $120,000  and  we  don’t  have  many  bodies  of  squirrels  to   show  for  it.    We  decided  to  graph  the  diphacinone  usage  by  the  Dept  of  Ag  from  2004  to   2013  and  show  the  change  of  this  rodenticide  over  the  9  years.    This  is  just  a  draft  graph,   but  what  we  see  here  is  the  usage  of  about  the  same  amount  of  diphacinone  mixed  into   about  270,000  lbs  of  grain  from  year  to  year.    We  ask  this  Committee  to  look  more   closely  at  the  effectiveness  of  a  program  that  risks  the  health  of  natural  predators  and   one  which  cannot  account  for  effectiveness  since  the  amount  of  rodenticides  used  year   to  year  has  really  not  changed  significantly.    We  believe  that  the  county  should  be   tracking  each  pest  control  program’s  pesticide  usage  and  assessing  the  effectiveness  by   tracking  pesticide  usage,  tracking  the  pest  population,  and  tracking  consequences  of  the   activities  as  well  as  the  positive  feedback  from  benefactors.    This  is  currently  not  being   done  for  each  program.     Thank  you  on  behalf  of  the  Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment  Steering  Committee  for  your   attention  to  our  concerns.    We  will  provide  you  an  electronic  copy  of  our  public   comments  and  any  references  you  wish  to  see.     TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 17 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report Pipeline System: LS-16 (Concord to San Jose) Operator: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Location: Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, CA Date of Occurrence: 9 November 2004 Medium Released: Premium Gasoline Quantity: 564 Barrels CSFM Arrival Time & Date: 1545 hours 11/09/04 Total Damages $ TBD Investigation Responsibility: State OPS NTSB Other Company Reported Apparent Cause: Corrosion Excavation Natural Forces Incorrect Operation Other Outside Force Damage Material and/or Welds Equipment and Operations Other Rupture Yes No Leak Yes No Fire Yes No Explosion Yes No Evacuation Yes No Number of Persons 270 Area Narrative Summary Short summary of the Incident/Accident which will give interested persons sufficient information to make them aware of the basic scenario and facts. At 1322 hours on 9 November 2004, excavation equipment operated by Mountain Cascade, Inc., struck Kinder Morgan’s LS-16 pipeline, a 51.4 mile long intrastate products pipeline that travels from Concord to San Jose. The excavator was working on a large-diameter water supply expansion project in Walnut Creek, CA for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Upon puncture of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, gasoline under high pressure was immediately released into the surrounding area. Kinder Morgan control center operators in Concord immediately noticed the large pressure drop and started to shut the pipeline down. Several seconds after the line was hit, the gasoline streaming out of the line was ignited by welders employed by Matamoros Pipelines, Inc. who were also working on the new water supply pipeline. The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of five workers and significant injury to four others. One nearby two-story structure was burned and other property was damaged. The direct cause of the accident was the excavator’s bucket striking the pipeline and puncturing through the wall of the pipe. However, there were several factors that significantly contributed to this accident. These include inadequate line locating, inadequate project safety oversight and communication, and failure to follow the one-call law. Region/State: Western/California Reviewed by: Robert Gorham Principal Investigator: Linda Zigler Title: Supervising Pipeline Safety Engineer Date: 17 June 2005 Date: 20 June 2005 - 1 - Form-11 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report (Revised 03/04/05) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 18 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 2 - Failure Location & Response Location (City, Township, Range, County/Parish): (Acquire Map) Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California Address or M.P. on Pipeline: ( )1 Type of Area (Rural, City): (1) MP 8.48; South Broadway between Newell Street and Rudgear Road Urban; Residential Date: 9 November 2004 Time of Failure: 1322 hours Time Detected: 1322 hours Time Located: 1322 hours How Located: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District OES Report #: (Attach Report) Time Reported to OES: Reported by: #04-5845 1358 Kinder Morgan Type of Pipeline: Gas Distribution Gas Transmission Hazardous Liquid LNG LP Interstate Gas Interstate Liquid LNG Facility Municipal Intrastate Gas Intrastate Liquid Public Utility Jurisdictional Gas Gathering Offshore Liquid Master Meter Offshore Gas Jurisdictional Liquid Gathering Offshore Gas - High H2S CO2 Pipeline Configuration (Regulator Station, Pump Station, Pipeline, etc.): 10-inch products pipeline Operator/Owner Information Owner: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Operator: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Address: Address: 500 Dallas St #1000 Houston TX 77002 500 Dallas St #1000 Houston TX 77002 Company Official: Ron McClain Company Official: Ron McClain Phone No.: (713) 369-9152 Fax No.: (713) 495-2735 Phone No. (713) 369-9152 Fax No. (713) 495-2735 Drug and Alcohol Testing Program Contacts N/A Drug Program Contact & Phone: Alcohol Program Contact & Phone: 1 Photo documentation TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 19 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 3 - Damages Product/Gas Loss or Spill( )2 564 barrels Estimated Property Damage $ TBD Amount Recovered 60 barrels Associated Damages( )3 $ TBD Estimated Amount $ $35, 379.72 Description of Property Damage: One two-story house burned; construction vehicles were burned; windows broken in other surrounding structures Customers out of Service: Yes No Number: Suppliers out of Service: Yes No Number: Fatalities and Injuries Fatalities: Yes No Company: -0- Contractor: -5- Public: -0- Injuries - Hospitalization: Yes No Company: -0- Contractor: -4- Public: -0- Injuries - Non-Hospitalization: Yes No Company: -0- Contractor: -0- Public: -0- Total Injuries (including Non-Hospitalization): Company: -0- Contractor: -4- Public: -0- Name Job Function Yrs w/ Comp. Yrs. Exp. Type of Injury *See Page 13* Drug/Alcohol Testing N/A Were all employees that could have contributed to the incident, post-accident tested within the 2 hour time frame for alcohol or the 32 hour time frame for all other drugs? Yes No Results Job Function Test Date & Time Location Pos Neg Type of Drug 2 Initial volume lost or spilled 3 Including cleanup cost TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 20 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 4 - System Description Describe the Operator's System: LS-16 is a 51.39 mile long, 10-inch products pipeline that delivers refined products from Kinder Morgan’s Concord Pump Station to their San Jose Terminal. There is one downstream intermediate booster pump located at Dougherty Road in the City of Dublin, CA. Pipe Failure Description N/A Length of Failure (inches, feet, miles): 1” (about the size of a quarter) (1) Position (Top, Bottom, include position on pipe, 6 O'clock): (1)Description of Failure (Corrosion Gouge, Seam Split): (1) 3 o’clock position 100% through wall puncture (from rock tooth of excavation bucket) Laboratory Analysis: Yes No Performed by: Metallurgical tests are pending Preservation of Failed Section or Component: Yes No If Yes - Method: Puncture was covered with a temporary clamp and wrapped in plastic. In Custody of: Anamet, Inc., Hayward, CA - metallurgical test laboratory (for CalOSHA) Develop a sketch of the area including distances from roads, houses, stress inducing factors, pipe configurations, etc. Bar Hole Test Survey Plot should be outlined with concentrations at test points. Direction of Flow. Component Failure Description N/A Component Failed: (1) Manufacturer: Model: Pressure Rating: Size: Other (Breakout Tank, Underground Storage): Pipe Data N/A Material: Steel Wall Thickness/SDR: 0.188 inch Diameter (O.D.): 10.750 inch Installation Date: 1965 for original line 1987 for accident site section SMYS: 52,000 psi Manufacturer: Unknown Longitudinal Seam: High Frequency ERW Type of Coating: Polyken Tape Pipe Specifications (API 5L, ASTM A53, etc.): API 5L X-52 ERW Joining N/A Type: Procedure: NDT Method: Inspected: Yes No Pressure @ Time of Failure @ Failure Site N/A Pressure @ Failure Site: 973 psig Elevation @ Failure Site: 164 feet Pressure Readings @ Various Locations: Direction from Failure Site Location/M.P./Station # Pressure (psig) Elevation (ft msl) Upstream Downstream Concord Station 1165 psig +23 feet X TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 21 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 5 - Upstream Pump Station Data N/A Type of Product: Premium Gasoline API Gravity: 59.6 Specific Gravity: 0.74 Flow Rate: 4483 bph Pressure @ Time of Failure ( )4 1165 psig Distance to Failure Site: 8.48 miles High Pressure Set Point: 1360 psig Low Pressure Set Point: None Upstream Compressor Station Data N/A Specific Gravity: Flow Rate: Pressure @ Time of Failure () Distance to Failure Site: High Pressure Set Point: Low Pressure Set Point: Operating Pressure N/A Max. Allowable Operating Pressure: 1310 psig Actual Operating Pressure: 1165 psig Determination of MAOP: Hydrostatic pressure test Method of Over Pressure Protection: pressure switch and transmitter Relief Valve Set Point: San Jose Terminal – 800 psig Capacity Adequate? Yes No Integrity Test After Failure N/A Pressure Test Conducted in place? (Conducted on Failed Components or Associated Piping): Yes No If NO, Tested after removal? Yes No Method: static pressure of 525 psi was held for one hour as a stand up test after replacement pipe was installed Describe any failures during the test. None Soil/water Conditions @ Failure Site N/A Condition of and Type of Soil around Failure Site (Color, Wet, Dry, Frost Depth): Damp Type of Backfill (Size and Description): Type of Water (Salt, Brackish): Water Analysis ( )5 Yes No 4 Obtain event logs and pressure recording charts 5 Attach copy of water analysis report TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 22 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 6 - External Pipe or Component Examination N/A External Corrosion? Yes No (1)Coating Condition (Disbonded, Non-existent): Good condition (1) Description of Corrosion: N/A Description of Failure Surface (Gouges, Arc Burns, Wrinkle Bends, Cracks, Stress Cracks, Chevrons, Fracture Mode, Point of Origin): 100% through wall puncture Above Ground: Yes No (1)Buried: Yes No (1) Stress Inducing Factors: (1)Depth of Cover: About 60 inches at accident site (1) Cathodic Protection N/A P/S (Surface): P/S (Interface): Soil Resistivity: pH: Date of Installation: Method of Protection: Impressed current – last cathodic protection survey was completed in August 2004 Did the Operator have knowledge of Corrosion before the Incident? Yes No How Discovered? (Close Interval Survey, Instrumented Pig, Annual Survey, Rectifier Readings, ECDA, etc): Internal Pipe or Component Examination N/A Internal Corrosion: Yes No (1)Injected Inhibitors: Yes No Testing: Yes No Type of Inhibitors: Results (Coupon Test, Corrosion Resistance Probe): Description of Failure surface (MIC, Pitting, Wall Thinning, Chevrons, Fracture Mode, Point of Origin): Cleaning Pig Program: Yes No Gas and/or Liquid Analysis: Yes No Results of Gas and/or Liquid Analysis ( )6 Internal Inspection Survey: Yes No Results ( )7 Did the Operator have knowledge of Corrosion before the Incident? Yes No How Discovered? (Instrumented Pig, Coupon Testing, ICDA, etc.): 6 Attach copy of gas and/or liquid analysis report 7 Attach copy of internal inspection survey report TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 23 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 7 - Outside Force Damage N/A Responsible Party: Mountain Cascade, Inc. Telephone No.: (925) 373-8370 Address: 555 Exchange Court, P.O. 5050, Livermore, CA 94551-5050 Work Being Performed: Excavation of ditch for installation of 72-inch (OD) water line for East Bay Municipal Utility District Equipment Involved: Track hoe excavator (1)Called One Call System? Yes No One Call Name: USA North One Call Report # () 8 Notice Date: Time: Response Date: Time: Details of Response: ---Refer to Narrative Section - attached Was Location Marked According to Procedures? Yes No Pipeline Marking Type: (1)Location: (1) State Law Damage Prevention Program Followed? Yes No No State Law Notice Required: Yes No Response Required: Yes No Was Operator Member of State One Call? Yes No Was Operator on Site? Yes No Is OSHA Notification Required? Yes No Natural Forces N/A Description (Earthquake, Tornado, Flooding, Erosion): 8 Attach copy of one-call report TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 24 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 8 - Failure Isolation N/A Squeeze Off/Stopple Location and Method: stopple installed downstream of puncture; hot tap installed upstream of puncture (1) Valve Closed - Upstream: Concord Outgoing Block Valve I.D.: Time: 1730 hours 11 November 2004 M.P.: 00.00 Valve Closed - Downstream: Hillgrade Block Valve I.D.: Time: 1415 hours 9 November 2004 M.P.: 10.098 Pipeline Shutdown Method: Manual Automatic SCADA Controller ESD Failed Section Bypassed or Isolated: Performed By: Kinder Morgan Valve Spacing: 10.098 miles between these two block valves Odorization N/A Gas Odorized: Yes No Concentration of Odorant (Post Incident at Failure Site): Method of Determination: Yes No % LEL: Yes No % Gas In Air: Yes No Time Taken: Yes No Was Odorizer Working Prior to the Incident? Type of Odorizer (Wick, By-Pass): Yes No Odorant Manufacturer: Type of Odorant: Model: Amount Injected: Monitoring Interval (Weekly): Odorization History (Leaks Complaints, Low Odorant Levels, Monitoring Locations, Distances from Failure Site): Weather Conditions N/A Temperature: High 60º’s Wind (Direction & Speed): Climate (Snow, Rain): Cloudy – rain expected Humidity: Was Incident preceded by a rapid weather change ? Yes No Weather Conditions Prior to Incident (Cloud Cover, Ceiling Heights, Snow, Rain, Fog): TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 25 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 9 - Gas Migration Survey N/A Bar Hole Test of Area: Yes No Equipment Used: Method of Survey (Foundations, Curbs, Manholes, Driveways, Mains, Services) ( )9 (1) Environment Sensitivity Impact N/A Location (Nearest Rivers, Body of Water, Marshlands, Wildlife Refuge, City Water Supplies that could be or were affected by the medium loss): (1) OPA Contingency Plan Available? Yes No Followed? Yes No Class Location/High Consequence Area N/A Class Location: 1 2 3 4 Determination: HCA Area? Yes No N/A Determination: Odorization Required? Yes No N/A Pressure Test History N/A Req’d ( )10 Assessment Deadline Date Test Date Test Medium Pressure (psig) Duration (hrs) % SMYS Installation N/A 1965 Water 1760 8 Next Next Most Recent Describe any problems experienced during the pressure tests. Internal Line Inspection/Other Assessment History N/A Req’d (10) Assessment Deadline Date Assessment Date Type of ILI Tool ( )11 Other Assessment Method ( )12 Indicated Anomaly If yes, describe below Initial Yes No Next Yes No Next Yes No Most Recent Yes No Describe any previously indicated anomalies at the failed pipe, and any subsequent pipe inspections (anomaly digs) and remedial actions. A smart pig inspection was conducted in August 2001. NOTE: a geometry tool inspection was also conducted on 15 November 2004 (after the accident) to ensure the pipeline’s integrity 9 Plot on site description page 10 As required of Pipeline Integrity Management regulations in 49CFR Parts 192 and 195 11 MFL, geometry, crack, etc. 12 ECDA, ICDA, SCCDA, “other technology,” etc. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 26 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 10 - Pre-Failure Conditions and Actions N/A Was there a known pre-failure condition requiring (10) the operator to schedule evaluation and remediation? Yes (describe below or on attachment) No If there was such a known pre-failure condition, had the operator established and adhered to a required (10) evaluation and remediation schedule? Describe below or on attachment. Yes No N/A Prior to the failure, had the operator performed the required (10) actions to address the threats that are now known to be related to the cause of this failure? Yes No N/A List below or on an attachment such operator-identified threats, and operator actions taken prior to the accident. Describe any previously indicated anomalies at the failed pipe, and any subsequent pipe inspections (anomaly digs) and remedial actions. Maps & Records N/A Are Maps and Records Current? ( )13 Yes No Comments: Leak Survey History N/A Leak Survey History (Trend Analysis, Leak Plots): Pipeline Operation History N/A Description (Repair or Leak Reports, Exposed Pipe Reports): Did a Safety Related Condition Exist Prior to Failure? Yes No Reported? Yes No Unaccounted For Gas: Over & Short/Line Balance (24 hr., Weekly, Monthly/Trend): 13 Obtain copies of maps and records TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 27 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 11 - Operator/Contractor Error N/A Name: Job Function: Title: Years of Experience: Training (Type of Training, Background): Was the person “Operator Qualified” as applicable to a precursor abnormal operating condition? Yes No N/A Type of Error (Inadvertent Operation of a Valve): Procedures that are required: Actions that were taken: Pre-Job Meeting (Construction, Maintenance, Blow Down, Purging, Isolation): Pre-Job Meeting (Construction, Maintenance, Blow Down, Purging, Isolation): Prevention of Accidental Ignition (Tag & Lock Out, Hot Weld Permit): Additional Actions (Contributing factors may include number of hours at work prior to failure or time of day work being conducted): Training Procedures: Operation Procedures: Controller Activities: Name Title Experience Hours on Duty Prior to Failure Shift Alarm Parameters: High/Low Pressure Shutdown: Flow Rate: Procedures for Clearing Alarms: Type of Alarm: Company Response Procedures for Abnormal Operations: Over/Short Line Balance Procedures: Frequency of Over/Short Line Balance: Additional Actions: TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 28 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 12 - Additional Actions Taken by the Operator N/A Make notes regarding the emergency and Failure Investigation Procedures (Pressure reduction, Reinforced Squeeze Off, Clean Up, Use of Evacuators, Line Purging, closing Additional Valves, Double Block and Bleed, Continue Operating downstream Pumps): At 1322 hours on 9 November 2004, Mountain Cascade’s excavator punctured Kinder Morgan’s products pipeline. At 1326 hours, Kinder Morgan’s control center in Concord shut the line down. They drained down into both their Concord Pump Station and their San Jose Terminal. At 1415 hours, the downstream block valve (Hill Grade) was closed; the block valve at the Concord Station was kept open so that gasoline could continue to drain back to the station. A stopple plug was inserted into the pipeline south of the rupture (downstream) and a hot tap was installed in the pipeline north of the rupture (upstream) giving Kinder Morgan the ability to remove the residual gasoline in the line. By 0430 hours on 11 November 2004, Kinder Morgan was able to recover 60 barrels of gasoline and a temporary clamp was installed over the puncture site. At 1730 hours, the upstream valve at Concord Station was closed. The pipe containing the rupture was removed by cold cutting and pre-tested replacement pipe was welded into place. Repairs were finished at about 2000 hours on 13 November 2004. At 2050 hours on that same evening, LS-16 was pressured to 525 psi for a one hour static pressure test. The line was put back into service at 2221 hours later that night although Kinder Morgan only operated at 80% of their maximum operating pressure (1045 psi). They also ran a gauge plate/sizing plate that night from the Concord Station to the San Jose Terminal to confirm its integrity and make sure that no undetected third party damage had occurred. Attachments: Roster of Deceased/Injured Workers Narrative Report (20041109LMZ1) Illustration 1 – Walnut Creek Accident Site Illustration 2 – Map of Rupture Site Photo A – LS-16 pipeline with through-wall puncture Photo B – LS-16 pipeline with temporary clamp over puncture Photo C – LS-16 pipeline offset at original location Photo D – LS-16 pipeline offset section removed Photo E – Mountain Cascade excavator bucket with rock teeth Item 1 – Kinder Morgan Pipeline Alignment Sheet 16-7D Item 2 – Carollo drawing showing Note 2 Item 3 – USA/North Ticket Data TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 29 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 13 - Title: Kinder Morgan LS-16 / Walnut Creek Date of Accident: 9 November 2004 Investigator: Linda Zigler, Pipeline Safety Engineer Deceased Workers: The victims listed below died as a result of burns received from the pipeline explosion/fire. 1. Tae Chin Im Age 47 Foreman Mountain Cascade 2. Javier Ramos Age 35 Laborer Mountain Cascade 3. Israel Fernandez Age 36 Welder Matamoros Pipelines 4. Miguel Reyes Age 43 Foreman Matamoros Pipelines 5. Victor Rodriguez Age 26 Welder Matamoros Pipelines Injured Workers: The victims listed below were severely injured and were hospitalized as a result of burns received from the pipeline explosion/fire. 1. Miguel Angel Fuentes Age 28 Laborer Mountain Cascade 2. Martin Topete Age 48 Laborer Mountain Cascade 3. Jeremy Knox Age 26 Welder Matamoros Pipelines 4. Roger Paasch Age 27 Welder Matamoros Pipelines TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 30 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 14 - Supplemental Narrative Title: Kinder Morgan LS-16 / Walnut Creek Date of Accident: 9 November 2004 Investigator: Linda Zigler, Pipeline Safety Engineer SUMMARY: At 1322 hours on 9 November 2004, excavation equipment operated by Mountain Cascade, Inc., struck Kinder Morgan’s LS-16 pipeline, a 51.4 mile long intrastate products pipeline that travels from Concord to San Jose. The excavator was working on a large-diameter water supply expansion project in Walnut Creek, CA for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Upon puncture of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, gasoline under high pressure was immediately released into the surrounding area. Kinder Morgan control center operators in Concord immediately noticed the large pressure drop and started to shut the pipeline down. Several seconds after the line was hit, the gasoline streaming out of the line was ignited by welders employed by Matamoros Pipelines, Inc. who were also working on the new water supply pipeline. The ensuing explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of five workers and significant injury to four others. One nearby two-story structure was burned and other property was damaged. The direct cause of the accident was the excavator’s bucket striking the pipeline and puncturing through the wall of the pipe. However, there were several factors that significantly contributed to this accident. These include inadequate line locating, inadequate project safety oversight and communication, and failure to follow the one-call law. FOCUS OF INVESTIGATION: The lead agency in this accident investigation is the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA). Although the State Fire Marshal’s Pipeline Safety Division (SFM) participated with CalOSHA staff as they conducted their investigation, the authority for SFM to conduct its own accident investigation is derived from Section 13107.5 of the California Health and Safety Code which states: “The State Fire Marshal may investigate every break, and shall investigate every explosion or fire, involving a pipeline reported by a local agency pursuant to Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 51010) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code…”. The SFM investigation is limited to the determination of whether there had been any violations of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (Part 195); Section 4216 of the California Government Code; and, Sections 51010-51019.1, of the California Government Code. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 31 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 15 - DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE: At approximately 1430 hours on 9 November 2004, SFM Supervising Pipeline Safety Engineer Bob Gorham, received notification from the Emergency Warning Center at the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services that Kinder Morgan had reported a potential leak on their pipeline in the City of Walnut Creek. Gorham immediately assigned SFM Pipeline Safety Engineer Linda Zigler to respond to the accident site and assume responsibility as SFM Lead Investigator. Zigler arrived on scene at 1545 hours. The following additional SFM personnel responded to or assisted with the accident investigation: State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva; Division Chief Nancy Wolfe; Supervising Pipeline Safety Engineer Bob Gorham; Pipeline Safety Engineers Doug Allen, Chuck MacDonald and Emmett Cooper; and Senior Deputy State Fire Marshal Tin Tran. ACCIDENT EVENTS: As part of a project for East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), Mountain Cascade was in the process of digging a trench for the installation of a new 72-inch diameter water pipeline along South Broadway between Newell Avenue and Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek, CA. The Kinder Morgan pipeline, which was buried about 60 inches deep in this area, deviated from a straight line to form a curved “offset” or “point of intersection” (PI) at this location (Kinder Morgan Mile Post 8.48). When the pipeline was constructed, the PI was installed to accommodate the location of a large oak tree; at some later time, the tree was cut down. The remaining stump and root ball were covered by soil and not readily visible at the time of the accident. EBMUD identified early on in the design process that there was a hazardous liquid pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed water line and that special measures were to be taken to prevent damage to the pipeline. EBMUD and their engineering consultants had been in contact with Kinder Morgan in October 2000 regarding general alignment and drawings of the petroleum pipeline. Kinder Morgan provided as-built drawings to EBMUD that clearly indicated the offset between Stations 100+00 and 101+00. EBMUD and its engineering contractors provided design drawings to excavating contractor Mountain Cascade who had taken over the project in August 2004. (EMBUD had cancelled its contract with Modern Continental, the original excavator, in May 2004.) These design drawings showed a potential conflict between the installation of the new water line and the existing petroleum pipeline. Although the field marking of the offset was not present at time of the excavation, construction drawing DWG W-8780-36, Note 2, states “Contractor shall verify location of 10” petroleum lines prior to any construction between pipe stations 100+00 to 101+00 …” Mountain Cascade workers did not expose the petroleum pipeline by hand tools at this location to positively locate the Kinder Morgan pipeline. At 1322 hours on 9 November 2004, the operator of the Mountain Cascade excavator struck Kinder Morgan’s 10-inch products pipeline (LS-16) with one of the rock teeth from the excavation TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 32 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 16 - bucket. Premium gasoline, which was being shipped at the time from Kinder Morgan’s Concord Pump Station to their San Jose Terminal, streamed from the pipeline into the surrounding area. The hole made by the excavator was approximately one-inch in diameter (about the size of a quarter). The pressure for LS-16 at the failure site at the time of the accident was 973 PSI. Several seconds after the pipeline was hit, the gasoline was ignited by welders who were also working on the new water line project. The subsequent explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of five workers and severe injury to four others. A nearby two-story house was severely burned and other property was damaged. A total of 564 barrels of gasoline was released, none of which found its way into any waterways. KINDER MORGAN’S EMERGENCY ACTIONS: At 1322 hours on 9 November 2004, Kinder Morgan’s operators monitoring LS-16 from the Concord Pump Station received an alarm indicating a large pressure drop on the line. At 1326 hours, the controllers shut down LS-16 and started draining the product to the San Jose Terminal and Concord Pump Station. By 1400 hours, Kinder Morgan officials arrived at the accident site and joined the Unified Command staff. The Hill Grade block valve downstream from the accident site (at Mile Post 10.098) was closed at 1415 hours. The upstream block valve at the Concord Station was kept open to facilitate draining product from the line. Kinder Morgan installed a stopple plug in the pipeline south of the rupture and a hot tap north of the rupture so that the residual gasoline could be removed from the line. This took two days to accomplish due to fire department safety concerns, but by 0430 hours on 11 November 2004, Kinder Morgan was able to recover 60 barrels of gasoline. In addition, a temporary clamp was installed over the puncture. At 1730 hours on 11 November 2004, the upstream valve at the Concord Station was closed. No gasoline escaped to any waterway during this emergency. REPAIR OF PIPELINE / BACK TO SERVICE DATE: At 0640 hours on 13 November 2004, the section of LS -16 containing the rupture was removed by cold cutting and saved as evidence. This pipe section was replaced by pre-tested pipe stenciled with the following information: “9-06-02” (date pipe was pressure tested); “CSFM 02- 190” (the CSFM test ID number); and “10 .250 X52” (the pipe’s specifications). Two certified welders from contractor ARB welded the new pipe section in place. High Mountain Inspection Company nondestructively tested the pipe welds and at 1535 hours on 13 November 2004, High Mountain reported that the two repair welds were acceptable to API Standard 1104. The replacement pipe section was then coated with Polyken primer and double wrapped with 910 Polyken tape. On 13 November 2004, Kinder Morgan developed written procedures for resuming operations of LS-16 and submitted them to SFM Pipeline Safety Engineer Emmett Cooper for review and TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 33 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 17 - approval. With Cooper observing, Kinder Morgan implemented each step of these procedures. A static pressure test of 525 PSI successfully held for one hour. The San Jose Terminal opened the incoming block valve and the Concord Station started pumping with three pumps at 80% of maximum operating pressure (1045 PSI). After the line leveled out, a gauge plate/sizing plate was run through the pipeline from the Concord Station to the San Jose Terminal to check for undetected third-party damage. The pipeline went back into service at 2221 hours on 13 November 2004. Kinder Morgan personnel were present at the accident location throughout the night of 13-14 November 2004 to monitor the pipeline. Cooper left the site at 0300 hours on 14 November 2004. The line remained at 80% MOP until a geometry tool could be used to confirm the pipeline’s integrity and that no undetected damage had occurred. CHAIN OF CUSTODY: From 1730 hours on Friday, 12 November 2004, until 0700 hours on 13 November 2004, SFM Pipeline Safety Engineers Doug Allen and Chuck MacDonald and Senior Deputy State Fire Marshal Tin Tran took turns observing that the excavator bucket was not moved or tampered with until it was taken into custody along with the damaged section of pipe containing the rupture. At 0700 hours, 13 November 2004, both the bucket and 30-foot section of LS-16 containing the rupture were taken into custody by SFM. The rock tooth bucket was labeled #04-5845-1; the piece of pipe was labeled #04-5845-2. Both pieces of evidence were carefully loaded and secured on an ARB trailer and taken to Anamet, Inc., a metallurgical testing lab located in Hayward, CA. where it was met by Ken Pytlewski, Director of Engineering and Laboratories for Anamet. The loading and transportation of the evidence was observed by SFM Pipeline Engineers Linda Zigler and Chuck MacDonald. When the load arrived at Anamet at 1730 hours on 12 November 2004, the trailer driver reported that the bucket and pipe could not be safely offloaded because of the orientation of the truck’s front boom to the laboratory’s storage garage. Zigler then contacted the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Sacramento Command Center to arrange for on-site security for the trailer which was disconnected from the tractor but still had the pipe and bucket secured to it. At 0005 hours on 14 November 2004, CDF Fire Captain Greg Latronica took custody of the pipe and bucket from Zigler and MacDonald. At 0728 hours on 14 November 2004, Fire Captain Eric Wood took custody of the evidence from Captain Latronica. Later on 14 November 2004, Zigler made arrangements to have a CDF tractor relocate the evidence and trailer from Anamet to the CDF Mobile Equipment Facility in Davis, CA. Captain Wood remained with the evidence as it was transported to Davis where he transferred custody to CDF Equipment Manager Richard Armstrong at 2239 hours on 14 November 2004. The pipe and bucket remained secured at this facility from 14 November 2004 until 17 March 2005. On 17 March 2005, Ken Pytlewski of Anamet, SFM Pipeline Engineer Linda Zigler and SFM Senior Deputy Tin Tran met Richard Armstrong at the CDF Davis TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 34 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 18 - Facility for the purpose of inspecting the teeth of the excavation bucket and transporting the evidence back to Anamet’s storage and lab facility in Hayward. Richard Armstrong transferred custody of the evidence to Zigler at 1207 hours on 17 March 2005. Assisting with the transportation of the materials were John Perry (truck driver) and Joe Driscoll (heavy equipment operator). Both Perry and Driscoll are employees of Mountain Cascade. During inspection of the excavation bucket, John Leahy of Cal OSHA (via telephone), Pytlewski, Tran and Zigler all agreed that a tooth from the bucket’s right side was most likely to have punctured the pipeline. Eleven teeth from the right side of the bucket were each systematically removed and numbered from #0 to #10 before being placed in a box which was secured in Tran’s vehicle. After the pipe and remaining portions of the bucket were secured to Mountain Cascade’s trailer, the evidence was driven by Perry to Anamet’s facilities in Hayward. Tran and Zigler monitored the evidence transport from Tran’s vehicle. Heavy-duty equipment was provided by Mountain Cascade at Anamet’s storage facility to offload the pipe from the trailer. The pipe was secured in the storage garage with the box containing the eleven rock teeth from the bucket. The remaining portion of the bucket itself were returned to its owner (Mountain Cascade). The final transfer of custody took place at Anamet at 1410 hours on 17 March 2005 when the pipe and bucket teeth were transferred to the care of Ken Pytlewski. METALLURGICAL TESTING: Both the section of pipe containing the rupture site and eleven rock teeth removed from the excavator bucket remain secured at Anamet’s laboratory in Hayward, CA. Metallurgical testing is currently pending. INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Line Locating: Kinder Morgan violated CFR 49 Part 195.442(a) which states: “each operator of a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a written program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation activities”. Kinder Morgan did not mark the location of LS-16 as required by the company’s damage prevention program and as required by Section 4216 of the California Government Code. Specifically, Kinder Morgan did not mark the approximate location of the pipeline to within 24 inches of either side of the exterior surface of the subsurface location at KM Station 447+90 to Station 448+18 (EBMUD Station ±100+15). TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 35 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 19 - Kinder Morgan staff did not follow the company’s line locating procedure found in Chapter 4, Section 4.2 of their Maintenance Manual which states: “Prior to beginning any maintenance work or excavation work, the location of the pipeline shall be reviewed by the local Line Rider or other company representative and verified by drawings and a pipeline locating device.” A Kinder Morgan representative was present on 2 November 2004 to observe benching operations. Neither this contract representative nor the Kinder Morgan Line Rider reviewed and verified by the use of drawings and pipeline locating devices that the location of the pipeline was correctly marked. California Underground Service Alert “One Call” Law Mountain Cascade violated Section 4216.4 (a) of the California Government Code (Underground Service Alert “One Call” Law) in that the company failed to determine the exact location of the subsurface installations (10-inch pipeline) that was in conflict with the excavation. Construction drawing DWG W-8780-36, Note 2, states “Contractor shall verify location of 10” petroleum lines prior to any construction between pipe stations 100+00 to 101+00 …” (NOTE: “Verify” in this context refers to Section 4216.4 of the California Government Code, which requires exposing the petroleum pipeline by hand tools to positively locate the line). Although the field marking of the offset was not present at time of the excavation, the location of the offset was previously provided to Mountain Cascade and was noted on their construction drawings. Project Safety Oversight: EBMUD identified early on in the design process that there was a hazardous liquid pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed water line and that special measures were to be taken to prevent damage to the pipeline. EBMUD and their engineering consultants had been in contact with Kinder Morgan in October 2000 regarding general alignment and drawings of the petroleum pipeline. Kinder Morgan provided as-built drawings to EBMUD that clearly indicated the offset between Stations 100+00 and 101+00. Mountain Cascade replaced the previous contractor in September 2004. EBMUD should have taken a more active role in ensuring that the new contractor, Mountain Cascade, was made fully aware of the petroleum pipeline’s location including offsets and its potential for conflict with the installation of the new water line. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 36 Pipeline Failure Investigation Report - 20 - RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Kinder Morgan: 1. Require that each inspector observing an excavation in the vicinity of the company’s pipelines takes all available measures to properly locate the pipeline and/or verify previous location activities. 2. Ensure that all employees involved with line riding, excavation and inspection activities related to one-call notifications follow all of the damage prevention program procedures (including Kinder Morgan policies/procedures, Operator Qualifications protocols and One- Call Damage Prevention requirements). 3. Provide adequate supervision/oversight to ensure that each response made by an employee or contract representative to an excavation notification is handled correctly and that line locating procedures are properly followed. 4. Consider modifications to the company’s Operator Qualification Program (OQ). In particular, it is recommended that the company review the adequacy of covered tasks involving line locating, one-call notifications and inspection of excavation activities. Additionally, it is necessary that the company review the adequacy of required training, evaluation and qualification methods for each of these covered tasks to ensure that each employee and/or contractor representative is OQ qualified to perform that task. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 37 Bay Point Trash Management Plan 2014-2022 Submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region February 1, 2014 in compliance with Provision C.10 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 38 1. Introduction by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Bay Point is a community in Eastern Contra Costa County. It has industrial, commercial, institutional, residential areas, and rural roads. In terms of trash generation, Bay Point is one of the County’s priorities. It includes several areas generating a high amount of trash, several areas generating a medium amount of trash and other areas generating low amounts of trash. See Section 1 of the county-wide Trash Management Plan for a comprehensive discussion of the overall trash strategy and potential challenges for unincorporated Contra Costa County’s long term trash plan. 2. Bay Point Trash Management Overview A. Characteristics Affecting Trash Generation and Management Demographic data from the 2010 census is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. 2010 Census Data Population (# people) 21,349 Under 18 6,502 18-24 2,341 25-44 6,441 45-64 4,680 65 and older 1,385 Median household income $49,583 Table 2-2 presents summarizes land uses within Bay Point in unincorporated Contra Costa County Table 2-2. 2005 Land Uses (ABAG) Land Use Category Jurisdictional Area (Acres) % of Jurisdictional Area Commercial and Services 74.27 2.6% Industrial 146.69 5.2% Residential 1,083.64 38.1% Retail 38.04 1.3% K-12 Schools 12.26 0.4% Urban Parks 9.89 0.3% Other 1,477.41 52.0% TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 39 B. Drainage System and Water Resources Affected by Trash Bay Point has several unnamed creeks that flow into the tidal area adjacent to the confluences of the Sacramento River and Suisun Bay. Towards the east side of Bay Point, stormwater flows to Willow Creek which is primarily in a culvert except for a two block area near Hanlon Way where the stream is daylighted. On the west side of Bay Point, there is creek that is aboveground for a couple of blocks. That daylighted creek is known as “Riverside Ditch”. Many roads do not have curb, gutter and storm drains. Some have road-side ditches. C. Trash Problems and Priorities Bay Point has areas that generate high, medium, and low amounts of trash. The first priority will be to focus on areas with high amounts of trash and to work with the community to implement control measures to reduce the trash load. Land uses in these areas include industrial, commercial, institutional, residential, and some rural roads. The control measures that will be implemented as appropriate include full trash capture devices, enhanced street sweeping, trash bin management, community outreach, code enforcement and product bans. The second priority will be to focus on areas generating a medium amount of trash and to implement appropriate control measures to reduce trash. More specifics on which control measures will be implemented in each trash management area are discussed in Section 4. See Section 2 of the county-wide Trash Management Plan for more details on the visual trash assessment protocol Contra Costa County used to determine trash loads, the County’s priorities, and the process of implementing various control measures in the unincorporated portions of the county. Table 2-3 summarizes trash generation by land use: Table 2-3. Trash Generation Category by Land Use Trash Generation Category Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Commercial and Services Industrial Residential Retail K-12 School s Urban Parks Other Very High 12.13 0.00% 0.00% 17.73% 56.32% 0.00% 0.00% 25.95% High 345.89 1.30% 0.43% 72.32% 8.07% 0.92% 0.02% 16.94% Medium 615.82 4.36% 16.85% 73.01% 0.53% 1.47% 1.60% 2.18% Low 1,868.36 2.30% 2.22% 20.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.05% 2. Bay Point Trash Management Strategy The following trash management strategy is designed to attain a 70% trash load reduction by July 1, 2017 and a 100% reduction by July 1, 2022. The strategy may be updated and revised in response to changing conditions, including the amounts and location of trash generation, effectiveness of management actions, and available resources. Updates will be documented in Annual Reports. The County’s priority for Bay Point will be to focus on the areas generating high amounts of trash. In Bay Point, these areas are primarily located along and around a commercial corridor or along isolated roads where illegal dumping takes place. The land uses in these high trash load areas are commercial and TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 40 some residential. Some areas in the commercial districts have full trash capture devices. The main roads through the commercial corridors are swept weekly. Evora Road and Port Chicago Highway are main commercial roads that are swept weekly in the commercial corridors and where they pass next to residential areas. Other control measures to be implemented include: parking enforcement during street sweeping in areas with high trash loads where there are curbs and gutters, working with property owners/managers to better manage trash bins, coordinating with appropriate agencies to enforce appropriate codes, continuing public outreach efforts, and implementing product bans. For areas with a medium amount of trash, the County will work to reduce the trash load by enhancing street sweeping, including adding no parking with enforcement restrictions during street sweeping, finding ways to improve trash bin management as appropriate, and continuing public outreach. The County will reassess the trash loads and make changes as appropriate to address problems that arise. Specifics on each trash management area are provided in section 4 below. A. Delineation of Trash Management Areas Trash Management Areas were determined based on their trash management loads and their associated land use. Table 3-1. Trash Generation Category by Trash Management Area TMA Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Trash Generation Category Very High High Medium Low BPT-1 102.84 6.62% 63.41% 7.83% 22.15% BPT-2 253.01 1.66% 92.59% 2.39% 3.37% BPT-3 85.67 1.17% 48.11% 13.47% 37.24% BPT-4 141.28 0.00% 0.65% 96.97% 2.38% BPT-5 456.70 0.01% 0.15% 98.12% 1.72% BPT-6 494.55 0.00% 0.27% 0.52% 99.21% BPT-7 1,308.14 0.01% 0.17% 0.19% 99.63%  BPT-1 includes commercial areas generating high amounts of trash.  BPT-2 includes residential areas generating high amounts of trash.  BPT-3 includes roads generating high amounts of trash.  BPT-4 includes industrial, commercial, and industrial areas generating medium amounts of trash.  BPT-5 includes residential areas generating medium amounts of trash.  BPT-6 includes commercial and institutional areas generating low amounts of trash.  BPT-7 includes residential areas generating low amounts of trash. B. Area-Specific Control Measures, Implementation Schedules, and Effectiveness Assessment Long-Term Trash Reduction Plans for each Trash Management Area, including control measures, detailed implementation plans, and methods of assessing the effectiveness of control measures are in Section 4. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 41 C. Creek and Shoreline Cleanups Table 3-2. Creek and Shoreline Cleanups Location Description Cleanup Frequency Pre-MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Location 1 EBRPD-Bay Point – Coastal Cleanup X X X Location 2 Willow Creek D/S of Hanlon Way X TBD TBD Contra Costa County documents and tracks the creek and shoreline cleanups conducted. The frequency varies depending on the organization conducting the cleanup. The locations may change based on the trash loads, access to locations, and relevance of trash levels with respect to the location of receiving water. Contra Costa County updates this information in the County’s Annual Report. Other on-land cleanups are conducted and recorded depending on need and resources. Those are discussed in Section 3 of this plan under control measures. D. Trash Reduction Policies See Section 2 of the county-wide Trash Management Plan for a comprehensive discussion of Contra Costa County’s status and implementation of product bans including plastic bags and foam polystyrene food and beverage containers for the unincorporated portions of the County. E. Public Education, Outreach, and Community Involvement Through the CCCWP, the Permittees conducted a “Litter Travels, But It Can Stop with You” multi-year campaign beginning in FY 2009-2010. The multi-media campaign was designed to educate Contra Costa’s citizens about the impacts of trash and litter in the County’s waterways and how they can help address this problem and included TV spots, billboards, posters at BART stations, placards on transit buses, print ads and updates to the CCCWP website. Other outreach included more than 10,000 letters to County residents, contact with youth sports leagues, outreach to the 17 school districts in the County, and distribution of flyers to students in 5 of those districts. Pre and post-campaign surveys were conducted. See Section 2 of the county-wide Trash Management Plan for a comprehensive discussion of the Contra Costa County’s public education, outreach, and public involvement for the unincorporated portions of the county. Public outreach in Bay Point will include working with the Bay Point Chamber of Commerce and other appropriate service clubs, organizations, or schools interested in coordinating with Contra Costa County to help trash management strategies in Bay Point. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 42 F. Jurisdiction-wide Progress Assessment and Continuous Improvement See Section 2 of the county-wide Trash Management Plan for a comprehensive discussion of how unincorporated Contra County will assess, evaluate and reduce trash levels. For specific assessments to control measures proposed in Bay Point, see Bay Point’s specific Trash Management Area Tables below. The tables lay out the Control Measures and the corresponding evaluations of Program Effectiveness. 4.Trash Management Area Plans G. TMA-Specific Plans The trash management areas detailed below are broken down by areas generating high, medium or low levels of trash by their land use. In general, commercial, industrial, and institutional areas have been grouped together and single family and multi-family residences have been grouped together. Rural roads in Bay Point are locations where trash is regularly illegally dumped so those areas have their own trash management area. Bay Point has a total of eight trash management areas: BPT-1 includes commercial areas generating high amounts of trash; BPT-2 includes residential areas generating high amounts of trash; BPT-3 includes roads generating high amounts of trash; BPT-4 includes industrial, commercial, and industrial areas generating medium amounts of trash; BPT-5 includes residential areas generating medium amounts of trash; BPT-6 includes commercial and institutional areas generating low amounts of trash; BPT-7 includes residential areas generating low amounts of trash. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 43 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 1 (BPT-1) consists of areas generating high trash loads. It includes commercial and industrial areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. These areas are located along primary roadways. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-1 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter, a few primary roads are swept weekly. X X Enhanced Street Sweeping Implement enhanced street sweeping with parking enforcement (no parking during street sweeping interval). X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners and/or managers to manage trash containers and their surroundings so as to maintain clean conditions. X X Code Enforcement County will work with appropriate entities to better enforce trash-related Contra Costa County ordinances/codes. X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-1 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-1 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 102.84 6.62% 63.41% 7.83% 22.15% Commercial Litter, Trash Bin Overflow TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-1 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 44 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-1 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping/Enhanced Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Monitor incidences of trash outside containers, with the goal of decreasing the trend towards zero Code Enforcement Track violations and reassess trash loads and control measures where appropriate Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 45 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 2 (BPT-2) consists of areas generating high trash loads. It includes residential areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-2 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter. X X Enhanced Street Sweeping Implement enhanced street sweeping with parking enforcement (no parking during street sweeping interval). X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners and/or managers to manage trash containers and their surroundings so as to maintain clean conditions. X X On-land Trash Cleanups Trash picked up along near Willow Creek. X X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-2 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Community Outreach for some targeted location may include a more intensive program of “Love Your Block” to address specific site locations. This will be based on county funds and priorities. Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-2 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 253.01 1.66% 92.59% 2.39% 3.37% Residential Litter, Trash Bin Overflow TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-2 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 46 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-2 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping/Enhanced Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Monitor incidences of trash outside containers, with the goal of decreasing the trend towards zero On-land Trash Cleanup Observe areas, measure, and photographically document amount of trash removed over time at various times to determine how quickly trash is regenerated at specific locations. Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 47 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 3 (BPT-3) consists of areas generating high trash loads. It includes roads and trails where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. These areas are located along primary rural roads. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-3 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 On-land Trash Cleanups High trash generating areas are cleaned regularly by contractor and/or community volunteer stewardship group. Frequency of cleanups to be determined by monitoring. X X X Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Motion-sensor activated flash cameras have been installed and monitored. Enforcement opportunities are pursued when possible by investigating materials dumped. X X X Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loads Coordinate with proper entities to enforce uncovered load ordinances. X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X These roads do not have regular street sweeping. Many areas do not have a curb and gutter system. We will assess area to determine when and where trash is generated and find alternative control measures to address appropriately. County will coordinate with property owners of the Bel Air Trail to develop a collective plan to remove trash via on-land cleanups. Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-3 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 85.67 1.17% 48.11% 13.47% 37.24% Rural Roads and Trails Litter/Illegal Dumping TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-3 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 48 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-3 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details On-land Trash Cleanup Observe areas and measure amount of trash removed at various locations at various times to determine how quickly trash is regenerated in specific locations Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Flash cameras monitored for illegal dumping Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loads Track Violations Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 49 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 4 (BPT-4) consists of areas generating medium trash loads. It includes industrial, commercial, and institutional areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. Many are located along primary roadways. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-4 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter. X X Enhanced Street Sweeping Implement enhanced street sweeping with parking enforcement (no parking during street sweeping interval). X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners and/or managers to manage trash containers and their surroundings so as to maintain clean conditions. X X Code Enforcement County will work with appropriate entities to better enforce trash-related Contra Costa County ordinances/codes. X X On-land Trash Cleanups High trash generating areas are cleaned regularly along roadsides by contractor or community volunteer groups – depends on need, budget, and availability. X X X Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Flash cameras installed and monitored. X X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-4 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 141.28 0.00% 0.65% 96.97% 2.38% Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Litter, Trash Bin Overflow TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-4 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 50 Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-4 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-4 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping/Enhanced Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Monitor incidences of trash outside containers, with the goal of decreasing the trend towards zero Code Enforcement Track violations and reassess trash loads and control measures where appropriate On-land Trash Cleanup Observe areas, measure, and photographically document amount of trash removed over time at various times to determine how quickly trash is regenerated at specific locations. Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Flash cameras used to monitor illegal dumping. Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 51 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 5 (BPT-5) consists of areas generating medium trash loads. It includes residential areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-5 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter. X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners and/or managers to manage trash containers and their surroundings so as to maintain clean conditions. X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-5 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-5 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 456.70 0.01% 0.15% 98.12% 1.72% Residential Litter, Trash Bin Overflow TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-5 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 52 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-5 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 53 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 6 (BPT-6) consists of areas generating low trash loads. It includes industrial and commercial areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. These areas are located along primary roadways. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-6 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter. X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners to maintain cleanliness at and around the dumpsters. X X Code Enforcement County will work with appropriate entities to better enforce trash-related Contra Costa County ordinances/codes. X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-2 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-6 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 494.55 0.00% 0.27% 0.52% 99.21% Industrial and Commercial Litter TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-6 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 54 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-6 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Monitor incidences of trash outside containers, with the goal of decreasing the trend towards zero Code Enforcement Track violations and reassess trash loads and control measures where appropriate Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on-land cleanups TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 55 The Bay Point Trash Management Area 7 (BPT-7) consists of areas generating low trash loads. It includes residential areas where similar control measure strategies will be implemented. These areas are located along primary roadways. Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-7 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter. X X X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X Full Trash Capture Devices (FTCD) were installed after conducting a safety analysis of storm drain inlets. Part of BPT-2 drains to an FTCD. Control measures will be chosen as appropriate for the parcels without FTCDs. Evaluation of Program Effectiveness for Trash Management Area BPT-7 Control Measure Evaluation Method Details Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Document amount of trash and debris removed and review over time. Communicate with maintenance to understand challenges when maintaining or cleaning out systems. Street Sweeping Visually assess before and after conditions Community Outreach Conduct pre and post surveys of campaign and actions taken as part of campaign Product Bans Track compliance of stores. Track volume of product in creeks, trash capture devices, and found during on- land cleanups Key Characteristics of Trash Management Area BPT-7 Total Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Percent in Trash Generation Category Dominant Land Uses Dominant Types and Sources of Trash Very High High Medium Low 1,308.14 0.01% 0.17% 0.19% 99.63% Residential Litter TRASH MANAGEMENT AREA BPT-7 Bay Point Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 56 Sources: Trash Rates: EOA May 2013 Updated Trash Rates: Contra Costa County August 2013 Hot Spots:Contra Costa County August 2013 Roads/Creeks/Boundaries: Contra Costa County Land Use Codes: Contra Costa County, August 2008 Created By: Contra Costa County Watershed Program Date: February 13, 2014 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles Trash Rate Low Medium High Very High Non-Jurisdictional Parcels Full Trash Capture Creeks k!j Trash Hot Spots City 1 inch = 2,000 feet ¸ k!j Willow Pass Rd Bailey RdPort Chicago Hwy Por t Ch icago Hwy ¬«4 Pittsburg Concord Bay Point Clyde Contra Costa CountyFull Trash Capture for theCommunity ofBay Point TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 57 Sources: Trash Rates: EOA May 2013 Updated Trash Rates: Contra Costa County August 2013 Hot Spots:Contra Costa County August 2013 Roads/Creeks/Boundaries: Contra Costa County Land Use Codes: Contra Costa County, August 2008 Created By: Contra Costa County Watershed Program Date: February 13, 2014 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles Trash Rate Low Medium High Very High Non-Jurisdictional Parcels Trash Management Areas Creeks k!j Trash Hot Spots City 1 inch = 2,000 feet ¸ k!j 7 6 7 7 7 1 5 5 6 2 24 6 6 5 4 5 5 1 2 5 2 22 4 4 4 4 2 3 33 52 4 4 4 4 4 Willow Pass Rd Bailey RdPort Chicago Hwy Por t Ch icago Hwy ¬«4 Pittsburg Concord Bay Point Clyde Contra Costa CountyDraft Trash Plan for theCommunity ofBay Point TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 58 Sources: Trash Rates: EOA May 2013 Updated Trash Rates: Contra Costa County August 2013 Hot Spots:Contra Costa County August 2013 Roads/Creeks/Boundaries: Contra Costa County Land Use Codes: Contra Costa County, August 2008 Created By: Contra Costa County Watershed Program Date: February 13, 2014 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles Trash Rates Low Medium High Very High Non-Jurisdictional Parcels City Creeks k!j Trash Hot Spots 1 inch = 2,000 feet ¸ k!j Willow Pass Rd Bailey RdPort Chicago Hwy Por t Ch icago Hwy ¬«4 Pittsburg Concord Bay Point Clyde Contra Costa CountyTrash Rates for theCommunity ofBay Point TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 59 Cece Sellgren Stormwater Manager County Watershed Program March 6, 2014 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 60 Trash Load Reduction Requirement – from the MRP The Permittees shall demonstrate compliance with Discharge Prohibition A.2 and trash-related Receiving Water Limitations through the timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by 40% by 2014, 70% by 2017, and 100% by 2022 as further specified below. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 61 Table 2-4. Trash Generation Category by Community Unincorporated Community Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Trash Generation Category Very High High Medium Low Alamo/Diablo/Blackhawk 12,410 0 0 159 12,251 Bay Point 2,842 12 346 616 1,868 Bethel Island 3,516 1 3 145 3,368 Byron 4,085 13 13 55 4,004 Clyde 83 0 0 4 79 Crockett/Port Costa 2,089 0 155 148 1,786 Discovery Bay 5,532 0 3 43 5,485 El Sobrante 1,698 0 93 319 1,287 Kensington 555 0 2 5 548 Knightsen 3,140 0 6 9 3,126 North Richmond 744 18 186 377 163 Rodeo 3,412 33 34 343 3,002 Rural Areas 132,964 40 593 538 131,792 Unincorporated Antioch Neighborhoods 622 0 20 197 405 Unincorporated Concord Neighborhoods 189 0 0 6 183 Unincorporated Martinez Pocket Communities 2,856 1 18 312 2,525 Unincorporated Richmond Neighborhoods 1,261 0 245 373 643 Unincorporated Walnut Creek Neighborhoods 2,407 0 0 58 2,349 Grand Total 180,407 118 1,717 3,707 174,854 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 62 Trash Reduction Strategies Full Trash Capture Devices Partial Trash Capture Devices Street Sweeping & Enhanced Street Sweeping Enhanced Storm Drain Maintenance Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Code Enforcement Activities to Reduce Trash from Uncovered Loads Anti-littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement Community Outreach Creek, Channel, Shoreline Cleanups On-land Trash Cleanups Product Bans “Love Your Block” TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 63 Trash Management Area Template LAND USE LOW (Green) MEDIUM (Yellow) HIGH (Red/Purple) Residential [Single Family] Street Sweeping, Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/Education Low + Enhanced Street Sweeping Medium + Full Trash Capture Devices, or “Love Your Block” Multi-Unit Residential Street Sweeping, Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/Education Low + Trash Bin Management Medium + Full Trash Capture Devices, or “Love Your Block” Commercial Street Sweeping, Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/Education, Code Enforcement, Trash Bin Management Low + Enhanced Street Sweeping Medium + Full Trash Capture Devices, or Enhanced Storm Drain Inlet + Management/Partial Trash Capture Devices Rural Roads & Trails Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Low + Covered Load Enforcement Medium + On-Land Trash Cleanups, Anti littering and Illegal Dumping Enforcement (AIDE) (e.g. flash cameras) Industrial Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/ Education, Code Enforcement, Street Sweeping Low + Enhanced Street Sweeping, Covered Load Enforcement Medium + Full Trash Capture Devices, or Trash Bin Management Open Land Product Ban (Styrofoam/Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/ Education Low + On-Land Trash Cleanups, Creek, Channel, Shoreline Cleanups, Medium + Code Enforcement , Additional Illegal Dumping Enforcement (AIDE) Institutional Product Ban (Styrofoam/ Plastic Bags), Community Outreach/Education Low + Creek, Channel, Shoreline Cleanups, Code Enforcement, Medium + Full Trash Capture Devices, Or On-Land Trash Cleanups, Covered Load Enforcement Low -> Low + Medium -> Low + Medium + High TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 64 Trash Management Areas for Bay Point Table 3 -1. Trash Generation Category by Trash Management Area TMA Jurisdictional Area (Acres) Trash Generation Category Very High High Medium Low BPT-1 102.84 6.62% 63.41% 7.83% 22.15% BPT-2 253.01 1.66% 92.59% 2.39% 3.37% BPT-3 85.67 1.17% 48.11% 13.47% 37.24% BPT-4 141.28 0.00% 0.65% 96.97% 2.38% BPT-5 456.70 0.01% 0.15% 98.12% 1.72% BPT-6 494.55 0.00% 0.27% 0.52% 99.21% BPT-7 1,308.14 0.01% 0.17% 0.19% 99.63% BPT-1 = commercial areas generating high amounts of trash. BPT-2 = residential areas generating high amounts of trash. BPT-3 = roads generating high amounts of trash. BPT-4 = industrial, commercial, and industrial areas with medium amounts of trash. BPT-5 = residential areas generating medium amounts of trash. BPT-6 = commercial and institutional areas generating low amounts of trash. BPT-7 = residential areas generating low amounts of trash. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 65 Trash Reduction Strategies for TMA 1 in Bay Point Summary of Control Measures and Implementation Schedule for Trash Management Area BPT-1 Control Measure Control Measure Details Pre- MRP 12/2009 to 7/2014 7/2014 to 7/2017 After 7/2017 Full/Partial Capture Treatment Devices Full and partial capture treatment devices were installed in Spring 2013 along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. X X X Street Sweeping Continue monthly street sweeping without parking restrictions where there is curb and gutter, a few primary roads are swept weekly. X X Enhanced Street Sweeping Implement enhanced street sweeping with parking enforcement (no parking during street sweeping interval). X X Improved Trash Bins/Container Management Where trash around dumpster is a problem, will work with property owners and/or managers to manage trash containers and their surroundings so as to maintain clean conditions. X X Code Enforcement County will work with appropriate entities to better enforce trash-related Contra Costa County ordinances/codes. X X Community Outreach Public information campaigns provide information to property owners and residents on impacts of and ways to reduce incidence of litter and illegal dumping. X X X Product Bans Implement plastic bag and foam polystyrene food and beverage container ordinances. See the county-wide Trash Management Plan for details. X X TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 66 Bay Point ~ 'o • • • \ TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 67 North Richmond TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 68 Richmond Pocket Neighborhoods • 0 C) • 1) ...... TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 69 Rodeo TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 70 El Sobrante Tara"'H i ll"'s .--........ -~- H i ttr op o r .. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 71 Next Steps Initial Approach Meet with County Staff Meet with community leaders Develop costs for Trash Reduction Strategies Proposed Programs Test Trash Reduction Strategies How much will it cost to comply? How much is the County willing to spend? TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 72 Cece Sellgren Stormwater Program Manager (925) 313-2296 csell@pw.cccounty.us TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 73 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Approval of Revised List of Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (John Cunningham, DCD)  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 674-7833 Referral History: N/A: This is an administrative item of the Committee. Referral Update: In January 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted a list of issues to refer to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee for 2014. As issues arise throughout the year, either the Committee or the Board of Supervisors can amend the list of referrals. At the March 11, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting there was discussion regarding recent deaths in Martinez and Oakley along rail corridors. The subject of railroad corridor safety, safety measures/programs, and outreach was discussed and the issue was referred to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee.  Staff will provide an initial report at the Committee meeting and seek any necessary, additional guidance from the Members.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW and APPROVE the revised list of Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee referrals as recommended by the Board of Supervisors and ADVISE staff on the new referral as appropriate.  Fiscal Impact (if any): None. The cost to staff this Committee is included in the budget of the Department of Conservation and Development. Cost for Committee reports are borne by the department or agency responsible for addressing the referral item. Attachments TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 74 2014 TWIC Referrals Rev2 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 75 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 76 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 674-7833 Referral History: This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list and agenda.  Referral Update: In developing items to bring forward for the Committees consideration, staff considers direction from the Board of Supervisors, the County's adopted Legislative Platforms, consults with our legislative advocates, and coordinates with partner agencies and organizations. At this time staff is highlighting the items below for the Committees consideration: Local The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is in the process of developing the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) which will be finalized at the end of the year. The planning process is expected to produce a financially unconstrained project/program list of approximately $5B. This list will ultimately be narrowed down to approximately $2.5B. At that point a discussion regarding revenue options to pay for the proposed programs and projects will take place. The level of engagement of the County/Board of Supervisors will vary depending on what funding option, if any, is pursued.  The most recent reports and actions of the CCTA Board on this topic are attached. State School Siting: As directed at the March 6, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee meeting, staff is bringing a number of issues to the full Board of Supervisors for action at the April 22nd meeting. One particular element of that report contains proposed policies and communication to the State regarding liability issues. Considering the potential impact of these items, staff is bringing these specific items to TWIC prior to discussion at the Board of Supervisors: TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 77 Letter to State Staff: At a previous TWI Committee meeting there was discussion regarding liability. Specifically, if the County is unable to achieve necessary reforms to state school siting practices then we should work to get protections in statute that relieve local land use jurisdictions of any liability associated with current school siting and design practices. While staff and our legislative advocate are working to achieve this goal, we recognize that getting this language in statute may be difficult. That said, we have addressed the same issue by going on record with state staff. Attached is a draft letter to the Executive Officer of the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) raising the issue of statutory responsibility for school siting and design. As indicated, the letter is in draft form and planning staff is currently working with the County Counsel's office to refine the letter. Further revisions and input will be brought to the TWI Committee meeting in April. School Siting and Safety Initiative (SSaSI): This white paper was developed by County staff in response to numerous requests for 1) a summary of the school siting issue, and 2) proposed solutions to the same. The white paper is included with the letter to the OPSC mentioned above and will be included as an attachment to the letters to our state delegation going to the Board of Supervisors on April 22nd.  Policy concepts that should be discussed by the TWI Committee begin at the bottom of the first page of the white paper. These concepts include proposals that affect school board statutory authority (re: land use), authority of Local Area Formation Commissions, and policies referencing the urban limit line.  The draft SSaSI paper has been distributed to a broad range of individuals and organizations including: Public Works, LAFCO staff, CALAFCO staff, Contra Costa Health Services, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, California State Association of Counties, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and numerous advocacy organizations. Comments were solicited, received, and incorporated in to this second draft.  Staff is seeking 1) input on the two documents mentioned above, and 2) approval to bring the same to the Board of Supervisors. State Legislative Advocate Report: Mark Watts (Smith, Watts, Martinez) will be present to provide a report to the Committee.  Tracked Bills: Attached to this report is a list of bills currently being tracked to facilitate discussion and action if necessary.  Federal The following items of interest are attached (no action requested): 3/10/2014 Letter Regarding the Highway Trust Fund: The letter discussed at the March TWI Committee meeting is attached to this report. Magazine Article, Highway Fund Stares into the Abyss, 3/26/14 - Politico CSAC Analysis of President Obama's budget proposal to Congress. Letter from State Chambers of Commerce regarding reathorization of MAP-21. MAP-21 is set to expire in six months, on October 1, 2014.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact.  TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 78 Attachments Local Legislative Items State Legislative Items (School Siting, Tracked Bills) Federal Legislative Docs TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 79 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 80 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 81 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 82 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 83 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 84 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 85 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 86 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 87 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 88 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 89 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 90 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 91 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 92 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 93 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 94 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 95 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 96 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 97 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 98 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 99 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 100 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 101 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 102 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 103 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 104 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 105 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 106 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 107 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 108 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 109 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 110 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 111 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 112 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 113 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 114 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 115 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 116 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 117 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 118 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 119 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 120 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 121 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 122 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 123 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 124 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 125 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 126 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 127 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 128 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 129 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 130 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 131 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 132 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 133 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 134 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 135 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 136 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 137 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 138 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 139 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 140 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 141 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 142 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 143 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 144 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District April 22, 2014    Lisa Silverman, Executive Officer  Department of General Services  DRAFT  Office of Public School Construction   P.O. Box 980610   West Sacramento, CA 95798‐0610    Dear Ms. Silverman:    The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is writing to make you aware of deficiencies in  State school siting policies and practices.  We are aware that legislation has been introduced that  could be a vehicle to address this issue1 and are working with the sponsors to advocate for  necessary reforms. Our most recent draft advocacy document,  California School Siting and Safety  Initiative is attached. In addition, the County has submitted comments in the past on this issue  to various State representatives. We have attached some of this prior communication to provide  some background to this letter.    As you may be aware, the Board of Supervisors is obligated to protect public health, safety, and  welfare of County residents. One mechanism by which this is done is through applying relevant  policies during the land development process. The County’s ability to fulfill these obligations  during the school siting and design process is limited under current statutes and practices.    In light of this compromised ability to engage in the school siting and design process, the  County is going on record with the Office of Public School Construction as follows:   1) current statutes and practices related to school siting and design leave a gap with regard to  ensuring schools are located and designed to ensure safe access by the student body,  2) the County has no authority to fill this gap,  3) the State has acknowledged these issues2, and  4) school siting and design practices are often inconsistent with the State’s own policies3.     1 AB 2235 (Buchanan) Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 2 Schools of the Future Report (2011), California’s K‐12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable Communities (2012) 3 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, and the Health in All Policies Initiative David Twa Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 Contra Costa County TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 145 Lisa Silverman, Executive Officer ‐ OPSC  April 22, 2014  Page 2 of 2 g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2014\2014school siting - state staff.doc It is our sincere hope that the OPSC will work with other responsible State agencies and  representatives of the Legislature to correct the aforementioned deficiencies.    Sincerely,            Karen Mitchoff, Chair  Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors  Supervisor, District III    C:   Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation   Amy Worth, Chair ‐ Metropolitan Transportation Commission  John Gioia, President ‐ California State Association of Counties Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction      Thomas L. Geiger, Supervising Deputy County Counsel  Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel  Pamela Miller, Executive Director – CALAFCO  Paul Eldredge, City Manager – City of Brentwood  Bryan Montgomery – City of Oakley  Brooke Peterson, President –American Planning Association/CA Chapter  Scott McGolphin, County Engineers Association of California  Chester Widom, State Architect (CA Architects Board License #4372)  Michael Cohen, Chair – CA State Allocation Board  Heidi Weiland, President ‐ California School Boards Association    TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 146   DRAFT Contra Costa County School Siting and Safety Initiative (3/28/14)  Schools have a large and enduring effect on the character and safety of the surrounding community due to the intensity of activity at the site and the vulnerable nature of the population served. Currently, the process by which schools are located and designed can result in adverse safety, community development, and public health outcomes. The State has acknowledged some of these issues in recent studies1 and intends on addressing them in 20142. Interested agencies and organizations will need to engage in the 2014 legislative and policy development process in order to ensure reforms are adequate. This paper provides an overview of the issue, identifies existing processes, and potential reforms. The current process of selecting and developing new school sites in California has substantial flaws. This flawed  process can result in poorly functioning school sites, some of which have been acknowledged by the state in recent  reports1. Examples of poor school site function are:     Inadequate or ill-conceived transportation infrastructure3 which causes avoidable congestion and/or chaotic circulation patterns both of which ultimately result in unsafe conditions.  School locations that have no or limited access to critical municipal services (e.g., fire, sewer, water) and/or are too distant from the population served to support walking & biking4.  School locations that undermine local/state policies such as sites that are outside urban limit line/urban growth boundary, in agricultural areas, preclude access by walking and cycling, undermine AB32/SB375 goals, etc.  The safety and access issues mentioned above drain very limited Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds, and  Certain sites are contentious and strain relations between City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and School Boards. The current process has local school districts largely responsible for school siting and design. Unfortunately, school  districts have limited policies, authority, and expertise that would ensure that school sites have positive outcomes  related to safe access and broader community development goals. It is the cities/counties, and the State that carry  out these duties. In more detail:   Although the state has substantial statutes and polices5 in place that should inform school siting and design school districts are not currently compelled to those policies in their school siting and design decisions.  Under state law, cities and counties are granted land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties have little ability to influence the selection and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from local land use planning authority6.  Local school districts develop and design school sites independent6 of the aforementioned state and local land development policies. This disconnect is acknowledged by the state in their recent studies1. This disconnect can be addressed through regulations tied to a state school construction and modernization bond  anticipated in 2014. This approach has been suggested by the State during their December 2012 Policy Symposium7  and in the Governors 2013‐14 Budget Proposal2.  The following are draft concepts to be considered in addressing  school siting and design requirements attached to the proposed 2014 bond or with legislation developed in parallel:    Limit the ability of school districts to preempt local zoning ordinances6. This would bring schools under the influence of SB375 given that the cities and counties ultimately implement the sustainable communities strategy. (next page)                                                              1 2012 ‐ California’s K‐12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable  Communities, Report to the CA Department of Education by UC Berkley Center for Cities and Schools, and 2011 ‐ Schools of the Future Report, Tom  Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction  2 Governor’s 13‐14 Budget Report, “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities…”/“School districts and  their respective localities should have appropriate control of the school facilities construction process and priorities.”   3 Bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate or not present, school sites in a cul‐de‐sac or with single points of access, safe roadway crossings  are not considered, and no necessary improvements being funded or constructed by the schools.  4 “…studies show that the distance between home and school is the strongest predictor of whether students walk/bike to school.” Institute of  Transportation Engineers, 2012 “School Site Selection and Off‐site Access”   5 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, and the Health in All Policies Initiative  6 Government Code §53091(a)‐53097.5: This section allows school district preemption from local zoning ordinances.  7 Partnering with K‐12 in Building Healthy, Sustainable, and Competitive Regions: Policy Symposium: Proceedings Summary & Next Steps: “These  efforts will inform the legislative debates over the possibility—and priorities—of a future statewide K‐12 school construction bond.”  TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 147   John Cunningham, Principal Planner | Contra Costa County‐Dept. of Conservation and Development|john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us   Whether new school siting policies are advisory or prescriptive is critical. Considering that there are existing advisory documents that should result in high quality school sites it suggests that new policies will need to be compulsory in order to be effective. Revised language could be implemented with revisions to the California Code of Regulations, Title 5  Coordination of attendance boundaries between school districts, cities/counties should be compulsory.  Statutes for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) provide a role for LAFCOs in school site development8 and could be expanded. At a minimum, 1) school districts should be required to consult with LAFCO when a new school site is being proposed, and 2) LAFCO should discourage the extension of municipal services to school sites located in agricultural and open space areas pursuant to LAFCO law. More prescriptive requirements should be considered in areas with an adopted Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary.  Legislation should require revised School Site Selection and Approval Guide and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development. Critical revisions should be moved from guidance to statutes. [revisions are too voluminous to list here]  School districts, when approving a new site must 1) make findings, w/evidence, that the decision is consistent with relevant requirements in statute, 2) provide a full-cost accounting (construction, land, off-site infrastructure [utility/transportation], costs borne by other agencies, community, etc.), of site options, and 3) the approval must include a comprehensive (auto & active modes) circulation plan signed and stamped by a traffic engineer.  The State acknowledges a greater share of bond proceeds should be directed to modernization programs than in new school construction7. Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive School Area Safety Initiative and include the following which would modernize existing schools:  SR2S9 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.  Redefinition of School Zone in state law: Currently, in the vehicle code, school zone signage is limited to 500’ and 1000’. These limits are not reflective of actual pedestrian/bicycle access patterns at K-12 schools and inconsistent with SR2S funding/projects/concepts and the State’s Health in All Policies Initiative. The prescriptive figures should be increased (1320’ minimum) and local agencies should have discretion to further expand the zone based on knowledge of attendance boundaries, travel sheds, as established in a traffic study.  Reauthorize and fund implementation of Double Fine School Zone (DFSZ) statute: In 2002 AB 1886 was passed which implemented a DFSZ as a pilot in specified areas10. The statute was allowed to sunset in 2007.  Implement a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Protection Law: VRU protection laws establish the concept “whoever can do the most damage has an obligation to be the most careful”. Oregon has such a statute and the League of American Bicyclists has drafted model legislation11.  Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet Common Core State Standards and include in-class and in-field lessons with a dual benefit of decreased injuries/deaths and increased walking/biking. California already has numerous communities implementing this and would be a natural leader to implement a statewide effort. Bicycle and pedestrian safety awareness during driver training should be included as well.  The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on automobile speeds: The study will 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to vast improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that (assumed) change in speed has impacted other road users. The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes only; they do not reflect adopted policy positions.                                                              8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.  9 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is typically a program that has a goal of making it safe and convenient children (K‐12) to bicycle and walk to school.  Strategies typically fall in to the “Five E’s”; evaluation, education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement and can include capital projects  (sidewalks/paths), bicycle safety/rules of the road training, increased police presence, crossing guards, etc.  10 The post‐mortem report to the legislature on the program (by CHP) did not endorse it and gave a negative review of the program. The lack of  success was likely related to the fact that little to no resources were devoted to implementation.  11  801.608 “Vulnerable user of a public way”: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors801.html  http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/bikeleague.org/files/bikeleague/bikeleague.org/action/images/vru_story.pdf  TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 148 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 149 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 150 Department of Conservation & Contra Development Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Phone: 925-335-1201 Catherine 0 Kutsurls Director James Kennedy Deputy Director Redevelopment Division Thomas J. Huggett, SE Interim Deputy Director Building inspection Division November 26.2008 Mary D. Nichols. Chair Air Resources Board (AB 32 Scoping Plan Comments) 1001 I Street Sacramento. CA 9581 4 Honorable Chair Nichols, Contra Cosra County appreciates the opportunity to comn~ent on the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Proposed Scoping Plan (PSP). The comments below focus on comments previously subnlitted by the County on the Draft Scoping Plan in August 2008 (see enclosure). This letter provides a more con~prehensive explanation of those conments in the hopes that they will invoke a change in the final document or other response. Being cognizant of the need to fulfill the requirements under AB 32, but also recognizing the realities of implementation. a number of ow comments refer to ex-isti~fg policy or authorization as an implen~entation mechanism. This should make the State's efforts Inore feasible and effective. Relying on existing mecllanisms typically requires only administrative action or an increase in enforcement or oversight rather than regulatory or legislative action for entirely new programs (requiring yet again new enforcemeillloversight protocols). Tixis should speed and n:alte less costly the fulfillment of the goals of AB 32. In addition to the efficiency represented by using existing n~echanisms, many of the factors highlighted here have a significant secondary benefit relative to the influence State operations have at the local level. Local agencies are inore likely to perfom1 as the PSP expects if the State demonstrates that the desired outcomes can be achieved in its own operations. A broader comment, substantiated below, is that by simply changing the way the State current!]^ does business (rather than making new regulations or statutes), significant progress towards fulfilling the goals of AB 32 without incurring the full costs of new efforts. In one case. State agencies are currently exempt froin having to comply with local land use regulations. Many of these local regulations are state-of-the-practice yet State activities are exempt from these regulations which help fulfill the goals strived for in AB 32. Page 24: TI. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: A. The Role of State Government: Setting an Example The PSP citesi standards and directs that new State facilities be constivcted to these standards in order to meet the greenhouse reduction targets. However, adherence to LEED standards will have little impact on transportation to and from a facility. which is one of the largest contributors ol'a buildings total greenhouse $as Drafi Scoping Plan Appendix C: Page C-I 69 (LEED-NC Silver or Hisher) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 151 Chair Nichols November 26,2008 Page 2 of 5 contribution2. The LEED standards apply to a broad array oftopics. In examining this broad array, the criteria that address the (much larger) impact of transportation to and from a facility are very simple. The State should place a higher priority on co~npliance with regulations already in place that have the potential to significantly reduce the greenhouse gases generated by transportation to and from State facilities. Examples include Executive Order D-46-01 which requires the Department of General Services to maximize its support of smart growth patterns through the location and design of State facilities. In addition, Executive Order D-73-8 requires State agencies to implement a transportation management program designed to result in an annual reduction in the number of commute trips be State employees. The Final Scoping Plan should direct the State Government Operation Subgroup to establish performance standards for complying with these directives and require annual reports to mollitor the progress ofthe State agencies following these directives. The State has existing regulations and statutes3 that better address the greenhouse gas impact of facilities, more so than what is found in the LEED standards. The Final Scopiilg Plan should require that the State site its facilities in a manner consistent its own planning priorities. This matter is particularly peculiar in that local jurisdictions will be encouraged to alter their General Plans to comply with the sustainable community strategies developed pursuant to SB 375. However, these improved plans can be easily compromised by the actions of State agencies which are not required to comply with local land use policy. This is not theoretical; it is currently happening and, absent relief from the State, will continue to happen during the implementation of AB 32. Mounting a massive effort to reduce greenhouse gasses in one department, while undercutting the very same goals in another department; is not good practice. Specifically: State prisons, court facilities, colleges, universities, water sioragelconveyance facilities, state office buildings, state-funded schools facilities, have a large direct effect on greenhouse gas production as well as a significant indirect impact. The indirect impact influences local land use policies, developinent pressures and travel behavior, all which, in turn, have an influence on greenhouse gas emissions. Consistent with the conments submitted by the Land Use Subgroup of the Cliinaie Action Team (LUSCAT), the Final Scoping Plan should include the followi~~g (and direct the State Governmelit Operations Subgroup to address): an evaluation of facility siting standards ibr activities undertake~dregulated by the State (schools" courts, colleges, etc.) to ensure siting of facilities in a GHG efficient manner (e.g. protect greenfields. minimize transportation requirements, and preserve habitat and natural resources). Approximately 55% according to the draft Contra Costa Cou~iry Municipal Climate Action Plan, Chapter 101 6 - Statues of 2002, Revisioi~ to the Governmem Code Section 65302 to include sites for school facilities as a required compone~it of the land use element of General Plans. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 152 Chair Nichols November 26.2008 Page 3 of 5 Adoption of siting criteria by state agencies (e.g. State Allocation Board) that minimizes GHG emissions as a prerequisite for grant funding or adoption of the criteria as a state requirement for any facility funding distributed by the State. The PSP has minimal discussio~l on the role the State's planning priorities can make in achieving the mandates of AB 32. As stated in our comment on the Draft Scoping Plan: the proposed Regional Targets should be supported by the State Environnlental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) and the 5-year infrastructure plan required by State law, Chapter 1016 - Statutes of 2002. Existing statutes requires every officer, agency, department, and instrumentality of State government to ensure that their functional plan is consistent with the State planning priorities, and annually demonstrate to the Governor and the Department of Finance when requesting infrastructure how the plans are consistent with those priorities. Furthermore, with each annual budget the Governor must include information relating proposed expenditures to the achievement of State planning priorities. The last EGPR prepared in 2003 recommended formatioil of an Interagency Working Group to implement the EGPR, however, the Governor never adopted the EGPR. The Final Scoping Plan should integrate it implementation efforts with the EGPR, including identifying how the newly established State Government Operations Subgroup will support the EGPR. Page 47: 6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets California has existing5 parking cash-out legislation which, if enforced more effectively, could lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. As the responsible regulatory authority, the Air Resources Board should revise its administrative efforts to encourage participation among employers and advise cities and counties on conditions they should impose on new develop~neilt to expand the application of this statute on employersh. This proposed action for the Air Resources Board should be included in the Final Scoping Plan as a supporting measure for reaching regional transportation-related GHG targets, or the Final Scoping Plan should explain why this action should not be done. Page 57: 13. Green Building Strategy The PSP acknowledges that "A Green Building stratea also includes siting considerations. Buildings that are sited close to public transportalion or near mixed-use areas can work in tandem with 1ran.sj~ortution related strategies lo decrease greenhouse gas emissions that result ,porn llzal seclor. " However, such considerations are substantially under represented in the PSP. LEED criteria for features that influence a projects potential transportation impacts represent on 6 points of the 69 possible points that can be awarded to a project. It is entirely possible for a building to receive a platinum LEED certification (requires only 52 out of 69 possible points) but by virtue of its location have substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than a less efficient building on a site less reliant on motor vehicles for access. ' AB 2109, I<ATZ - 2002 6 For examnple_ require project sponsors to prepare covenants, conditions & restrictions for the project to ensure parking and building leases are unbundled and that financial compensation to affected occupants is provided as required by applicable State law. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 153 Chair Nichols November 26,2008 Page 4 of 5 The Green Building Strategy needs to place more emphasis on the location for new buildings. Life-cycle costing procedures should include an evaluation ofthe GHG generated from building occupants entering or leaving the structure by motor vehicles. Construction of new State facilities or facilities to be constructed with State funding should be required to comply with the planning regulations of cities and counties that have general plans consistent with the applicable sustainable communities strategy. Page 58: 13. Green Building Strategy By replacing the stronger phrase "all new schools wo~~ld he required to meet the Collaborative for Higlt Pe~fbrmance Schools (CI-IPS) 2229 criteria" in the Draft Scoping Plan with the more permissive pizrase "should he required" in the PSP, the State is losing the direct positive impact on greenhouse gas reduction which would be realized by holding school districts to this standard In addition, the State will lose the substantial indirect positive impact relative to the larger effect that schools have on local land use polices, development pressure and travel behavior. Given the pervasiveness of schools, the trip making characteristics of schools and the aforementioned indirect effect these facilities have on local activities, the State should either retuni to the stronger language or demonstrate how this lost opportunity is justif ed. Alternatively, without having to refer to the Collaborative,for High Pecfonnance Schools (CHPS); significant gains can be made by requiring school and college districts (and other State agencies) to develop facilities consistent with local general plans once updated to comply with the sustainable communities strategies prepared pursuant to SB 375. Absent subjecting school districts to local land use polices or complia~ce with the applicable sustainable co~nmunities strategy; the State should reinstate the language which was in the Draf Scoping Plan requiring schools to meet standards in the CHPS. Page 63: 16. Sustainable Forests The State as an urban landowner and developer has the potential to contribute substantially in the development of urban forests. Appendix C refers to urban forestry strategies to help achieve the 5 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents by 2020 from thc Forests sector. This strategy discusses "agency planting". As an urban land owner, the State should look at its standards for landscaping on its property and the ability to support urban forestry through the planting of su~table species of trees in strategic locations. State departments responsible for establishing design standards for certain institutional facilities (e.g. schools and hospitals) could be required to foster the development of urban forests through standards developed by the State Architect. Page 65: 17: Water The County is encouraged that the Govenior has issued an Executive Order on climate change. The State should be aware that Contra Costa County has, in its Delta Water Platform, actions that support the goals of AB 32 and the Executive Order, both directly and indirectly. These actions include: TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 154 Chair Nichols November 26,2008 Page 5 of 5 Support addressing the inzpacts qf'climaie change in any proposed studies and strategies, or inplannirig, engineering and construclingprojecls envisioned jbr the Delta. A key componeni is a concej7t entitled Regional SelfiSuJjciency, where all regions are required to implement a variety of local water supply options and institute conservation and reuse programs to reduce reliance on exports from the Delta. The State inay see improved response to the Governor's Executive Order on greenhouse gasses, and other water issues. if the State Resources Agency reduced its reliance on punlping water long distances as a water supply strategy. Page 108: 4: Progress Toward the State Government Target The PSP refers to the recently established a State Government Operations ~ub~roup~ to work with State agencies to create a statewide approach to meet the Scoping Plan's commitment to reduce greei~house gas emissions by a minimum of 30 percent by 2020 below the State's estimated business-as-usual emissions. IHowever, the description of the emission reduction strategies in Appendix C contains no reference to the State Govenunent Operations Subgroup. The Final Scoping Plan should explicitly include State Operations in the measures proposed by this plan (Table 32), and describe how it will measure and track progress of the State Govemnent Operations Subgroup. Since the expectation of the PSP is that the state will be able to develop and provide "best practices" for other branches of government to adopt, the activities of the State Government Operations Subgroup should be open to the review and comment by local agencies. These comments are offered to ensure a complete and adequate Scoping Plan. Please contact John Cunningham of this office if you have any questions on these comments. rc b' -to Steven Goetz, Deputy Director Transportation Planning Section c: J. Cunningham, D. Dingman DCD G:\Trannponation\GHG\Final AB32PSP Comrnentsdoc Enciosurc 7 The PSP references to the Stale Govemrnent Subgroup and the State Operat~ons Subgroup are interpreted to mean the same subgroup. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 155 DRAFT SCOPING PLAN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY August 1,2008 (via ARB Website) General Comment The web page for collecting coln~neilts oil the Scoping Plan is difficult to use. The organizatio~l of the web page does 1101 appear to be consistellt with the orga~lization dihe document. It also makes it difficult to be a participant in this review if the State only eiicourages submittal of comments electronically. Public outreach for the Scoping Piall shouid be broader. Transportation The Sector Overview and Emission Reduction Strategies for Transportation include an evaluatioll of rail strategies. This evaluation is limited to High Speed Rail, \?rhicll is contingent 011 voter approval of a state bond. The Scoping Pian should also evaluate tile current state intercity rail pmgraln as a rail strategy. Implementatio~l and expansion of intercity rail is not contingent on voter approval, but call be achieved tluough better coordination of existing state, regional and local traisportation revenue available for ihis pul-pose. Such coordination is less likely to be achieved without some statewide evaluation of its potential effect on GHG emission reduction. Land Use and Local Government The proposed Regioilal Targets should be supported by the State Environmel~tai Goals a~d Policy Report (EGPR) and the 5-year infrastructure plan required by State law, Chapter 1016 - Statutes of 2002. This coordi~lation is ~nentioned in Appendix C, but apparently such coordinatioil is not acknowledged at this point as appropriate for incorporation into the Scoping Plali. The recomme~~dations of Appendix C regarding development a~id maintenaice of the EGPR and a 5-yea infrastructure plan for the State should be pulled into the Scoping Plan. Such coordination of plaming efforts was also listed in the report of the Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Tea111 (LIJSCA'T) as an esseiltid principle to the long-term vision for land use planning in Califorvlia. The Scoping Plan on page 32 indicates that local goverlunelits have the ability to directly i~lflue~lce both the siting and design of new residential and co~iln~ercial developments in a way that reduces greenliouse gases associated with energy, water, waste, and vehicle travel. The Scoping Plan should also acknowledge that single-purpose entities such as school and college districts operate iildepe~lde~it of cities and coutities under state law. These independent entities construct facilities that create major destinatio~ls for a community and can significa~itly affect green house gasses associated wit11 energy, water., waste. aid vehicle travel. The State can assist local goverilment in meeting regio~~al targets by ensuring that laws and regulatio~ls that support these special districts are coordiuated with the actions of local government. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 156 Substantial experience with development of school facilities under existing State law and related regulationsiprogra~~~s walsmts consideration the following changes. in cons~~ltation with affected stalteholders: Revision to the Governme~lt code Section 65302 to include sites for school facilities as a required component of the lad use eleme~lt of General Plans. e Evaluation of state school facility siting standards and regulations to ellsure siting of Pdcilities in a GHG efficient malner (e.g. protect greenfields, mi11imize tra~lsportation requirements: and preserve habitat and natural resources). e Adoption of siting criteria by the State Allocatioil Board as a prerequisite for grant funding or adoption of the criteria as a state requirement for any facility funding. Please refer to the cominellts provided under the "State Government" sector for releva~lt State actions. These State actions will help provide the state leadership and fuilding to support the local government actions recommellded by the Scopiilg Plan. Green Buildings The strategies for green building focus solely on the direct impact of structures oil GHG emissions. There should he some acltnowledgemelit of the indirect impact on GI-IG emissions by the provision of support facilities such as parking and their function in the commu~lity as a destination that generates vehicle trips. The Green Buildings sector of the Scopiilg Plan can refer to specific strategies in the "Land Use and 1,ocal Goverilment" and "State Govemmellt" sectors of the Scopillg Plan that address these indirect GHG impacts. Forests Appendix C refers to urban forestry strategies to help achieve the 5 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents by 2020 from the Forests sector. This strategy discusses "agency planting". As an urban land owner; the State should look at its standards for laldscaping on its property and the ability to support urban forestry tllrough the plallti~lg of suitable species of trees in strategic locations. State Government Sector A key element of the Scoping Plan is implementation of existing State laws and policies. This element needs to go beyond clean car sta~~dards, good movement measures. and the low Carbon Fuel Standard. Appendix C refers to a strategy for locating State facilities based on the State's planning priorities as embodied in Chapter 1016. Statues of 2002. Constructioil of prisons, court facilities, colleges. universities, water storage and conveyance facilities, state office buildings, elementary and secondary schools as approved by the State Architect, all have significant influence oil the land use policies, development pressures and travel behavior at the local level. This law requires each Governor's Budget to include a 5-year infrastructure plan. The Gover~lor is also required to prepare and ~nailltai~l tile State E~lvironmental Goals and Policy Repoil (EGPR). TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 157 The public outreach and educational component ofthe Scoping Plan needs to inalie these documents more visible so the public can understand the sound environinental planning - behind the capital facilities supported by each State budget. Has a greenhouse emission reduction goal been included in the EGPR? Is tllc State measuring aiid traclting conlvliance with this statute? Has oreuaration and maintenance of these doc~rments bee11 ackuowledged in applicable State administrative manuals? Should developmeiit of the EGPR and tlie infrastructure plan be coordinated with the activities of the Governor's Strategic Growth Council? C&I a copy of the most receut infrastructure plan and EGPR be made available for review by the public and local jurisdictions and other interested stakeholders? Future GHG reductio~l efforts for State iicilities should be expanded to include a review of the management of parking spaces owned or leased by the State. The Contra costa County Climate Action Teain is evaluating the feasibility oT establishing a user fee ibr parking spaces owned or leased by the County and allocating any surplus revenue to incentives for use of coln~nute alternatives. User fees would elimiiiate aiy subsidy that may exist for motorists who do not pay for the cost of the parking they use. Ally revenue in excess of the cost to provide the parking could be used to provide i~nproveme~lts to transit sewice or made available to employees to help pay for their commuting costs. This strategy should be coordinated with potential future efforts listed under "employee practices" on page C-178, and other relevant state regulations such as Executive Order D- 73-8 wliich requires State agencies to iinpleine~lt a transpo~?atioii maliagenlelit program designed to result in an annual reduction in the nuinher of commute trips by State employees. The description of proposed measures to address "the State's Carbon Shadow", wliich begins on C-179 needs more detail in the following areas: * The State's standards for the design of school aiid inedicai facilities currently emphasize requirements for buildings and support facilities. Equal elnphasis is needed on requirements for site selection and the siting of these facilities in the commu~lity to ensure convenient access by transit, walking or bicycling. The criteria used by the State for awarding funding for facility construction should place greater weighting of facility siting ill the comniunity a1d transportation criteria. Some of these recommendatio~is were in the LUSCAT repoi? but do not appear in the Scoping Plan. The standards adopted by the State Fire Marshall need to be evaluated for their impact on GHG emissions and coinnluility design. The current requirenleiits for fire access roads are based on operatio11 of a standard multi-purpose firelparainedic vehicle. These standards should encourage flexibility to allow the use of smaller vehicles that are compatible with more pedestrian-oriented street construction. Tile Air Resources Board (ARB) needs to iinprove its administration of the parking cashout program, Chapter 554. Statutes of 1992. This law requires certain einployers bvl~o provide subsidized parlci~ig for their employees to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space. Parking cashout offers tile opportunity to reduce GHG e~nissions by reducing commute trips. Tile AN3 is the ageucy authorized by the Legislature to Page 3 of4 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 158 interpret and administer the parking cash-out law. Their administrative efforts have been limited to preparation of an iillfonnational guide to help employers determine whether they are subject to the requirements of the law. This "self-i~llplernenting" approach by the ARB has resulted in few e~llployers offering a parking cash-out program to their employees. As the appropriate regulatory authority, the ARB should, in co~lsultation with affected stakeholders. revise its administxative efforts to increase pal-ticipatioil aillong employers and advise cities and counties on co~lditions they ca11 impose 011 new developme~lt to expand the application of this statute 011 employers (e.g. require project sponsors to prepare CC&Rs for the project to ensure parking and building leases are unbundled and that financial co~npensation to affected occupants is provided as required by applicable state law) Page 4 of 4 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 159 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 160 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 161 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 162 Depafiment of Consewation & Development Community Development Division County Administration Building 651 Pine Street North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Phone: (925) 335-1243 November 10,20 10 Contra Costa County Catherine Kulsuris Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Health in All Policies Task Force Attn: Julia Caplan California Department of Public Health Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion P.O. Box 997377, MS 0508 Sacramento, CA, 95899-7377 Dear Ms. Caplan: Below are comments from the Transportation Planning Section of the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development on the Health In All Polzcres DRAFT Recommendations The County is hopeful that you will consider these comments as the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) facilitates the HiAE'P Task Force activities. The County understands that there is an array of critical issues facing the Strategic Growtl~ Council (SGC) and the Department of Public Health (CDPH) in addressing the Governor's Executive Order S-04-10. The following comments are organized according to the noted sections in the table in the DRAFT Recommendations. BI: The Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) should be added to the list of data sources and the SGC sl~odd encourage the CHP to improve data collection. SWITRS is a somewhat flawed (particularly for non-motorized collisions), but unique dataset which gives an important glimpse in to the safety of the transportation system. B2a: The list of users should include students. This change would improve the internal consistency of B, Promote Healthy Cities and Counlies in that the Aspirational Goal includes, includes school as the first essential destination. Tile need for this change is that students are I) a vulnerable enough user group to warrant a specific mention, 2) congestion in many municipalities peaks during the AM drop oi'ftime (in no small part because of school trips). and 3) The sbe11@h of habits fo~med at a young age should not be discounted. Aitempting to change the habits of apopulation trained, from an early age, lo equate mobility with an automobile rather than a bicycle for feet, is a difficult barrier to overcome. The importance of siting and designing schools (and surrounding, supportive infrastructure), to support walking and bicycling goes far beyond the home-to-school trip, far beyond school age years and has a lifelong effect on travel habits. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 163 BZa: This action may already be mandated by AB1358 (2008), the Conzplete Streets Act, and the Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R1 (DD64). References to these policies should be included to reinforce the influence of the recommendation. B3a. Calirans staff is called out specifically in this section. Please add Califonua Department of Education (CDE) staff as well. The need for Safe Routes to School funding is driven. in part, by CDE practice of funding schools in inappropriate areas (that is to say without necessary imhstructure. outside pop~dated areas and/or in a&ricultural lands). B3b. Caltrans is in the process of revising the Highwq Design Manuul (HDM) to reflect the aforementioned Complete Streets Act and DD64. The HDM is a critical resource for local traffic engineers and is heavily relied on in the design and construction of local roads (despite "Highway" being in the name). The County recommends: 1) a cross reference to the revised HUM, and 2) review and coinment ofthe draft revised I4DM by CDPH staff (when it is available) to ensure appropriate revisions are included. B3b. The International Code Council (ICC) has recently approved a new code (F-17 - Attachment 1) which prohibits all "trafic calmzng dev~ces" unless approved by the fire code official. Please be aware that the definition of "traffic calming devices" is assunled by the ICC to include street width and alignment. This is a substantial topic which can't be addressed in this comment letter, please see Attachment 2 for a smnary of the issue as it relates to "slower speeds" and the reduction of injuries. If this change comes in to effect at the local level it may very likely hamper aitempts to construct safe. livable communities. The County recoinmends that the CDP1-I work with the American Planning Association, the American Public Works Association and the Office of the State Fire Marshal to inform the ICC of the potential problems with the new code. B4. The County recommends addii~g the following action item, "Support school siting reform andpromote policy changes which ~~ould cornpel the Califimia Department ofEducation to follow SB 375 principles and - heal planning ordinances in theblanning,f;nding, reGiew, and approval qfschool siting and &.Ti$ urdertaken by local school districts." The County docs not make this suggestion lightly. We are aware that this is a contentious: complicated issue. The school siting issue has produced a mountain of studies, white papers, coilferences, etc. Although we could provide substantial, specific comment on this topic, the County will go on record as I) supporting the reconlmendations (Attachment 3), of the Ad-Hoe Coalition,for Healthy School Siiing (with the exception of tl~eir omission of the value local land use expertise and authority as critical to successful school siting), and 2) being clear tl~at the issue is much, much broader than "a few schools on the suburban edge pushing out in to agricultural land". Poorly sited schools, outside the Urban Limit ~ine' OJLL) in agricultural areas are the "tip of the spear" in terms of encouraging and enablimg harmful, sprawling land use patterns. Joint Use, while an important piece of school siting reform, is only part of the issue. Defending an ULL in the presence of a high school, as an island in an agricultural area, is difficult at best. The County is hopeful in the fact that, just as a poor school site can undermine safety, sustainability, public health, and local, regional, and state planning goals, a well sited school can be a force for world-class community building. The County recommends an action which provides some mechanism to compel the integration of land development and school development activities. The County hopes that the recent involvement of the CDPIi will somehow allow progress to be made on this issue. As a bricf aside, local governments and our constituents are directly impacted by school siting decisions enabled and encouraged by the CDE. Counties and cities are forced to address the problems created by CDE and school districts as we are tlle iinmediately accessible "face" of government when constituents are impacted. In light of this, the County does not see the practice of conducting "invitation only" meetings on this issue as productive. Without local involvement the urgency and reality of the problem may be diininisbed or lost entirely. I School Districts can exempt themselves from local ordinances with a vote of the Board. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 164 B6: The County recommends adding the following action item, "Promote the developmeizt of new funding mechanisms to szrpport the development of'an active tr.ansportution system." B7: The County suggests adding "and leader+ship." to the end of "B7. Encouruge sustainable development.,.". Please see comments above for explanatory comments regarding school siting reform Cl: References to Caltrans and the CDE in tlus section is encouraging. However, without specific actions along the lines of the County suggestions above. we believe the status quo will continue to prevail whic11 is unacceptable. C2: The County supports hs recommendation and action item. However, in some areas of the Couniy, in light of troubling school siting practices, the authority of the State may not be such that "healthy community plasming" guidance would be accepted or iaken seriously. C3: Again, the County supports the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Coulition for School Siting. Some of their suggested refonns should be listed here. C.5: The definition of "State Projects" should include schools funding with funding kom the Stale. C8. The CDE should be listed as a potential collaborator. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please he aware that this is not the County's only attempt to engage at the state level on these matters. The County has proactively attempted to address state level policies: In November of 2008 the Cou~ity transn~iited coininents to the California Air Resources Board regarding the AB32 Scoping Plan (attached). The co~llments were similar to the coinments provided here, the State. in their school construction efforts, works at cross purposes with other programs and often counter to its own policies. In November of 2009 the County transmitted comments to the California Department of Education regarding the Re-Visionzng process it is engaged in (See attached letter) making recommendations and offering assistance. We are unaware of the status of CDE's process. More recently, staff has been communicating with SGC staff regarding SB375 and school siting issues. One invitation-only meeting has been held as far as County staff can ascertain. The County is excited about ihc ability of SB375 to bring about changes in school siting and design practices. We are awaiting SGC stafi's response to several County inquir~es about the results of the meeting and availability of a roster and meeting materials. If you have any questions on these comments please feel free to contact me at 925-335-1243 or at N. B~~~,'CCHS L. Ovcrcashier, 51 1 Contia Costa TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 165 F17–09/10 504.3.1, 502.1 Proponent: Tom Lariviere, Chairman, Joint Fire Service Review Committee Add new text as follows: 503.4.1. Traffic calming devices. Traffic calming devices are prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. 502.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES. Traffic calming devices are design elements of fire apparatus access roads such as street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures intended to reduce traffic and cut-through volumes, and slow vehicle speeds. Reason: Many communities are facing increased traffic volumes. Both new and existing streets are experiencing higher vehicular volumes and speeds as drivers attempt to find “short cuts” to ease their commutes. Designers, planning departments and traffic departments are increasingly turning to traffic calming measures to preserve the quality and enjoyment of life for their citizens. A key interest of all emergency services is to provide timely response to emergencies. Traffic calming devices can unduly delay and result in damage to emergency apparatus. This proposed language will allow fire officials to restrict traffic calming devices to those that will minimize these problems. Standard emergency medical service response times are based on 4-6 minutes. This time frame is based on the fact that brain damage resulting from cardiac arrest typically occurs within 4-6 minutes. Delaying, or extending, these response times in any fashion places the public at greater risk. Traffic officials and fire officials both have the responsibility to ensure that public interests are properly considered in their decision-making process. Both sets of officials have detailed regulations to provide for those interests. This proposal requires approval of traffic calming measures by the fire code official. What it doesn’t do is detail how that approval is to be made within various jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has their own traffic pattern emergency response challenges. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that the fire department is part of this decision-making process. This proposal requires approval of traffic calming measures in private fire access roads and public roads. Many traffic calming designs include various road configurations that delay, or even restrict, fire apparatus access. Such items may include “round-abouts”, speed humps, narrowing of streets, winding roads rather than straight roads, etc. All of these items slow the response time of any emergency response vehicle whether it be law enforcement, medical services, or fire. The definition for traffic calming is based on the definition provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Cost Impact: The code change proposal will not increase the cost of construction. Public Hearing: Committee: AS AM D Assembly: ASF AMF DF ICCFILENAME: LARIVIERE-F5-504.3.1DOC TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 166 FEATURE... WALKABLE THOROUGHFARES GUIDE IMPROVE YOUR STREETS, ADD VALUE»»» Download ( 0B) CNU fire code proposals shot down; appeal filed ICC voters choose confrontation over cooperation in street design discussion Submitted on 05/21/2010. Tags for this image: CNU News Emergency response fire code street design transportation NEW: The Congress for the New Urbanism has filed an appeal, asking the ICC to overturn the approval of "F17." CNU will post updates as the appeals process moves along. The Emergency Response & Street Design Initiative suffered a setback on May 20 when both of its suggested amendments to the International Fire Code were rejected at the International Code Council’s Final Action Hearings in Dallas. ICC voters ratified the Fire Code Committee’s previous rejection (in October 2009) of the Congress for the New Urbanism’s proposed change to Section 503 of the fire code – the passage that currently mandates designated fire access roads have at least 20 feet of clear space. This requirement can be a factor contributing to wider streets that signal to drivers to travel at faster speeds. CNU and its partners in the Fire Service drafted language that, had been accepted, would have affirmed that fire code officials have the flexibility to approve streets with less than 20 feet of clear space, depending on factors such as turning radii, connectivity, traffic safety, and the presence of sprinkler systems. Voters also reversed the Fire Code Committee’s previous overwhelming approval (12-1 at the October 2009 code hearings in Baltimore) of our proposed Appendix K, which offered performance-based guidance to fire code officials on street designs and “… establish[es] requirements consistent with nationally and internationally recognized good practice for achieving a reasonable level of overall life safety, by taking into account and balancing the need to prevent road traffic deaths and injuries and the need to safeguard against the hazards of fire, explosions and other dangerous conditions.” Perhaps more disturbing, however, was the ICC’s ratification of Fire Code language that states, “Traffic calming devices are prohibited unless approved by the fire code official,” and defines traffic calming devices as “…design elements of fire apparatus access roads such as street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures intended to reduce traffic and cut-through volumes, and slow vehicle speeds.” In other words, the ICC has elevated fire code officials to be the ultimate arbiters of street design and traffic engineering. This undermines efforts to seek cooperative dialog on street design matters, and drew a swift response from CNU President and CEO John Norquist: “The Fire Committee of the ICC decided to disrespect engineers, planners and other design professionals. This arrogant action damages the creditability of the whole ICC. Groups like CNU, American Society of Civil Engineers, Urban Land Institute, American Institute of Architects, and Institute of Transportation Engineers will now need to build coalitions with other groups like the National Association of Home Builders to get legislatures to reconsider their states' use of the International Fire Code.” CNU’s proposals acknowledged that solid common ground exists for ongoing efforts to reconcile narrower streets and good emergency access: Street connectivity — specifically well-connected networks of traditional street grids — is essential to good urbanism, shortens emergency response times, and improves overall community life safety. Taken together, these changes would have made the fire code less focused on mandating wide streets, and more flexible in allowing cities to take advantage of the safety and response benefits of connected networks of walkable narrower streets. Search CHARTER CHAPTERS STORE CONTACT CNU DONATE JOIN CNU LOGIN ABOUT CNU NEWS CONNECT INITIATIVES RESOURCES EVENTS AWARDS TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 167 Opposition to CNU’s proposals focused on the perceived absolute need for 20 feet clear to allow fire engines to pass one another or other vehicles en route to an emergency, and to have enough maneuvering room once on scene; on concerns that permissive language, once in the code, would be used to force fire marshals to approve narrower streets; and on the ever-growing size of fire apparatus. Daniel E. Nichols, of the New York State Division of Code Enforcement and Administration, charged that in addition to the above reasons, CNU’s proposed code changes really aimed to save developers money on their projects: “At the end of the day, decreasing road widths decreases the cost of projects, and that’s what this is about.” Others, however, agreed that CNU’s proposed code changes pointed the way toward greater cooperation as New Urbanism gains in popularity. “I think that in today’s world, the idea of a 20-foot-wide strip of concrete with two stripes down the middle, going through an urban neighborhood, is a lost cause,” said Jim Tidwell, a former fire marshal in Fort Worth, Texas, and a member of that city’s plan commission. Once the ICC's Final Action Hearings are completed later this year, approved code changes and additions will take effect with the 2012 editions of ICC codes. (Those editions will be published in 2011.) CNU’s proposals were developed jointly with fire marshals participating in the Emergency Response & Street Design Initiative, including Carl Wren, of the Austin, Texas, Fire Department, and Rick Merck, of Montgomery County (Md.) Fire & Rescue, and fire code consultants Rolland Crawford and Page Dougherty. CNU was represented in Dallas by Carl Wren, Jon Davis, project manager for the Emergency Response & Street Design Initiative, and Patrick Siegman, a transportation planner with Nelson\Nygaard, of San Francisco, who co-authored the proposed Appendix K. Danielle Arigoni spoke on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth office, which has been CNU’s partner in the Emergency Response & Street Design Initiative. © 1997-2010 Congress for the New Urbanism. Opinions posted in CNU Salons and in comments are those of their respective authors, not of CNU. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 168 Qepartment of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County Catherine 0. Kutsuris Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Community Development Division Community Development Division County Administration Building 651 Pine Street North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Phone: Mr. Wayne Reeves Director of Project Development Liberty Union High School District 20 Oak Street Brentwood, CA 94513 Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report August 6, 2009 Subject: Proposed 4th High School Campus, Liberty Union High School District (SCH#200807044) Dear Mr. Reeves: Contra Costa County appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Liberty Union High School District (LHUSD) on the proposed 41h High School campus to be sited in the unincorporated area between cities of Brentwood and Oakley at the southwest corner of Delta Road and Sellers Avenue. County staff from the Department of Conservation and Development (formerly Community Development) and the Public Work Department have reviewed the DEIR and offer the following comments: GENERAL COMMENT The County appreciates the need for a 41h High School Campus and recognizes the benefits it would provide for the current and projected demand for high school education. However, we are concerned that the DEIR has taken an approach toward mitigation of traffic-related impacts that calls into question whether the environmental review adequately meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. More specifically, at ES Page 14: Table 1: Traffic related mitigation measures are qualified in a number of ways in this table: M Some mitigations are identified with the caveat that LUSHD shall contribute a " .. .fair share, if funding is available ... ". (Traffic 3.11-5, et al) • Some indicate that LUSHD " ... shalf contribute towards ... " (Traffic 3.11-3, et 1 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 169 al) but with the caveat that " ... because mitigation measure does not depend solely on the LUHSD, this impact may be deemed Significant and unavoidable" ® Some measures are qualified as follows (Traffic 3.11-4 ), "The LUHSD shall contribute funding to this improvement if funding is available." The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR identify feasible mitigation measures (Public Resources Code section 21002). While the DEIR has identified mitigation measures for traffic impacts, which may not depend solely on the LUHSD for implementation, this does not relieve the District from identifying and participating financially in the implementation of any mitigation activities 1 . In order to establish feasibility, the lead agency or project sponsor must establish that there is a "reasonable plan"2 for mitigation. This would include identification of, and consultation with the jurisdiction that would be ultimately responsible for implementing the mitigation, establishing that the mitigation is physically possible, establishment of a cost of the mitigation, and a calculation of the project sponsor's fair share contribution toward the mitigation measure. CEQA directs that such information is necessary to establish that the mitigation measures are feasible. Absent such information, the DEIR should disclose what would happen if funding and/or inter-agency agreements to implement these mitigation measures are not available. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. The Cumulative Impacts subsection of the Executive Summary (on ES page 13) discusses "planning officials from the City of Brentwood and City of Oakley" being contacted "regarding foreseeable construction/land use transformation projects in the vicinity of the proposed Site". It is not clear if Contra Costa County officials with either the Department of Conservation and Development or Public Works Department were also contacted regarding the same item. This should be clarified. 2. Table 2-1 (on page 28) does not mention the Contra Costa County Public Works Department as a "Regional and Local Agency" from which "approval and/or coordination" should occur. The County Public Works Department should be added and acknowledged in the EIR since the Department will be the issuer of encroachment permits for any improvements within County road right of way and coordination with the Engineering Services, Transportation/Traffic, and Flood Control Divisions within the County Public Works Department will be required. I City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 2 Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 2 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 170 Hydrology and Water Quality 3. There appears to be discussion pertaining to a SWCS (Storm Water Control System) and a SWCP (Storm Water Control Plan), which are often used interchangeably in the text. On page 97, there is discussion regarding the LUHSD planning to "develop a SWCS to contain on-site storm water runoff" due to lack of adequate drainage systems to serve the site. However, the next paragraph describes the SWCS being based on the objectives of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (which are measures for storm water treatment, not conveyance). At the top of page 98, the SWCS is said to be implemented with a request for an exception from Title 9 of the (County Ordinance Code) for a diversion (of the watershed?). However, it would appear that the exception that should be sought from the County from Section 914 of the County Ordinance Code is to allow detention on-site and "pumping" excess stormwater into Marsh Creek during off-peak flows. The exception from Title 9 of the County Code, which requires all post-development stormwater to be "collected and conveyed" in an adequate storm drain system or natural watercourse, would be to instead detain runoff in basins and then pump out water as needed. This exception for conveyance may be granted, but only after thorough review by the County Public Works Department and this should not be confused with C.3 stormwater treatment on-site. 4. None of the MM Hydro mitigation measures (pages 103-1 05) mentions the preparation and implementation of the Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) Best Management Practices (BMPs)!lntegrated Management Practices (IMPs) as mitigation for long term treatment of pollutants. This should be addressed. 5. In Section 3.2.5 Hydromodification, there should be a discussion of how the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP) or flow-control element has been addressed. Although it is stated that HMP "strictly does not apply" since there are no historical flows to Marsh Creek from this site, (due to the proposed diversion of historical runoff) it could be argued that HMP should still be required due to the large amount of proposed impervious surfacing proposed with this project. The diversion of increased runoff volume generated by this project to Marsh Creek would appear to make flow control even more critical. The matter may have been addressed indirectly with the HEC-HMS analysis provided, which attempts to model how the basins will capture storm water runoff and detain peak flow events. However, the flow control element of HMP is not specifically addressed in the modeling analysis, as it should be. 3 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 171 6. In Section 5., a Means to Finance and Implement BMP Maintenance section should include language stating that the LUHSD will be required to provide a Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the review of the Public Works Department, and record an Operation and Maintenance Agreement, including any necessary rights-of-entry, prior to issuance to school construction. Additionally, LHUSD would be required to annex into any financing mechanisms (e.g. Community Facilities District) formed to insure that all costs associated with the perpetual Operation & Maintenance, administration and reporting of these water quality features (including costs associated with all required County administration and reporting) are paid for by LHUSD that are or will be benefiting from this development. 7. A Construction Plan C.3 Checklist should be included with any final SWCP. 8. The preliminary Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) presented in Appendix F does not appear to contain a SWCP Exhibit, which should detail the limits of each Drainage Management Area (DMA), present a drainage plan, identify IMP's/BMP's, provide details/cross-sections of the treatment features, etc. The roofs, parking area, walkways, landscaping, etc. should be shown broken into distinct areas draining to individually sized IMPs, based on the finished elevations and grading. If a SWCP Exhibit is not included, it is difficult to analyze the effectiveness or adequacy of the plan proposed. 9. Each DMA (such as "sports arena", "walkways", "pvmt 1"(?)) should be identified on the SWCP Exhibit. The exhibit needs to indicate how stormwater runoff generated from staff parking, tennis courts, and basketball courts located along the western boundary of the high school campus directed across the entire site back to the two IMPs proposed along the eastern limits of the campus. 10. In Appendix A, the IMP C.3 Sizing Calculator, it appears that a 25:1 factor is used to determine minimum IMP sizing, which is treatment-only. However, the proposed development of the high school will require flow- control and treatment (HMP). Will a flow-control element be included in the design of the basins? 11. In Appendix A, the IMP C.3 Sizing Calculator, the "south swale" is described as a self-treating area. IMP/BMPs should not be identified for treatment in a DMA since they are the treatment features. However, it remains unclear what function the "south swale" (linear bioretention area?) has, and what DMA(s) it treats. 4 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 172 12. Pollutant source areas, including refuse areas, outdoor pesticide for landscaping, etc. and the various methods for source control should be shown on a SWCP Exhibit. Traffic and Circulation 13. In Section 3.11.2.1, there is no description of the County's ultimate planned roadway for the fronting roadways. The County Public Works Department has previously communicated to LHUSD's engineering consultant that although Sellers Avenue currently features a 50 foot wide right of way, the ultimate plan Sellers Avenue is a 100 foot wide right of way and LUHSD would be expected dedicate at least 25 feet of ROW along the frontage of Sellers Avenue. Similarly, Delta Road only features a 40 foot wide ROW, where 100 feet is ultimately required. Therefore 30 additional feet of dedication would be expected. Additional roadway widening and frontage improvements have also been recommended to accommodate the increased traffic generated by the school. It should be noted that west of Sellers Avenue, Delta Road (to the property line) was annexed by the City of Oakley. Therefore, all future Delta Road roadway dedications shall be offered to the City of Oakley and will be accepted and annexed by the City. 14. In Section 3.11, construction traffic impacts should be described, including the potential locations of haul routes and the damage of roads along such haul routes. This section should also describe how the construction impact to local roads will be mitigated, including the following: 1) Damaged pavement along haul routes shall be repaired and restored to pre-construction conditions at the project sponsor's cost at the end of construction activities. 2) Due to a lack of sidewalks and the existence of four-foot wide bike lanes on Delta Road in the vicinity of the schools site, areas where pedestrians and cyclists are likely to utilize shall be kept clear of construction debris. Additionally, the MM -Traffic mitigation measures make no mention of preparation, submittal, and implementation of a "Traffic Control Plan" (TCP) for project construction that would be reviewed by the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley, as well as the County Public Works Department. The contents of the TCP should be described, including truck haul routes, staging areas, number of trucks, times of delivery, documentation of the pavement condition pre-and post-construction, responsibility of the school district to repair any damaged pavement, etc. 15. In Section 3.11.2.1 (page 127), the list of seven intersections fails to mention that four of the seven are partially or fully within unincorporated County areas-they are not exclusively in the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley: (1) south side of Delta Road/SR-4, (2) all but the northwestern 5 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 173 corner of Delta/Sellers, (3) all of Delta/Knightsen, and (4) all of Sunset/Sellers. 16. In Section 3.11.3 (page 131), four of the seven of the study intersections are partially or fully within unincorporated County areas (see comment above). 17. In Table 3.11-14 (page 128), Please explain why evening peak hour counts were not taken and are not included in the analysis at the intersections of Delta Road/Knightsen Avenue, Lone Tree Way/SR-4, and Sunset Road/Sellers Avenue. 18. In Table 3.11-17 (page 133), the LOS thresholds for Delta Road/Sellers Avenue and Sunset Road/Sellers Avenue should be LOS C with an average delay of 25 seconds and a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.80, based on the semi-rural designation of these intersections in the 2005- 2025 Contra Costa County General Plan. The Delta Road/Knightsen Avenue intersection is within an area designated as both suburban and semi-rural, with a LOS designation of high C or low D. An average delay of 25 to 30 seconds and a V/C of 0.79-0.82 should be used. If the County General Plan designation has been overruled in favor of the LOS D designation with a V/C of 0.90, please explain where this is documented. 19. Section 3.11.3.2 (page 139) incorrectly states that a LOS D, or a traffic V/C ratio of 0.90, is the acceptable threshold for roadways in the vicinity of the Site. According to the County General Plan, a LOS C, or a traffic V/C ratio of 0.80, is the acceptable threshold. 20. In Figure 5 (TIS page 16) of the Draft Transportation Impact Study, Delta Road (between Knightsen Avenue and Byron Highway) and Chestnut Street (between Sellers Avenue and Byron Highway) are planned to serve as Class II bikeways according to TRANSPLAN's East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005 Update. 21. At Page 144, 3.11.4 Alternative Approach to Addressing Effects on LOS, and, Page 150: Non-Motorized Site Access and Circulation, the information in these sections is inadequate. It does not address the limited and poor access to the high school campus for pedestrians and cyclists and it fails to demonstrate how non-motorized site access would improve levels of service (LOS). It also does not address potential safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists that would result from the site plan as it currently exists. The attached graphic, entitled "Consultant Recommendations", Figure 17 taken from an October 2008 report prepared by Fehr & Peers and incorporated into the DEIR, illustrates County staff suggestions to address 6 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 174 these inadequacies and improve access and circulation for the high school campus. The numbers below refer to the numbers labeled on graphic: ( 1) From the Marsh Creek trail pedestrians and cyclists wanting to access the school should not be directed to the sidewalk or Class II bike lane along Delta Road. On-site circulation should be designed such that pedestrians and cyclists can immediately enter the school property. This would make the route more direct (and thus more attractive) and eliminate the conflict between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles from the driveways thereby increasing safety and improving vehicle circulation. (2) A path should be provided from the Marsh Creek trail directly to the site without having to travel north to Delta Road. The project sponsor should negotiate, purchase or otherwise acquire an easement from the property owner to the west of the site to construct this path. The experience at Heritage High regarding pedestrian and cyclist issues should not be repeated here. (3) From the south end of the site on Sellers Avenue, pedestrians and cyclists wanting to access the school should not be directed to the sidewalk along the roadway. On-site circulation should be designed such that pedestrians and cyclists can immediately enter the school property. This would make the route more direct (thus more attractive), and eliminate the conflict between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles from the driveways thereby increasing safety and improving vehicle circulation. ( 4) From the northeast corner of the site, the site plan should be modified to allow direct access to the school site to pedestrians and cyclists, allowing for a more direct route and eliminating the conflict with vehicles, at the driveways, if students were to use the sidewalks. The modifications listed above and illustrated in the attached graphic would potentially provide safer access and circulation for the high school campus and promote incentives for pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. 21. Comments on October 2008 Traffic Impact Study, as incorporated in the DEIR Figure 2: Conceptual Project Site Plan: Westernmost Driveway This location is identified as "right in/right out" only but has a two entry lanes marked. Should there be one lane here? 8 If there is to be two lanes at this location it would suggest a "left in" 7 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 175 movement. If this is the case, will the onsite roundabout (just south of Delta Road) be multi-lane? If the intent is to eventually convert this to a full access point (lefVright-in/out) that configuration must be evaluated. ® There is no analysis of the need to provide a right turn pocket at this location. At a minimum a turn pocket should be provided to reduce the impact to through traffic from vehicles slowing to enter the site. Figure 7: Cumulative Project Distribution The trip distribution from the high school project has approximately 25% of the trips accessing the site from the west using Delta Road. There is no accommodation to efficiently return those vehicles to their origins. The congestion issues experienced at Heritage High School should be considered when making circulation choices such as this. Without an accommodation to return vehicles to their origin, many motorists will likely exit the site and attempt a u-turn at the Sellers/Delta intersection which will create substantial congestion, either from the (additional) queuing at the future light or the delay from the vehicles negotiating a u-turn. The other option will have exiting vehicles turning right at Sellers adding to and conflicting with the school related congestion using the three access points on the east side of the project site. These factors diminish the benefits of having disbursed access points mentioned in the Revised Site Plan Assessment (April 22, 2008 Fehr & Peers Memorandum). As a final comment, it is noted that the County's comments regarding the traffic- related impacts, and concerns about the adequacy of the approach toward mitigation of such impacts, echo similar concerns in the comment letters submitted on the DEIR by the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. The Liberty Union High School District, the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and the County, each share a mutual interest in assuring that the 41h High School campus is safe and accessible for students, faculty, parents, and the larger community. Given these mutual concerns and interests, perhaps, rather than relying solely upon the Response to Comments/Final EIR process to address concerns about traffic- related impacts, it would be timely and appropriate for the planner/engineers of the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and the County, to meet directly with District staff and its consultants on ways to improve access and circulation for the high school campus. Steve Goetz, Deputy Director-Transportation Planning Section, Department of Conservation and Development, is available to assist in facilitating such a meeting. He can be reached by telephone at (925) 335-1242 or by email at sgoet@cd.cccounty.us. 8 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 176 Thank you for considering the County's comments on the DEIR for the 41h High School Campus. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me by telephone at (925) 335-1242 or by email at proch@cd.cccounty.us. Sincerely yours, ?~~ Patrick Roche Principal Planner Attachment (1) CCC mark-up of Figure 17, Consultant Recommendations, Oct. 2008 report by Fehr & Peers cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Casey McCann, City of Brentwood Rebecca Willis, City of Oakley C. Kutsuris, Director, DCD J. Bueren, Director, PWD G:\Advanw Plannmgladv-plan\Envimn. Docs\Review LHUSD 4th H!gh School Sitek.ommentllonDEIR 6.doc 9 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 177 Provide secure bicycle parking Coordinate with Tri-Delta Transit to provide peak period service to site LEGEND ,;-,,_,-,_,k,_,,,_u = Designated Drop-off Areas c:::==::J = Potentia! Bus Turnaround S = Traffic Signa! fp fEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS October 2008 Graphics\Oc!08\ WC05-2146 _17 Install gate to limit access to maintenance and mJ Liberty Union High School CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 17 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 178 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 1/17 California Status actions entered today are listed in bold. File name: 2014TransLeg Author: Bonilla (D) Title:Construction: Prevailing Wage/Mechanics Liens Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 12/03/2012 Last Amend: 03/18/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Revises the definition for construction to include postconstruction phases and cleanup work at the jobsite. Expands the definition of public works regarding the payment prevailing wages to include any task relating to the collecting or sorting of refuse or recyclable metals, such as copper, steel, and aluminum performed at a public works jobsite. Status:03/18/2014 From SENATE Committee on LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS with author's amendments. 03/18/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Perez J (D) Title:Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/04/2013 Last Amend: 08/12/2013 Disposition: Pending File:A-8 Location: Assembly Inactive File 1.CA AB 26 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 2.CA AB 229 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 179 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 2/17 Summary:Authorizes the creation by a city, county, city and county, and joint powers authority, of an infrastructure and revitalization financing district and the issuance of debt with voter approval. Authorizes the creation of a district and the issuance of debt. Authorizes a district to finance projects in redevelopment project areas and former redevelopment project areas and former military bases. Status: 09/11/2013 In ASSEMBLY. From Unfinished Business. To Inactive File. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Mullin (D) Title:Local Government: Assessment Or Property-Related Fee Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/15/2013 Last Amend: 02/10/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Local Government Committee Hearing: 04/02/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 127 Summary:Authorizes the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, in accordance with specified provisions of the California Constitution, to impose a parcel tax or a property-related fee for the purpose of implementing stormwater management programs. Status: 02/24/2014 Re-referred to ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Lowenthal B (D) Title:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Sustainable Communities Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/20/2013 3.CA AB 418 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 4.CA AB 574 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 180 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 3/17 Last Amend: 04/15/2013 Disposition: Failed Summary:Requires the State Air Resources Board to establish standards for the use of moneys allocated in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for sustainable communities projects. Requires the board to establish the criteria for the development and implementation of regional grant programs. Requires the State Transportation Commission to designate the regional granting authority within each region of the state to administer the allocated moneys for regional grant programs. Status:01/31/2014 Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. 02/03/2014 From Committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to JR 56. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Frazier (D) Title:Bay Area Water Transportation Authority: Members Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/22/2013 Last Amend: 04/25/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Relates to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority and board of directors. Expands the number of members appointed to the board by the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly. Relates to members appointed by the Governor. Status: 05/23/2013 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Bocanegra (D) Title:Strategic Growth Council Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no 5.CA AB 935 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 6.CA AB 1179 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 181 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 4/17 Introduced: 02/22/2013 Last Amend: 01/06/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Amends existing law that creates the Strategic Growth Council with specified duties relating to the coordination of actions of State agencies relative to improvement of air and water quality, natural resource protection, transportation, and various other matters. Adds the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or her designee to the Council. Status: 02/06/2014 To SENATE Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Ting (D) Title:Bikeways Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/22/2013 Last Amend: 01/23/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Amends existing law that requires the State Department of Transportation to establish procedures to permit exceptions to the requirements that all city, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development of bikeways or roadways where bicycles travel to utilize all minimum safety design criteria and uniform specifications for symbols, signs, markers, and traffic control devices. Requires the department to establish minimum safety design criteria for Class IV bikeways. Status: 02/06/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg MTC:Support Author: Gatto (D) Title:Vehicle Accidents Introduced: 01/21/2014 7.CA AB 1193 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 8.CA AB 1532 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 182 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 5/17 Disposition: Pending Summary:Provides that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident where a person is struck but not injured, shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide specified information including his or her name and current residence address. Identifies a violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor and result in the immediate suspension of the driver's license of a convicted driver. Status:03/24/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Buchanan (D) Title:School Facilities Introduced: 02/03/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Amends the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. Imposes penalties if a material inaccuracy is found in an eligibility or funding application. Makes technical, nonsubstantive changes in the provision regarding penalties for material inaccuracies. Status: 03/ 28/ 2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on EDUCATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Frazier (D) Title:Highways: Litter Control Introduced: 02/14/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Makes nonsubstantive changes to existing law that authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter into an agreement to accept funds, materials, equipment or services from any person for maintenance of a section of state highway, including, cleanup or abatement of litter, and to post a courtesy sign in that regard. Status: 03/ 28/ 2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg 9.CA AB 1581 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 10.CA AB 1724 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 183 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 6/17 Author: Buchanan (D) Title:High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Introduced: 02/18/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing: 04/21/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Requires that access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes by high-occupancy vehicles on specified highway corridors be available at all times. Status: 02/27/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Frazier (D) Title:Department of Transportation Introduced: 02/19/2014 Last Amend: 03/28/2014 Disposition: Pending File:4 Location: Assembly Second Reading File Summary:Authorizes the Department of Transportation to purchase and equip heavy mobile fleet vehicles and special equipment by means of best value procurement subject to an annual limitation. Requires the department to report to the Legislature with regard to this process. Status:03/ 28/ 2014 In ASSEMBLY . Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg 11.CA AB 1811 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 12.CA AB 1857 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 13.CA AB 2013 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 184 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 7/17 Author: Muratsuchi (D) Title:Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Introduced: 02/20/2014 Last Amend: 03/17/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Increases the number of identifiers that the Department of Motor Vehicles is authorized to issue under provisions authorizing the issuance of such identifiers to certain vehicles permitted to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Status:03/24/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Bradford (D) Title:Electric Bicycles Introduced: 02/20/2014 Last Amend: 03/19/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing: 04/21/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Redefines the term motorized bicycle by renaming it a low-speed electric bicycle and making other specified requirements. Exempts a low-speed electric bicycle from the provision prohibiting the operation of a motorized bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail. Status:03/19/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with author's amendments. 03/19/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Buchanan (D) Title:Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities B Introduced: 02/21/2014 Disposition: Pending 14.CA AB 2173 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 15.CA AB 2235 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 185 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 8/17 Committee: Assembly Education Committee Hearing: 04/09/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Enacts the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 to authorize an unspecified amount of state general obligation bonds to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, charter schools, the California Community Colleges, the University of California, the Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University to construct and modernize education facilities and school district facilities funding. Status: 03/06/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committees on EDUCATION and HIGHER EDUCATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Daly (D) Title:Toll Facilities: Revenues Introduced: 02/21/2014 Last Amend: 03/24/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing: 04/21/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Requires the Department of Transportation when entering into a cooperative agreement with a local agency for a managed land on the State highway system, to ensure that any revenues from a managed land that is administered by a local agency remains available for expenditure within the respective corridor in which the managed lane is located. Status:03/24/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with author's amendments. 03/24/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Levine (D) Title:Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Introduced: 02/21/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee 16.CA AB 2250 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 17.CA AB 2398 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 186 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 9/17 Hearing: 04/21/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Provides penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations regarding pedestrians and bicyclists. Status: 03/10/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Frazier (D) Title:Public Contracts: Change Orders Introduced: 02/21/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Requires a public entity, when authorized to order changes or additions in the work in a public works contract awarded to the lowest bidder, to issue a change order promptly. Requires if this requirement is not met, the public entity to be liable to the original contractor for payment of the contractor's invoice. Status:03/13/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Linder (R) Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Introduced: 02/21/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing: 04/21/2014 1:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Prohibits weight fee revenue from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund or to the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, and from being used to pay the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. Status: 03/17/2014 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. Private File: 2014TransLeg 18.CA AB 2471 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 19.CA AB 2651 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 187 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 10/17 Author: Campos (D) Title:Local Government Finance: Public Safety Services Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 01/22/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Authorizes the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax for funding fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff services, upon the approval of 55% of the voters voting. Creates an additional exception to the 1% limit for a rate imposed by a city, county, or special district to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund certain fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff buildings or facilities, and equipment that is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or special district. Status:04/04/2013 To ASSEMBLY Committees on LOCAL GOVERNMENT and APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Blumenfield (D) Title:Local Government Financing: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/13/2013 Last Amend: 04/04/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to create an additional exception to the 1% limit for an ad valorem tax rate imposed by a city, county, city and county, or special district, to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund specified public improvements and facilities, or buildings used primarily to provide sheriff, police, or fire protection services, that is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district. Status:06/27/2013 To SENATE Committees on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE and ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 20.CA ACA 3 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 21.CA ACA 8 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 188 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 11/17 Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Steinberg (D) Title:Sustainable Communities Investment Authority Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 12/03/2012 Last Amend: 09/03/2013 Disposition: Pending File:A-5 Location: Senate Inactive File Summary:Authorizes certain public entities of a Sustainable Communities Investment Area to form a Sustainable Communities Investment Authority to carry out the Community Redevelopment Law. Provides for tax increment funding receipt under certain economic development and planning criteria. Establishes prequalification requirements for receipt of funding. Requires monitoring and enforcement of prevailing wage requirements within the area. Excludes certain types of farmland. Status: 09/12/2013 In SENATE. To Inactive File. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Wolk (D) Title:Infrastructure Financing Districts: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 12/03/2012 Last Amend: 08/26/2013 Disposition: Pending File:A-13 Location: Assembly Inactive File 22.CA SB 1 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 23.CA SB 33 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 189 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 12/17 Summary:Revises provisions governing infrastructure financing districts. Eliminates the requirement of voter approval for creation of the district and for bond issuance, and authorizes the legislative body to create the district subject to specified procedures. Authorizes the creation of such district subject to specified procedures. Authorizes a district to finance specified actions and project. Prohibits financing until a certain requirement is met. Prohibits assistance to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer. Status: 09/11/2013 In ASSEMBLY. To Inactive File. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: DeSaulnier (D) Title:Regional Entities: San Francisco Bay Area Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 02/22/2013 Last Amend: 01/27/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Requires members agencies of the San Francisco Bay Area joint policy committee to prepare a plan for consolidating certain functions that are common to member agencies. Requires the plan to include a statement relative to the expected reduction of overhead, operation, and management costs. Requires a member agency to submit a copy of the plan to its board, and to report to a specified Senate committee. Requires the committee to maintain an Internet Web site containing committee activities. Status: 01/28/2014 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: DeSaulnier (D) Title:Public Works Introduced: 02/10/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Authorizes these provisions to be known and cited as the Public Works Project Overview Improvement Act. Defines a megaproject as a transportation project with total estimated development and construction costs exceeding a specified amount. 24.CA SB 792 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 25.CA SB 969 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 190 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 13/17 Requires the agency administering a megaproject to establish a peer review group and to take specified actions to manage the risks associated with a megaproject including establishing a comprehensive risk management plan, and regularly reassessing its reserves. Status: 02/20/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Vidak (R) Title:Transportation Funds: Disadvantaged Small Communities Introduced: 02/12/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Requires each regional transportation improvement program to program 5% of funds available for regional improvement projects to disadvantaged small communities. Requires regional transportation agencies and county transportation commissions to prioritize funding congestion relief and safety needs in programming these moneys. Status: 02/20/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: DeSaulnier (D) Title:Vehicles: Vehicle-Miles-Traveled Charges Introduced: 02/19/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Hearing: 04/22/2014 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop and implement a pilot program designed to assess specified issues related to implementing a vehicle-miles-traveled fee. Requires the department to prepare and submit a specified report of its findings. Status: 02/27/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg 26.CA SB 990 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 27.CA SB 1077 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 28.CA SB 1122 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 191 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 14/17 Author: Pavley (D) Title:Sustainable Communities: Strategic Growth Council Introduced: 02/19/2014 Last Amend: 03/24/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Senate Environmental Quality Committee Hearing: 04/02/2014 9:30 am, Room 3191 Summary:Requires the Strategic Growth Council to provide plan financial assistance to be funded from moneys from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Requires the regional plan or other planning instrument to meet the requirements of an applicable sustainable communities strategy, alternative transportation plans, or other regional greenhouse gas emission reduction plans within a developed area. Relates to model systems. Authorizes grants for agricultural, natural resource, and open space land protection. Status:03/24/2014 From SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY with author's amendments. 03/24/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Cannella (R) Title:Vehicles: School Zone Fines Introduced: 02/20/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Hearing: 04/22/2014 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Requires that fines for specified violations be doubled or increased if the violation occurred when passing a school building or school grounds, and the highway is posted with a standard SCHOOL warning sign and an accompanying sign notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within that school zone. Status:03/06/2014 To SENATE Committees on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING and PUBLIC SAFETY. Private File: 2014TransLeg Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 29.CA SB 1151 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 192 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 15/17 Author: Steinberg (D) Title:Carbon Tax Law of 2014 Introduced: 02/20/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Senate Governance and Finance Committee Hearing: 04/09/2014 9:30 am, Room 112 Summary:Imposes a carbon tax of an unspecified amount per ton of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emission on suppliers of fossil fuels. Status: 03/06/2014 To SENATE Committees on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE and RULES. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: DeSaulnier (D) Title:Bicycle Tax Introduced: 02/20/2014 Last Amend: 03/24/2014 Disposition: Pending Committee: Senate Governance and Finance Committee Hearing: 04/09/2014 9:30 am, Room 112 Summary:Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose, as a special tax, a point of sale tax on new bicycles, with the rate of the tax to be determined by the local agency. Excludes from the tax bicycles with wheels of 20 inches or less in diameter. Requires the State Board of Equalization to collect the tax and to transmit the net revenues to the local agency. Requires the local entity to use the moneys for improvement to paved and natural trails, including new trails, and for maintenance. Status:03/24/2014 From SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE with author's amendments. 03/24/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE. Private File: 2014TransLeg 30.CA SB 1156 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 31.CA SB 1183 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 32.CA SB 1298 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 193 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 16/17 Author: Hernandez E (D) Title:High Occupancy Toll Lanes Introduced: 02/21/2014 Disposition: Pending Summary:Removes the limitations on the number of high-occupancy toll lanes that the California Transportation Commission may approve. Provides for agreements between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Status: 03/06/2014 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Liu (D) Title:Local Government Transportation Project: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 12/03/2012 Last Amend: 08/28/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to provide the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects requires the approval of a related proposition that includes certain requirements. Prohibits the local government from expending any revenues derived from a special transportation tax approved by the voters at any time prior to the completion of a identified capital project funded by specified revenues. Status: 08/29/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Corbett (D) 33.CA SCA 4 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 34.CA SCA 8 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 194 3/28/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=10770&host=psweb1c086&query_id=bL90dz6qC61Z&app=lpfs&mode=display 17/17 Title:Transportation Projects: Special Taxes: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 12/14/2012 Last Amend: 05/21/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to provide that the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for transportation projects requires the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition includes certain requirements. Status: 08/29/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg Author: Hancock (D) Title:Local Government: Special Taxes: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced: 01/25/2013 Last Amend: 05/21/2013 Disposition: Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 55% of the voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition proposing the tax contains specified requirements. Status: 06/27/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Private File: 2014TransLeg 35.CA SCA 11 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 195 March 10, 2014 The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo U.S. House of Representatives 241 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515-0001 RE:Protecting the Highway Trust Fund from Insolvency Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the undersigned S.F. Bay Area transportation partners request your help in enacting a solution to maintain the long-term financial viability of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). This is an urgent matter that must be addressed within the next five months; the HTF may be in deficit as soon as August 2014 according to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony R. Foxx. In the absence of new funds, reimbursements will have to be rationed, putting a strain on the construction industry which is already struggling in California due to the winding down of bond funding. The most critical deadline will arrive on October 1, 2014, by which point MAP 21 expires and the HTF will need at least $19 billion just to maintain current highway and transit spending according to the Congressional Budget Office. Transportation has traditionally relied upon federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels as the primary funding mechanism for the Highway Trust Fund. Yet the current 18.4 cent per gallon gasoline excise tax has not been raised since 1993 and has lost almost 40 percent of its purchasing power over that period. At the same time, the number of miles driven per person each year is actually falling and many consumers are choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles. These are positive trends but taken in combination with a steadily eroding gas tax, they have driven the HTF to the brink of insolvency. We encourage you to send the attached letter to the House Ways and Means Chairman David Camp urging him to begin the process of enacting a fix to the HTF problem as soon as possible.Our preferred solution is to raise and index the federal excise tax on motor fuels, along with other existing user fees. Barring that approach, all revenue ideas should be considered.We pledge to collaborate and support your efforts and those of your colleagues this election year. Sincerely, TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 196 Attachment Art Dao Executive Director, Alameda County Transportation Commission Osby Davis Board Chair, Solano Transportation Authority Steve Heminger Executive Director, MTC Mark Hughes Chair, SolTrans Randell Iwasaki Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Ash Kalra, Chairperson Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Joel Keller BART Board President Jeanne Krieg Chief Executive Ocer, Tri Delta Transit Karen Mitcho Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Rick Ramacier General Manager, County Connection Nina Rannells Executive Director, Water Emergency Transportation Authority Dianne Steinhauser Executive Director, Transportation Authority of Marin Edward D. Reiskin Director of Transportation, SFMTA Sandy L. Wong Executive Director, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Jim Wunderman, President and CEO, Bay Area Council Jessica Zenk Senior Director, Silicon Valley Leadership Group TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 197 March __, 2014 Chairman Dave Camp House Ways and Means Committee 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-6348 Dear Chairman Camp, As you know, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), our country’s primary source of federal surface transportation funding, is expected to encounter a revenue shortfall beginning this August and become bankrupt by the beginning of fiscal year 2015. The federal government’s investment in surface transportation is critical to our economy. Not only does this investment support direct jobs in the transportation industry, even more importantly, it lays the foundation for economic growth, much of which depends on having a robust transportation infrastructure that enables the efficient movement of people and goods across the nation. Based on the latest financial examination of the HTF by the Congressional Budget Office, the account will need an additional $19 billion in FY 2015 in order to maintain current federal highway and transit funding levels. Cuts to these programs are completely untenable given the multi-billion needs of our nation’s roadways, bridges and transit systems just to bring them into a state-of-good repair. We strongly recommend that the House Ways and Means Committee recognize the urgency of this situation and report legislation that will stabilize the long-term financial condition of the HTF before August 2014. Without Congressional action, 1.7 million jobs will be lost with an estimated 163,000 jobs in California alone. As the Ways and Means Committee wrestles with how to address the long-term solvency of the HTF, all revenue options should be considered, including the federal excise taxes on motor fuels as proposed in H.R. 3636 (Blumenauer), a fiscally responsible approach that avoids deficit spending and has served the nation well for the last 82 years. Sincerely, The undersigned members of the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional Delegation TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 198 Highway fund stares into the abyss If the Highway Trust Fund runs out, state DOTs would in turn have to cut or curtail their own projects. | AP By ADAM SNIDER 3/26/14 4:17 PM EDT The federal trust fund that pays for road, bridge and transit projects is on the verge of entering unknown territory: going dry. Unless Congress acts, the Highway Trust Fund will start running out of money in July for the first time in its 58-year history, with no real precedent for what happens next. But the likely possibilities are ominous, including furloughs of employees in federal safety agencies and sharp cutbacks in the checks that the Department of Transportation sends to its state-government counterparts. State DOTs would in turn have to cut or curtail their own projects, triggering job losses during the peak months for road work. “We have the potential of missing an entire construction season,” said Michael Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 199 His state’s only funding program for roads and bridges is one that matches the federal program, which typically pays for 80 percent of a project’s cost. If the federal money stops flowing, Lewis said, “We’ve got nothing.” That’s one message he’ll deliver when he testifies Thursday at a Senate hearing on the new transportation bill that Congress must pass by Sept. 30. But the highway fund will need rescuing months before then, based on the government’s latest estimates, although DOT doesn’t know exactly when the money will run out. Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who served for five years under President Barack Obama, warned that an empty trust fund would “cause a complete calamity in transportation and infrastructure funding.” It would be “a total dereliction of congressional leadership,” he said in a comment to POLITICO. The reasons for the depletion have been long in coming: Congress hasn’t raised the gasoline tax in 20 years, allowing inflation to erode the amount of construction work that the levy buys. More fuel-efficient cars and the economic downturn have cut into how much money the gas tax raises. And while the fund has come close to running out several times before, it’s never truly gone broke. DOT officials readied for a depleted Highway Trust Fund in 2008, warning states that their reimbursement checks would be pro-rated and come less often. Congress heeded the call then, moving quickly to approve an $8 billion bailout. But several more bailouts totaling tens of billions of dollars later, it’s not clear if the gridlocked Congress could pull off the same feat this time. Failing that, DOT has few options. The 19th century Antideficiency Act means the fund can’t run a deficit, and DOT can’t control the money coming in. So the department is left with implementing a simple budgeting philosophy: Spend only what you have, matching outlays with income. The pay-as-you-go approach would affect the daily reimbursements sent to states that have already paid upfront for projects under construction. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 200 Payments might come less often and be trimmed, but DOT wouldn’t actually “bounce checks” — despite what Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has said as he continues to urge lawmakers to find the needed money. Department officials have two options if the balance hits critically low levels, and neither is attractive to states. If the fund has only 85 percent of the money needed to pay for projects, for example, it could either fully fund 85 percent of the projects or could give all projects 85 percent of their needed amounts. DOT could also blend the two approaches. The cuts could entail scaling back the daily reimbursements to several times a week, which can affect cash-flow for states that have already spent the money. The effects would be especially large for states that rely heavily on the federal program, such as sparsely populated Western states that have tens of thousands of miles of roads but few people paying the gas tax. Employees of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration are also paid from the trust fund, as are some staff at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Furloughs could be on the table, meaning reviews of new highway projects and key truck and car safety programs could grind to a halt. Depletion of the trust fund would come as a one-two punch. The highway account that pays for road and bridge projects should run out in July, while the transit account will survive into the next fiscal year — but not long after. DOT will have to act well before the fund’s balance hits zero, however. Officials estimate that the highway account needs about $4 billion in cash liquidity to maintain timely spending, and the transit account needs $1 billion. If the balances dip below that recommended cushion, the agency will have to act. To top it off, DOT doesn’t even have up-to-date numbers on how much is in the fund and doesn’t know when zero day will arrive. The latest estimate says late July for the highway account, but that’s several weeks earlier than predicted in February. DOT officials know how much they send each day to states, but the Treasury Department updates the fund’s income only every quarter. And sometimes Treasury gets it wrong, two former top DOT officials said. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 201 The government typically collects one large check from oil refineries — the ones actually paying the gas tax — that includes items like Social Security, payroll and other taxes on top of the fuel excise tax. Treasury then estimates how much is earmarked for the Highway Trust Fund, and later reconciles earlier guesses against production numbers and other data from refineries. Sometimes that means DOT gets less money for the highway fund than it thought earlier in the year. The Congressional Budget Office has offered two scenarios to bring the trust fund back into line in the long term, neither of which would sit well with lawmakers: Eliminate virtually the entire $51 billion road and transit program for the upcoming fiscal year, or boost the 18.4-cents-a-gallon gas tax by 10 cents. The official congressional scorekeeperprojects that the fund will be $13 billion short through 2015, with the figures skyrocketing in later years. Just 5½ years from now, it will be $95 billion in the red. “The administration has repeatedly called for increased infrastructure investment to avoid such a situation,” DOT said in a statement noting the administration’s four-year, $302 billion proposal in the president’s budget request. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 202 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Keene, Deputy Director of Federal Affairs, CSAC FROM: Joe Krahn, Tom Joseph, and Hasan Sarsour CSAC Washington Representatives CC: Matt Cate, Executive Director, CSAC DeAnn Baker, Director of Legislative Affairs, CSAC DATE: March 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Analysis of President Obama's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget The Obama administration released March 4 its fiscal year 2015 budget proposal to Congress. While the blueprint technically adheres to the $1.014 discretionary spending cap established under the recently approved Ryan-Murray budget accord (PL 113-67), the White House has proposed an additional $56 billion in supplemental spending for defense, roads and bridges, universal pre-school education, and expanded tax credits for the poor. The funding would be split evenly between defense and domestic discretionary programs and would be fully offset with a package of spending cuts and tax reforms. It should be noted that the president's supplemental spending proposal has been met with strong resistance from congressional appropriators. In fact, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and her House counterpart, Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY), have indicated that their respective committees will advance fiscal year 2015 spending legislation that strictly abides by the caps set by the Ryan-Murray budget framework. The administration's blueprint also would use $1.2 trillion in new deficit reduction over the next decade to replace sequestration beginning in fiscal year 2016. This would be achieved through a combination of new spending reductions, added tax revenue, and the enactment of immigration reform legislation. In addition, the budget proposes to cut entitlement spending for Medicare and Medicaid by $402 billion over the next decade, mainly by implementing efficiency efforts; it should be noted that mandatory spending would still remain on a sharp track upward under the president's budget. The administration's proposal also would net $650 billion in new revenues by closing a number of tax TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 203 2 loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Although very little of the Obama budget is expected to become law, the president's proposal will serve as a benchmark for congressional Democrats. TRANSPORTATION The president’s budget proposes a four-year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal. Pursuant to the administration's plan, $150 billion would be devoted to transportation programs from revenue generated by a series of proposed tax reforms. The funds would be used to supplement current gas tax revenues and would help finance long-term infrastructure investments. The budget would more than double the competitive TIGER grant program to $1.25 billion next year, up from $600 million. In addition, the proposal would establish a new, $4 billion competitive grant program to encourage “critical reforms” by states and localities to improve safety and address peak traffic demand. PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU-OF-TAXES (PILT) PROGRAM The PILT program, which provides federal payments to local governments to help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable federal lands within their boundaries, is fully funded through fiscal year 2014. For fiscal year 2015, the president’s budget proposes a one-year extension of mandatory PILT payments at the full entitlement amount. If fully funded in fiscal year 2015, the amount is expetced to total $442 million (compared to approximately $432 million in fiscal year 2014). SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS The budget includes a five-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program. The funding would be provided through mandatory appropriations, beginning with $251 million in fiscal year 2015. STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) For the second year in a row, the president's budget does not include funding for SCAAP. It should be noted that Congress appropriated $180 million for SCAAP in fiscal year 2014. INDIAN AFFAIRS The White House budget once again includes language that would overturn the Supreme Courts’ Carcieri v. Salazar decision. In Carcieri, the Court ruled that the secretary of the Interior's trust land acquisition authority is limited to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction at the time of the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The president's budget does not propose any reforms to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) land-into-trust process. The budget also indicates that BIA is continuing its comprehensive look at the Federal acknowledgement process, with the intent of publishing a proposed rule later this year. COUNTY GEOTHERMAL REVENUES In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress decided that because of the high burdens geothermal production places on the counties where geothermal development is located, these counties should share in the revenue of the federal receipts. The president’s budget, however, again calls for the elimination of the 25 percent county share of geothermal revenues. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 204 3 TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF MUNICIPAL BONDS The administration is proposing to cap the value of the tax exemption for interest paid by municipal bonds. Under the budget, the value of tax benefits would be limited for the top two percent of earners to 28 percent from the current 35 percent. This is the fourth time that the Obama administration has suggested capping the value of the tax exemption for high-income earners. The independent, bipartisan tax-reform group, known as Bowles-Simpson, also proposed limiting the tax break. Below are charts that provide a comparison between the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request and the current enacted level of funding for select programs. The numbers in the charts are in millions of dollars. FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET KEY PROGRAMMATIC FUNDING LEVELS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY OBLIGATION LIMIT $41,000 $48,600 TIGER GRANTS $600 $1,250 TRANSIT FORMULA PROGRAM $8,600 $13,900 CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS $1,900 $2,500 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM $3,350 $2,900 HIGH SPEED RAIL --- $5,000 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET SCAAP $180 ---- COPS HIRING GRANTS $180 $247 METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT --- $7 BYRNE/JAG $376 $376 RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT $10 $14 OFFENDER REENTRY PROGRAMS $67.7 $115 JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT* --- $30 PART B - STATE FORMULA GRANTS $55.5 $50 TITLE V - DELINQUENCY PREVENTION $15 $42 PRISON RAPE PREVENTION/PROSECUTION $12.5 $10.5 YOUTH MENTORING GRANTS $88.5 $58 *The omnibus zeroed out the JABG program. However, the legislation provided $55.5 million for Part B-State Formula Grants, $10 million of which can be used for JABG-related activities, including building, expanding, renovating, or operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction facilities. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 205 4 WATER RESOURCES/AIR QUALITY FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION (Bureau of Reclamation (BoR)) $37 $37 WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROJECTS (BoR) $21.5 $21.5 WATERSMART GRANTS (BoR) $19 $19 ESA RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION (BoR) $21.2 $22.7 CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (EPA) $1,450 $1,020 DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (EPA) $906 $757 STATE & LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT GRANTS (EPA) $228 $223 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS $680 $680 EMERGENCY MGMT PERFORMANCE GRANTS $350 $350 TRAINING PARTNERSHIP GRANTS --- $60 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM $446 --- URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE $600 --- NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GRANTS* --- $1,040 BORDER PATROL AGENTS (# OF AGENTS) 21,370 21,370 CBP OFFICERS (# OF OFFICERS) 24,800 25,775 * For the third year in a row, the administration's budget includes a proposal to consolidate several current state and local preparedness grant programs (such as State Homeland Security Grants and the Urban Area Security Initiative) into a comprehensive National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP). HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET CDBG $3,030 $2,800 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM $1,000 $950 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE $90 $120* HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS $2,105 $2,406 *Choice Neighborhoods receives another $280 million in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS $2,960 $2,505 USDA WATER & WASTE DISPOSAL GRANTS $452 $304 RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES GRANTS $29 $21 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 206 5 RURAL BROADBAND GRANTS $10 $21 DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE $24 $25 HUMAN SERVICES FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET TANF $16,500 $16,500 FOSTER CARE $4,200 $4,300 SSBG $1,700 $1,700 LIHEAP $3,400 $2,800 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT $4,000 $4,100 HEAD START $8,500 $8,900 CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT FUND $2,300 $5,300 OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAMS $1,300 $1,600 ELDER JUSTICE ACT --- $25 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT $674 $350 SNAP/FOOD STAMPS $82,200 $84,200 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PROGRAMS $2,600 $2,600 HEALTH PROGRAMS FY 2014 ENACTED FY 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MEDICAID $284,000 $331,440 RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS PROGRAM $2,300 $2,300 MATERNAL & CHILD HEALTH BLOCK GRANT $634 $634 PREVENTIVE HLTH/HEALTH SERVICES GRANT $160 --- PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND $1,000 $1,000 We hope this information is useful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 207 1 March 25, 2014 The Honorable Barbara Boxer The Honorable Bill Shuster Chairman Chairman Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable David Vitter The Honorable Nick Rahall Ranking Member Ranking Member Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairmen Boxer and Shuster and Ranking Members Vitter and Rahall: As a national business community, we are grateful for your leadership in passing the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) into law in 2012 after several years of short-term transportation funding authorizations. MAP-21 has led to the implementation of long overdue reforms, but its brief authorization will end in only six short months. In order to ensure stability and economic growth, we need to plan its successor now. One of the United States’ greatest competitive advantages is our ability to quickly move goods and people across long distances. Today that advantage is threatened as countries like China, India, and Brazil have dramatically increased investments in their transportation infrastructure. These investments strengthen their abilities to compete directly with American farmers, manufacturers, and businesses. At the same time that other countries are increasing investments, we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a grade of D+ on their Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. While concerning, this grade barely scratches the surface of an estimated $3.6 trillion in infrastructure investment needs by 2020. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 208 2 As you begin the task of constructing the next surface transportation bill, we ask that you consider these critical principles:  At minimum, a five-year authorization to provide predictability and certainty to a sector of our economy that needs stability and growth;  Dedicated federal funds to ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund;  Flexibility for states to invest in transportation infrastructure as they deem necessary; and  Freedom for states to choose their own funding options. Several states have passed their own laws to increase investment in transportation infrastructure, but state action alone is not enough. Even with increased state revenues and innovative mechanisms, such as public-private partnerships, there are projects of national significance that cannot be completed without federal assistance. Our deteriorating national transportation infrastructure is not a small state issue or a large state issue. It is not a small business issue or a large business issue. It is a national issue and it directly impacts America’s competitiveness in the global marketplace. We urge you to act now to strengthen our nation’s infrastructure and provide our economy with the support it needs to remain a global economic leader. Thank you for your time and attention to these important issues. Sincerely, William J. Canary Presient & CEO Business Council of Alabama Rachael Petro President & CEO Alaska Chamber Glenn Hamer President & CEO Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry Randy Zook President & CEO Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce Allan Zaremberg President & CEO California Chamber of Commerce Mark Wilson President & CEO Florida Chamber of Commerce Chris Clark President & CEO Georgia Chamber of Commerce Douglas L. Whitley President & CEO Illinois Chamber of Commerce Kevin M. Brinegar President & CEO Indiana Chamber of Commerce TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 209 3 Michael Ralston President Iowa Association of Business and Industry Dave Adkisson President & CEO Kentucky Chamber of Commerce Stephen Waguespack President Louisiana Association of Business and Industry Kathleen Snyder President & CEO Maryland Chamber of Commerce Richard Lord President & CEO Associated Industries of Massachusetts Daniel P. Mehan President & CEO Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry Webb Scott Brown President & CEO Montana Chamber of Commerce & Montana Manufacturing Council Barry Kennedy President Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry Jim Roche President Business & Industry Association of New Hampshire Thomas A. Bracken President & CEO New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Dr. Beverlee J. McClure President & CEO Association of Commerce & Industry New Mexico Heather C. Briccetti President & CEO The Business Council of New York State, Inc. Lew Ebert President & CEO North Carolina Chamber Andy Peterson President & CEO Greater North Dakota Chamber Fred Morgan President & CEO State Chamber of Oklahoma Jay M. Clemens President & CEO Associated Oregon Industries Gene Barr President and CEO Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Otis B. Rawl President & CEO South Carolina Chamber of Commerce TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 210 4 Catherine Glover President Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Tennessee Manufacturers Association Barry E. DuVal President & CEO Virginia Chamber of Commerce Kristofer Johnson President & CEO Association of Washington Business Kurt Bauer President/CEO Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce cc: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell House Speaker John Boehner House Majority Leader Cantor House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer Chairman Tim Johnson, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dave Camp, House Committee on Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin, House Committee on Ways and Means Members of Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Members of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 211 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 5   Referral Name: RECEIVE report regarding the Delta Water Platform and take action as appropriate.  Presenter: Ryan Hernandez Contact: (925) 674-7824 Referral History: The previous version of the Delta Water Platform was brought to the Committee on September 5, 2013. Referral Update: The Delta Water Platform has been refined and expanded and includes new policies not yet considered by the Committee. For this reason, the Delta Water Platform is being brought to the Committee for additional comments. Staff proposes to return on May 1, 2014 with an final version of the Delta Water Platform that can be forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE report from staff and PROVIDE comments on the Board’s Delta Water Platform. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. This is an update to the Board of Supervisors adopted Delta Water Platform. Attachments Draft Delta Water Platform Delta Map TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 212 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 1 Introduction A healthy Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is key to our physical, societal and economic health A healthy, vibrant Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary is closely tied to the physical, societal and economic health of those who live, work and recreate in the San Francisco Bay- Delta region and throughout much of the state. The eastern portion of Contra Costa County is located within Delta and the County’s entire northern border is bounded by waterfront that flows from the Delta to the Bay. Thus, Contra Costa County lies at the heart of the Bay-Delta region and the future of this nationally significant resource substantially influences the future of the County. Restoring the health of the Delta protects the Bay which is linked to the long term success of the County as a whole. A healthy Delta requires sufficient water supply of good quality along with habitat for healthy populations of fish and other native aquatic, terrestrial and avian species, both migratory and year-round. A healthy Delta would protect people and property (through strong levees, comprehensive emergency response and a water supply of good quality). A healthy Delta would promote economic health of the region and sustain agriculture (managed for habitat and food production), recreation activities (recreational fishing, boating, camping, hiking) and commerce (industry, ports, shipping and commercial fishing). Reestablishing healthy fish populations in the Delta would also mean current restrictions on water diversions could be relaxed resulting in improved water supply reliability. To date, the health of the Delta has not been a priority, given the state’s increasing thirst for water. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an ailing Delta is detrimental to our health, safety and welfare. All indicators of a healthy Delta show significant decline. It is imperative to act quickly to improve the health of the Delta, before irreparable harm is done. The Delta provides water for millions of people and thousands of acres of agriculture. However, without continued improvements to the Delta ecosystem this resource finds itself in jeopardy and today’s operational practices are not sustainable. To that end, the County is proactive in its advocacy for developing new strategies that take water from the Delta when water is in surplus to the environmental, municipal and agricultural needs of those who reside in the Delta. Contra Costa County has developed this Delta Water Platform to identify and promote activities and policy positions that support the creation of a healthy Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Contra Costa County will use this Platform to guide its own actions and advocacy in other public venues regarding the future of the Delta. All Californians have a stake in our water future. These actions set us on a path toward reliability, restoration and resilience in California water. California’s impending water crisis requires that we adapt to this “new normal” and recapture California’s resource management leadership and our economic and environmental resilience and reliability. There are no silver TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 213 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 2 bullets or single projects that will “fix the problem.” We must have a portfolio of actions to comprehensively address the challenges this state faces. Some actions must be taken immediately to address the current drought crisis and inadequate safe drinking water. Additionally, over the next five years we must address fundamental changes in our approach to water resource management and be prepared for change. The Delta Water Platform is one tool that will allow the County to effectively advocate our views moving forward. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 214 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 3 These policies are not ordered based on priority; the numerical order is used solely for the intention of organizing the subject categories and policies in this document for reference. To protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from various detrimental forces that are affecting its health and resources, it is the policy of Contra Costa County to support implementation of projects and actions that will help improve the Delta ecosystem and the economic conditions of the Delta. Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 1. Support short term actions to be implemented immediately 2. Conveyance 3. Water quality, water quantity and Delta outflow 4. Water storage 5. Water conservation 6. Water rights and legislative protections 7. Flood protection/floodplain management 8. Levee restoration 9. Emergency response 10. Protect and restore the Delta ecosystem 11. Protect and restore the Bay ecosystem through increased outflow from the Delta 12. Controlling aquatic invasive plant species 13. San Luis drain/Grasslands bypass 14. San Joaquin River Restoration Program 15. Climate change 16. Regional self-sufficiency 17. Governance 18. Delta Counties Coalition 19. San Francisco to Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel 20. California Water Bond TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 215 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 4 1. Support Short Term Actions to be implemented immediately a. Support and advocate for immediate implementation of specific short-term actions to improve the ecosystem, water quality, and the fishery. These projects/actions include: i. western and central Delta levee improvements. ii. water quality and fishery improvements. iii. additional and improved fish screens for all Delta diversions including both south Delta export locations. iv. reversing subsidence on Delta islands. v. habitat improvement projects. vi. emergency response planning. vii. Knightsen Biofilter Project, a wetland restoration and flood management project that will benefit threatened species and their habitats while also reducing flood risks in the Knightsen area (this project is on the list of high priority projects generated by the Coalition to Support Delta Projects) viii. Marsh Creek Mercury Mine Remediation Project, a project that will reduce mercury pollution into Marsh Creek and the Delta from an abandoned mine (this project is on the list of high priority projects generated by the Coalition to Support Delta Projects) b. Continue active participation in the Coalition to Support Delta Projects and the San Joaquin Valley Partnership. 2. Conveyance a. Support continued through-Delta conveyance. b. Improve Delta levees and channels to allow continued diversion of water at the south Delta export pumps. c. Support the “common Delta pool” doctrine. d. Support study of additional credible alternative conveyance strategies (e.g. Dual Conveyance) that also incorporate additional storage to enable increased diversion of water during periods of high outflow when impacts will be minimized. e. Oppose fully isolated conveyance alternatives. f. Proposed projects and programs must help restore the whole San Francisco Bay-Delta system, including San Francisco Bay. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 216 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 5 i. The ecosystem health of San Francisco Bay has a direct effect on anadromous fish in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems and resident Delta fish species. ii. Ensure adequate Delta outflows to San Francisco Bay to support fisheries, wildlife, habitat, water quality and other beneficial uses. g. The following key planning issues must be addressed in a timely manner, otherwise the County will maintain its opposing position regarding Isolated Water Conveyance Facilities: i. Any new conveyance facilities must achieve both co-equal goals, consistent with the Delta Reform Act of 2009. ii. Maintain/restore Delta water quality and supply for existing Delta area water users. iii. Ensure adequate inflows to the Delta and outflows to the Bay for ecosystem health. iv. Advocate for reduced dry-month export scenarios in new (proposed) conveyance plans and programs. [i.e. support exporting water in very wet months and exporting less water in average and drier months] v. Incorporate regional self-sufficiency as part of any new water supply system. Each region needs to maximize conservation and reuse, implement storage options and multi-benefits stormwater projects, and consider desalination to help relieve stress on the Delta. vi. Delta ecosystem improvements and through-Delta conveyance improvements need to be implemented before an isolated facility is substantively planned, designed, and/or constructed. vii. Any isolated facility, and mitigation related to an isolated facility, need to be paid for by the direct beneficiaries rather than by the taxpayers. viii. Protections for and improvements to the Delta ecosystem, fisheries, water quality, water supply, and levees need to be incorporated into any new water management plans. ix. Successful management of conveyance requires a robust Governance structure that includes a seat at the table for locally affected Counties, see Policy 17. b The Delta provides a common resource, including fresh water supply for all Delta water users, and all those whose actions have an impact on the Delta environment share in the obligation to restore, maintain and protect Delta resources, including water supplies, water quality, levees, and natural habitat. The Bay-Delta Estuary is adversely affected by lack of water in the system (i.e. high volume exports, especially during dry years), and the amount of exports is at least partially responsible for the recent collapse of the Delta ecosystem. Federal fishery scientists have determined Delta outflows need to be increased during the Fall months (decreased Fall X2), rather than decreased. Current proposals include creating a saline (tidal) ecological environment for the western Delta or with “variable” TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 217 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 6 water quality (brackish/saltwater with fresh flow pulses) in place of the current freshwater regime. Some studies are illustrating a conflict between a higher water quality standard needed for human consumption and the optimal water quality for ecosystem health, with its myriad of micro-organisms. This could create a conflict for western Delta water users. Currently the Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan, BDCP and State Water Resources Control Board efforts are focused on flows and water quality within the statutory Delta (California Water Code Section 12220) and Suisun Bay. However, anadromous fish species must pass through San Pablo and central San Francisco Bays to reach the ocean, and longfin smelt, a resident species of concern, spends time in the rest of San Francisco Bay, including South San Francisco Bay. Actions to restore threatened and endangered fish species also need to include increased flows and improved water quality in all of San Francisco Bay, not just the Delta. The Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report/Statement acknowledge the proposed isolated facilities would significantly degrade water quality in the Delta. The degradation of water quality is attributed to the proposed isolated water conveyance scenarios because diverters would be taking water upstream of most of the Delta, eliminating the incentive for the exporters to preserve Delta water quality. This is contrary to the concept of the “common Delta pool” principle where all diverters of Delta water have the motivation to protect the Delta and diverters from the upstream have less interest in maintaining the Delta infrastructure, water quality and ecosystem habitat. The BDCP proposal would also compromise Delta water quality by removing significant amounts of high quality Sacramento River water and leaving increased amounts of contaminated San Joaquin River water in the system. The degree of this adverse water quality impact is dependent on a number of factors including amount of exports, when and where water is taken, capacity etc. The BDCP is proposing a dual conveyance facility, which would continue some established use of through-Delta conveyance, and significantly degrade water quality in the Delta. The current BDCP proposal is inadequate because it does not include additional storage to allow more water to be captured during wetter months (and less during dry months). With storage the BDCP might have the potential to improve operational flexibility to meet both ecosystem and water supply needs, (i.e., achieve both co-equal goals). The current BDCP proposed project includes expansion of Clifton Court Forebay in Contra Costa County and disposal of tunnel muck in the County. 3. Water Quality, Water Quantity and Delta Outflow a. Support efforts to protect and improve water quality, water quantity and Delta outflow. b. Advocate for state and federal projects and legislation that protect and improve Delta water quality consistent with the Delta Reform Act of 2009 and that any adverse water quality impacts, be eliminated or fully mitigated. c. Oppose proposals that allow or cause increased salinity in the western, central and southern Delta unless impacts are fully mitigated. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 218 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 7 d. Seek guarantees of adequate flows for a healthy Delta. Without solutions involving new storage, this will require a permanent reduction in average exports. Use thresholds for healthy fish populations as an indicator to identify adequate flows. e. Continue to request that the State Water Project and Central Valley Project implement projects and operational criteria that meet the Delta Reform Act of 2009 requirement to reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs. f. Seek assurances that the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and operations of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project include actions that reverse, not exacerbate, the decline of the Delta ecosystem and collapse of the fishery and achieve the co-equal goals. g. Require that operational decisions regarding water quality, water quantity, and Delta outflows must be based on a system wide, estuary wide analysis (including the Delta and San Francisco Bay). The adverse impacts of pollutant loading in Delta waters in and around the County have been exacerbated by reduced Delta outflows. The isolated conveyance facility currently proposed as part of the BDCP will further increase pollutant concentrations by reducing freshwater inflows to the Delta. Increased pollutant concentrations in the Delta will likely lead to modification of water quality standards in County permits (e.g. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Total Maximum Daily Limits) for County creeks and streams that discharge into the Delta. This will significantly increase the cost for permit compliance. 4. Water Storage a. Support multi-purpose storage options that incorporate water supply, flood control, surface water and groundwater storage, groundwater management and ecosystem components (addressing projected climate change impacts and the need to improve water supply reliability for California). b. Support continued consideration of Delta island-as-reservoir strategies (such as the Delta Wetlands Project) provided water quality impacts are fully mitigated. c. Support groundwater storage and conjunctive use including identifying more opportunities through the detailed study of groundwater basins throughout California. d. Support groundwater management programs and advocate for funding for groundwater storage and conjunctive use projects that reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting California’s future water supply needs. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 219 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 8 e. Support improved management of groundwater supplies and quality whether implemented at the local, regional, or State level. Effective groundwater management generally requires that the following key elements be in place: i. Sustainable thresholds for water level drawdown and water quality for impacted, vulnerable, and high-use basins; ii. Incorporate recharge facilities to sustain and enhance existing groundwater basins; iii. Water quality and water level monitoring and assessment, and data management systems, capable of determining if thresholds are being met and evaluating trends; iv. Governance structures with the management mechanisms needed to prevent impacts before they occur, clean up contamination where it has occurred, provide adequate treatment of contaminated drinking water sources, and ensure that meeting groundwater level and quality thresholds are managed over the long term; v. Advocate for funding to support monitoring and governance/management actions; and vi. Support State oversight and enforcement in basins where ongoing management efforts are not protecting groundwater, are causing regional subsidence, and impacting neighboring wells. The State’s existing water supply and flood control systems are inadequate and, with climate change (such as decreased Sierra snow-pack, increased rainfall, flood, and sea level rise), there will be a greater need for new storage. In addition to new or expanded large-scale surface storage facilities there needs to be additional smaller, regional, multi-purpose facilities. Multi-purpose facilities can better address climate change impacts and are more cost-efficient than traditional surface storage facilities. Three different geographic categories of storage are needed: 1. New upstream storage to capture water during wet periods, which is what Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, etc. do now. However, more upstream storage will be needed to offset the effects of climate change. There will be less snow pack and more intense runoff earlier in the year and this will need to be stored upstream so it is still available for use later in the year to meet ecosystem and water supply demands. 2. New storage south-of-the-Delta so that water that is able to be exported during wetter periods can be stored in the San Joaquin Valley, South San Francisco Bay region, and the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. During wet years, surplus water is often available in the Delta but the farmers do not need it (their fields are already wet from the storm or even flooded) and San Luis Reservoir is quickly filled so there is nowhere to store wet period exports. 3. New storage in or immediately adjacent to the Delta – to capture water in the Delta during wet periods, new storage such as an even larger Los Vaqueros Reservoir is TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 220 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 9 needed. The ability to capture export water during periods of surplus water is also limited by the maximum capacity of the state California Aqueduct and federal Delta- Mendota Canal (DMC). Captured water could temporarily be stored in or near the Delta until capacity is available in the Aqueduct or DMC to eventually move that water to south-of-Delta storage. New storage for all three categories will help improve California’s water supply and protect Delta water quality. The “Big Gulp, Little Sip” concept is based on taking surplus water from the Delta during wet time periods and storing it south-of-the-Delta for use during dry periods. This allows more water to be left in the Delta during dry months when the ecosystem needs it most. This approach is not possible without additional storage in or near the Delta to capture high flows and new storage to store that water once it is moved south of the Delta. Conjunctive use is the coordinated management of surface and groundwater supplies to increase the yield of both supplies and enhance water reliability in an economic and environmentally responsible manner. The groundwater recharging process is slow compared to surface water reservoirs because of the slow infiltration rates but groundwater storage has fewer environmental impacts than surface storage options. Groundwater management, if left to the local governments or regional partnerships, must be continuously funded by the state to be effective. 5. Water Conservation a. Support and encourage water conservation activities as a primary first step in any proposed statewide water management strategy. b. Support and encourage water conserving landscapes. c. Maximize reuse of reclaimed wastewater. d. Support acceleration of mandatory water meter requirements throughout the state. e. Support and advocate for improved agricultural water conservation practices. i. Encourage elimination of high water use crops such as cotton, alfalfa, and rice (with exceptions where there are multiple benefits). ii. Encourage creation of significant water savings through improved agricultural water conservation practices. iii. Support detailed study of water used by agriculture in California; what has been done to conserve water and what can be done in the future to attain greater efficiency. iv. Encourage limiting permanent crops (e.g. almonds, pistachios) on land that has unreliable or interruptible water supplies based on junior water rights. The County has historically supported conservation through development of a water conservation landscape ordinance, a dual plumbing ordinance to maximize use of recycled water where feasible, TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 221 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 10 and an ordinance to use recycled water for dust control and compaction for construction purposes during drought. Water conservation is emphasized, as it has multiple benefits: it reduces water demand, reduces water treatment requirements, and reduces energy use. More recently the California Water Action Plan has been released by the Natural Resources Agency that starts to develop a comprehensive plan to address water management. The California Water Action Plan suggests evaluating and updating targets for additional water use efficiency, including consideration of expanding the 20 percent by 2020 targets by holding total urban water consumption at 2000 levels until 2030, achieving even greater per capita reductions in water use. The administration will also work with local and regional entities to develop performance measures to evaluate agricultural water management. A regional self-sufficiency policy would dictate that conservation, regional groundwater and surface water storage, reuse of reclaimed wastewater and even desalination (where practicable) should be required in areas dependent upon exports from the Delta. 6. Water Rights and Legislative Protections a. Support and preserve existing water rights and legislative protections established for the Delta and its environments. i. Require that any new assurances arising out of the BDCP process include stipulations by the State Water Project and Central Valley Project confirming, to the satisfaction of the County, existing protections for Delta water users (e.g., the Delta Protection Act of 1959, and area of origin statutes.). The system of water rights in California is governed by ‘use’, or more specifically, ‘beneficial use’. Riparian rights (ownership of land adjacent to a surface water source) are senior water rights over most ‘appropriative’ water rights (which have required a permit since 1914). Most water users in the Delta use water pursuant to riparian and pre-1914 water rights, which are among the most senior water rights in the state. The State Water Project and Central Valley Project water rights are junior to many of the upstream and Delta appropriative water rights. The Watershed Protection Act and the 1959 Delta Protection Act (area of-origin statues) were an integral part of the political and legal negotiations to build and export water from the Delta for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. These laws were intended to protect future reasonable and beneficial water uses for the areas providing the water so these areas would not be deprived when additional water became necessary. The Delta Vision Task Force reviewed this issue and questioned the need for continuance of these laws. These Acts also include the Delta common pool doctrine. Water right statutes are intended to protect against politically-driven efforts to “share” California’s water (as has been suggested as justification for the BDCP) or improve the priority of junior water right holders in the San Joaquin Valley (e.g., the Nunes Bill, HR 1837 and the Valadao bill, HR 3964). TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 222 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 11 7. Flood Protection/Floodplain Management a. Support preparation of a comprehensive Flood Management Plan for the Delta. b. Support floodplain management within the watershed to help reduce flood damage within the Delta. c. Advocate for identification, acquisition and construction of appropriate flood bypasses in and around the Delta. d. Advocate for funding assistance for Flood Control District(s) to bring facilities up to a 200-year level of protection. e. Support development of a watershed management plan that would attenuate flood flows naturally by increasing the resident time of stormwater within the entire watershed. f. Support efforts to change existing revenue generation requirements for flood control districts, reclamation districts, cities and counties that would provide parity with wastewater districts and water districts in setting rates to provide basic infrastructure services. g. Advocate for funding assistance to Reclamation Districts to maintain non- project levees and to improve them to appropriate standards, such as PL 84-99. Flood protection standards are changing to a 200 year standard. Flood Control Districts are having difficulty funding new facilities or modifying existing facilities to meet the old standard of 100 years, let alone upgrade to a 200 year standard. There needs to be a funding mechanism in place that allows flood control districts and counties to raise revenue similar to a wastewater district or a water district. Currently Proposition 218 exempts wastewater and water districts from voting requirements to raise rates to properly manage their infrastructure. Proposition 218 needs to be modified to include a similar exemption for flood control and stormwater infrastructure. In an undeveloped watershed, stormwater remains within the watershed a long time (resident time). As a watershed develops, resident time is reduced and flood flows increase as stormwater quickly runs off paved surfaces. A watershed management plan is a useful tool to develop strategies to increase resident time and help reduce flood flows in a more natural manner. 8. Levee Restoration a. Advocate for significant funding for western and central Delta levees, individually and in collaboration with others to support water quality and the existing Delta water conveyance system and protect critical infrastructure. b. Advocate immediate rehabilitation of priority levees on the western and central TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 223 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 12 Delta islands in the strategic levee investments identified in the Delta Plan. c. Advocate for funding assistance for small urban and urbanizing communities within the Delta to attain 200-year flood protection with levees that meet the proposed Urban Levee Design Criteria standards. d. Support using PL84-99 as a minimum design standard for levees. e. Support stockpiling rock in the Delta (and specifically in the western Delta) for levee repair. f. Support a multi-year funding commitment to restore and improve non-project levees and levees outside the State Plan of Flood Control, which is defined in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. g. Support and advocate for the Delta Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) and the beneficial reuse of dredged materials for levee rehabilitation. h. Oppose the Army Corps of Engineer’s policy to require removal of all shrubs and trees from levees, unless it can be demonstrated the shrubs and trees impact the structural integrity of the levee. The County has long supported the ongoing maintenance and structural restoration of Delta levees and has actively advocated for funding toward this end, establishing the Delta Levee Coalition with the Contra Costa Council. The eight western Delta islands (six of which are within the County) are critically important, not only to residents, but also to the protection of water quality and supply to 25 million Californians by preventing saltwater intrusion into the Delta. Despite their reliance of Delta levees for conveyance, the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project do not contribute to maintenance of Delta levees. The water exporters and the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) have reevaluated the importance of these western Delta levees and are reluctant to commit significant funding (funding that could go to an isolated conveyance instead) due to several factors. First, DWR has placed rock piles for “emergency purposes” in several areas of the Delta to block the channels (preventing saltwater intrusion for exporters) in the event of a multiple levee break. Second, the western levees are thought to be at higher seismic risk, due to nearby faults and as a result will be more expensive to fix than levees in the larger Delta. DWR continues to plan and implement efforts to increase emergency response material stockpiles, transfer stations, and contract resources for Delta emergencies. Delta stockpiles of sandbags, plastic, twine, stakes, roll‐off containers, and rock have increased. DWR has completed the environmental review for construction of three transfer facilities at Rio Vista, Brannan Island, and the Port of Stockton. Land leases or purchases are expected in 2013 with construction completed in 2014. DWR is also developing emergency contract agreements for construction services. Specifications will be complete in 2013 with contracts in place in 2014. The levees protect many areas that are below sea level due to subsidence, rendering the levees less stable. Climate change impacts of rising sea level and higher flow regimes (due to greater rainfall, less snow) will exacerbate the situation. Recent work by local Delta engineering firms have TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 224 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 13 established that levee repair costs for western Delta levees are not as high as anticipated by DWR’s studies, and there are additional options to reduce seismic risk. Levees also protect critical infrastructure including EBMUD’s aqueducts, highways, railroads, gas wells, gas storage facilities, electric lines, etc. Smaller communities behind levees, such as Bethel Island, Hotchkiss Tract and other communities should benefit from the same level of protection as larger “urban” communities. Urban communities (over 10,000 population) as defined in recent legislation will be required to have a higher standard of levee protection (from a 100-year to a 200-year standard). Funding support for levee strengthening should also be readily available for small communities protected by levees. PL 84-99 levee design standards are used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for levees over which the Corps has jurisdiction in the Delta. These standards are slightly higher than Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) standards currently in use, and are recommended as a minimum standard for Delta islands remaining in agricultural and other non-urban uses. With climate change, it is anticipated that more stringent standards would be required over time. Because of large-scale changes currently being contemplated for the Delta, a number of Delta islands will be converted to other uses, such as habitat (aquatic and terrestrial) and floodplain. As a result, levees on these islands would not be subject to the above-mentioned minimum standards, reducing costs of levee maintenance to some degree. "Non-project levee" means a local flood control levee in the delta that is not a project facility under the State Water Resources Law of 1945. 9. Emergency Response a. Support collaborative efforts to improve emergency response among the Delta counties to help protect life, diminish suffering, protect property, the environment, and speed recovery in the short, medium and long term. 10. Protect and Restore the Delta Ecosystem a. Support increased Delta flow requirements to restore and sustain the Delta ecosystem, consistent with the concepts outlined in the State Water Resources Control Board’s August 2010 Final Report on Development of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem. i. Increased flows improve water quality which improves aquatic ecosystem conditions in the Delta. ii. Ensure increased flows in some months do not redirect impacts to fish and water quality to other months b. Support ecosystem-based scientific research to determine what is necessary to protect and restore the Delta (i.e. how much water should be preserved for outflows to restore fish populations) and support implementation of recommended actions resulting from these studies. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 225 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 14 c. Support efforts to restore native fish populations: i. Thresholds for healthy fish populations must be set significantly higher than past estimates to avoid species’ continued listing as endangered. ii. Restore and maintain the commercial and recreational salmon fishery in the Bay-Delta ecosystem by implementing state and federal policies of doubling salmon populations. d. Advocate for the acquisition of priority habitat areas (aquatic and terrestrial) and habitat restoration and enhancement projects in cooperation with local government and affected landowners in order to improve the sustainability of threatened fish and wildlife species and contribute to overall health and resiliency of the Delta ecosystem. Such examples include Dutch Slough, Suisun Marsh, and the Knightsen Biofilter projects. e. Support projects that benefit migrating waterfowl. f. Ensure large scale wetlands restoration projects address and mitigate the formation and discharge of methyl mercury and its effect on Delta water quality and fish species. i. Encourage research and pilot projects on ways to minimize methylation of mercury in Delta wetlands to maximize the fishery and terrestrial species benefits of habitat restoration in the Delta. Methyl mercury is a bio-available form of mercury that accumulates in the food chain and is highly toxic. Methylation is the process by which mercury becomes chemically active. 11. Protect and restore the Bay ecosystem through increased outflow from the Delta a. Support increased inflows to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to restore and sustain the Bay ecosystem. i. Increased freshwater inflows improve water quality which improves aquatic ecosystem habitat in the Bay. ii. Without a health Bay it will be difficult to restore and maintain healthy fish populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, especially anadromous fish like salmon and steelhead. b. Support ecosystem-based scientific research to determine what is necessary to protect and restore the Bay ecosystem and fish populations, and support implementation of recommended actions resulting from these studies. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 226 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 15 c. Support efforts to restore native fish populations in the Bay. d. Build Estuary readiness to deal with the effects of climate change e. Increase watershed health f. Support efforts to promote public involvement in Estuary protection and restoration The Association of Bay Area Government / San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s 2011 State of the Bay report found that many fish populations are declining in the Bay and that these declines are due, at least in part, to continued low annual freshwater flows into the Bay as water is diverted from its rivers and the Delta. The report also found fish abundance and diversity are declining in all regions of the Bay except near the Golden Gate and the fish community is in poor condition in Suisun Bay. Both the Bay and Delta ecosystems need to be restored to ensure fish populations can be restored and maintained. 12. Controlling Aquatic Invasive Plant Species a. Support the development and implementation of a long-term, area-wide integrated vegetation management program that controls invasive weeds. b. Support integrated pest management practices to control and eradicate invasive plants in critical habitats, water conveyance systems and recreation areas in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; including its tributaries and its marshes. c. Support collaboration between local, state and federal governments that use best management practices in the control of invasive weeds. Best management practices include the 1) Least damaging to the general environment; 2) Least hazardous to human health; 3) Less of an impact on non-target organisms; 4) Appropriate considering the absence of listed, candidate, or locally rare or endangered species; 5) Most likely to produce a significant reduction of the aquatic weed; 6) Most cost-effective in the short and long-term; and 7) Encourage early notification to, and collaboration with, drinking water providers within the Delta. 13. San Luis Drain/Grasslands Bypass a. Oppose a San Luis Drain and continue to support in-valley, environmentally- responsible resolution of the drainage problem. i. Seek participation by Contra Costa County and other affected stakeholders in any negotiations and planning regarding resolution of the agricultural drainage issue in the San Joaquin Valley. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 227 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 16 b. Continue to support actions that reduce the discharge of agricultural drainage to the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, (e.g., through continued implementation of the Grasslands Bypass project, and actions such as programs to retire drainage-impaired lands, irrigation efficiencies to reduce drainage water, recycling of drainage water and possible treatment of drain water). i. Oppose physical extension of the grassland bypass to downstream of the Merced River. ii. Oppose any extension of the Grassland Bypass Project beyond 2019 to ensure the selenium and salt loads from the Grasslands area reduce to zero by 2019 as required by the current Bypass Use Agreement. San Luis Drain: The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation is under a court injunction to evaluate and implement options for providing drainage services for the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which contains toxic concentrations of selenium and other hazardous substances. The San Luis Drain, one option studied, would pass through Contra Costa County to discharge in the Delta. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has elected to address the problem without building the Drain but Congress would need to appropriate the funds before this alternative could be implemented and the injunction requiring provision of drainage service still looms. The County will continue to oppose the San Luis Drain option and support instead drainage solutions in the valley, such as reducing the volume of problem water drainage; managing/reusing drainage waters within the affected irrigation districts; retiring lands with severe drainage impairment (purchased from willing sellers); and reclaiming/removing solid salts through advanced treatment, bird safe/bird free solar ponds and farm-based methods. The County has collaborated with partners to develop a briefing book on this topic entitled “Drainage Without a Drain” that further explains feasible alternatives that would not damage the environment or downstream interests. Grasslands Bypass: Since 1996, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has authorized farmers in the Grasslands area of the San Luis-Delta Mendota Water Authority to discharge drainage through an existing portion of the San Luis Drain to a tributary of the San Joaquin River in order to bypass wildlife refuges that were previously downstream of the agricultural drainage. The San Joaquin River is the ultimate destination for the drainage with or without the bypass project, known as the Grasslands Bypass Project. In addition to avoiding the sensitive wetlands in the refuges, the Grassland Bypass Project requires a number of measures to reduce the downstream impacts of the drainage, including creation of a drainage authority to assume responsibility for the farmers' collective obligations, monitoring of discharges and impacts, limitations on the load of selenium and salt in the drainage and various enforcement measures including provisions to terminate the Project if discharge limits are exceeded. In the first eight years of implementation results have been good and discharges have been steadily declining. Recent pilot studies of advanced treatment of agricultural drainage to remove contaminants using a solar thermal desalination plant are promising. The County will support continuing reduction in agricultural drainage through the Project such that agricultural drainage discharges to the River will reduce to zero no later than 2019. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 228 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 17 Proposals to extend the San Luis Drain/Grassland Bypass to downstream of the Merced River have been made in order to increase dilution capacity. The County opposes such extension. 14. San Joaquin River Restoration Program a. Advocate for continued implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) in achieving its two primary goals: to restore and maintain fish populations and to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts. The purpose of the SJRRP is to implement the San Joaquin River litigation Settlement, filed in Federal Court in September, 2006. The Settlement is based on two parallel Goals: restoring and maintaining fish populations in “good condition” in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish (Restoration Goal); and reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows provided for in the Settlement (Water Management Goal). Implementation of the program has been delayed because of seepage of water from the river onto adjacent lands, failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funds, and concerns over water costs during the current drought emergency. 15. Climate Change a. Advocate that the impacts of climate change be addressed in any proposed studies and strategies, or in planning, engineering and constructing projects envisioned for the Delta. i. Request that reservoir and flood control operation rules be revised to adapt to rainfall-runoff changes caused by global climate change. ii. Advocate for increased reservoir storage to offset expected loss of snow pack storage. It is now widely accepted that climate change will have wide-ranging impacts on Delta water quality, the Delta ecosystem, and water supplies due to decreased Sierra snow-pack, increased rainfall, flood, and sea level rise. Any current or future planning efforts or implementation measures for the Delta must analyze and address the impacts of climate change. 16. Regional Self-Sufficiency a. Support Regional Self-Sufficiency where all regions are required to implement a variety of local water supply options and institute conservation and reuse programs to reduce reliance on exports from the Delta. Conservation programs, maximizing reuse of reclaimed wastewater, groundwater and surface water storage, and consideration of desalination where appropriate should be considered as strategies to enhance water supply in areas dependent on exports. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 229 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 18 17. Governance a. Support and advocate for local government representation in governance structure(s) for the Delta. b. Advocate for participation by Delta County representatives in the current planning phase and the eventual permit implementation phase of BDCP (i.e. the Authorized Entity Group). The 2009 Delta Reform Act established or altered structures for governance of the Delta in the areas of Water Supply and Ecosystem, and Land Use by establishing a Delta Stewardship Council, a Delta Conservancy, and modifying the membership of the Delta Protection Commission. Local governments represent the majority on the Delta Protection Commission and hold five of the eleven seats on the Delta Conservancy. Contra Costa County holds a seat on both bodies. There is only one local representative on the Delta Stewardship Council and that seat is filled by the Chair of the Delta Protection Commission. The potential adverse impacts on the Delta from BDCP will be huge and Delta representatives need a seat at the table in deciding how to avoid and mitigate those impacts. 18. Delta Counties Coalition (DCC) a. Continue active and full participation in the Delta Counties Coalition based on the adopted DCC Principles. 19. San Francisco to Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel a. Continue to advocate and support the deepening of the John F. Baldwin and Stockton Deep Water Ship Channels as a contributing Local Sponsor. The existing navigation channel depth of 35 feet and widths are inadequate to allow for the efficient movement of commercial deep-draft waterborne commerce. Currently, many deep-draft vessels using the existing navigation channel must either partially load, lighter (partially off-load into smaller vessels), or wait for favorable tides before transiting the channels – all of which result in significant increased transportation costs. The project will reduce transportation costs and increase economic efficiency of maritime commerce en route to refineries and the Port of Stockton, improve maritime navigation by reducing public safety risks due to possible groundings or collisions, and reduce potential environmental effects from increased vessel trips in the channels associated with current light loading and lightering operations. The project also provides a valuable opportunity to beneficially reuse approximately 15 million cubic yards of dredged sediment to restore hundreds of acres of marsh habitat in subsided Delta islands (such as Big Break and Frank’s Tract). This project benefit is synergistic with other regional habitat restoration initiatives in that it provides a critical supply of dredged sediment to the Delta, where there is a need for sediment to support habitat restoration and flood protection goals (such as those identified in the Delta Islands and Levee Feasibility Study). TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 230 Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform 3/24/14 Page 19 20. California Water Bond Principles a. The County supports and strongly encourages a water bond that achieves the following principles: i. Allocates funds for the Delta through the Delta Conservancy; ii. Any bond funds for water storage or water system operational improvements should be required to result in measurable improvements to the Delta ecosystem; iii. Does not fund BDCP conveyance alternatives or measures required as mitigation by BDCP; and iv. Includes significant funding for watershed protection by local agency and for local flood control. The Delta provides a common resource, including fresh water supply for all Delta water users, and all those whose actions have an impact on the Delta environment share in the obligation to restore, maintain and protect Delta resources, including water supplies, water quality, levees, and natural habitat. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 231 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 232 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:04/03/2014   Department:Public Works Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECEIVE report from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and FORWARD to the Board of Supervisors for adoption of both updated plans.  Presenter: Mark Boucher Contact: (925) 313-2274 Referral History: In 2002, Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. In November 2002, California voters passed Proposition 50 (Prop 50), “the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,” which provides $500,000,000 (CWC §79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. These bond funds were granted in a statewide application process with a certain amount (40%) guaranteed for areas north of the Tehachapi’s. In November 2006, California voters pass Proposition 84 (Prop 84), “the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act,” which provides $1,000,000,000 (PRC §75001-75130) for IRWM Planning and Implementation. These bond funds were allocated to funding regions based on population and area to be granted in a competitive process within the nine (9) funding regions. Contra Costa is in both the Bay Area funding region and the San Joaquin funding region. In November 2006, California voters pass Proposition 1E (Prop 1E), the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300,000,000 (PRC §5096.800-5096.967) for IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Projects to be funded by Prop 1E were required to be “consistent” with (included in) an IRWM plan. This was a comparative statewide application process. Below is history and background on the FC District’s involvement in the BAIRWMP and the ECCCIRWMP. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan In response to the requirement for IRWM plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) utilized its existing ABAG-CALFED Water Management Subcommittee (subcommittee to the ABAG-CALFED Task Force) to engage Bay Area water agencies, local government representatives, environmental groups, and the general public in developing an IRWM plan that identifies, coordinates, and prioritizes projects within the Bay Area. This began a long-term process of engaging as many water resource agencies as possible to represent the full spectrum of water resource related interests in the Bay Area. The outreach took the form of several established Bay Area organization pulling their members together. Those agencies without membership in organizations began to collaborate like never before. In general, four “functional TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 233 areas” were identified. These four functional areas are listed below along with the organizations that coordinate their representation in the collaborative efforts related to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning process. Water Supply and Water Quality Functional Area (FA): this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Water Management Agencies Coalition (BAWAC). 1. Wastewater and Recycled Water: this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA). 2. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management: this FA is coordinated by the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA), which was formed in response to the need to coordinate in the IRWM planning process. 3. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration: this FA coordinated by the Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN), which is coordinated by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) and under the umbrella of ABAG. 4. Bay Area IRWM Plan Coordinating Committee (CC), which meets monthly and is the forum in which the BAIRWMP consensus decisions are made. In this forum, and through subcommittees that worked on specific issues and tasks, the plan was developed, projects were vetted, grant applications were prepared and the plan updated. A website was developed at http://www.bairwmp.org/ to enhance awareness, openness, and communication of the actions and decisions the CC was making for the region. Through this website, project proponents can submit projects, review other projects, and view and download future, current, and past meeting materials and other files. On March 23, 2004, the Board approved and authorized the Chief Engineer to sign a nonbinding and nonexclusive Letter of Mutual Understanding (LOMU) that memorialized the intent of the FC District and other signatories to participate in the development of the IRWMP. On November 13, 2006, the Board ADOPTED the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Plan (2006 Plan) dated November 6, 2006, and AUTHORIZED the Chief Engineer, or designee, to continue participating in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the IRWM plan and directing the Chief Engineer to participate in an effort with other Bay Area flood control agencies to form an association for coordinating input to the IRWMP. On April 19, 2010, FC District staff requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. As with the 2006 Plan, the 2013 BAIRWMP update was developed through consensus of a large group of representatives from diverse organizations. Several agencies and organizations in each of the FAs provided the leadership necessary to secure participation of peer organizations in discussion of the regional plan. A consultant assisted in the plan update in developing consensus on the Bay Area Region’s goals, strategies, and other information required by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the plan. The consultant also assisted in gathering project information, and independently scoring the projects for ranking in the plan. In order to ensure the transparency of the process, the CC held stakeholder workshops that were open to the public. The updated BAIRWMP presents nearly 300 projects that would be eligible for Proposition 84 grant funding or other funding requiring consistency with an IRWM plan in the Bay Area. Many of these projects will provide water resource benefits to Contra Costa County residents. The full BAIRWMP can be found at http://www.bairwmp.org/. The plan cover, table of contents, and Executive Summary of the BAIRWMP is provided as an attachment. East Contra Costa County Integrated Water Management Plan The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) convened in response to the 2002 requirement for IRWM plans. ECWMA members worked together to produce a “functionally equivalent” IRWM plan and was accepted by the State. The functionally equivalent (FE) IRWM plan consisted of combining several existing plans that ECWMA agencies had already created. These were done in a natural, collaborative process in their respective water resources realms. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was included in the FE IRWM plan. Before the IRWM planning effort, the Contra Costa Water Agency (CCWA) was a member of ECWMA. An TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 234 amendment changed the membership from the CCWA to the County and added the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) to the agreement. The FC District became recognized as a participant in the IRWM planning effort under the County’s membership due to the fact that the FC District is managed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. On April 11, 2005, the FC District requested approval to participate in the East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM planning effort and prepare a Prop 50 and authorization to participate in the cost for professional services to prepare the grant application. This was the first of several requests for authorization to be involved in the ECCC IRWM planning effort. The development environment of the ECCCIRWMP and the update was similar to that of the BAIRWMP in that consultants were hired to assist in the development of the ECCCIRWMP and the update and ECWMA agencies work collaboratively. Unlike the Bay Area, the ECWMA had an MOU that provides organizational structure. The meetings held to discuss the development of the plan were open to the public. The full ECCCIRWMP can be found via http://ecccirwm.org/. The Update 2013 Highlights Executive Summary of the ECCCIRWMP is provided as an attachment. Funding Received through the IRWMP Grants The following tables depict the funding received to date through the IRWM planning effort. IRWM Funding Awards Bay Area ECC Prop 50 Planning Grants $838,230 Prop 50 Implementation Grants $12,500,000 $12,500,000 Prop 84 Planning Grants $842,556 $901,661 Prop 84 Implementation Grants $52,298,592 Prop 1E Implementation Grants $64,808,000 $12,000,000 Total $131,287,378 $25,401,661 Grand Total S156,689,039 The two Regions (Bay Area and ECCC) overlap. Because of this, three projects in the ECCIRWMP were funded through two different BAIRWMP Prop 84 implantation grants rounds. This was because the Prop 84 funds are allocated to 9 specific regions and the ECCC Region overlaps the San Francisco Funding Region, which is synonymous to the Bay Area IRWM Planning Region. These three projects total $2,205,000 in Prop 84 grant funding. Referral Update: Current IRWM grant program status Due to the drought declaration by the Governor, DWR is administering an accelerated “drought round” to use $200,000,000 of Prop 84 funds (~42% of remaining Prop 84 funds) for drought relief projects. Draft grant proposal documents will be distributed around April 1, 2014, and the anticipated grant proposal due date is August 1, 2014. The remaining Prop 84 funds will be put out in a grant round in 2015 and will likely not be focused on drought relief, though it is too early to tell what the focus of the last Prop 84 round will be. Commitment and CEQA The Guidelines and the procedures developed by the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board mandate that the IRWMP Plans be formally adopted, as evidenced by a resolution or other written documentation. The adoption must be done by the governing bodies of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the IRWM plans and have responsibility for its implementation. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors, as the Governing Board of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, must approve the TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 235 IRWM Plan in order for the FC District’s projects in the IRWM plans to be eligible for grant funding. The IRWM plans are nonbinding documents. Adoption of the IRWM plans does not entail a direct commitment of resources. Implementation of each project identified in the IRWM plans will be the responsibility of the project proponent and any applicable project partners. There is no joint commitment or responsibility by the IRWMP participants or adopting agencies to implement any or all of the projects. Furthermore, the project proponents and applicable project partners have discretionary authority over project design and implementation and may elect not to implement a project based on changing regional conditions or needs. Upon implementing a project, project proponents will be responsible for ensuring that all regulatory requirements for the project are met. The IRWM plans consist of planning studies and basic proposed project information collection that will not result in the disturbance of any environmental resource. Therefore, the IRWM plans are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262. As such, programmatic environmental analysis under CEQA is not required. Each project ultimately implemented, as a result of this plan, will require independent CEQA analysis. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE report from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on the updated Bay Area and East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plans and FORWARD to the Board of Supervisors for adoption of both updated IRWM Plans. Fiscal Impact (if any): Some FC District staff time will be required on an ongoing basis. The FC District will benefit from coordination of its projects with those of other water, wastewater, flood management, stormwater quality, and environmental organizations in the Bay Area. (100% Flood Control District Funds) Attachments San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Executive Summary September 2013 Full Color ECCC 2013 Update Executive Summary TWIC Board Order Draft for 04-29-14 BOS Meeting TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 236 September 2013 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 237 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 238 Acknowledgements TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 239 Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 : Governance Chapter 2: San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives Chaptar4: ChapterS: Chapter&: Chapter7: ChapterS: Chapter9: Chapter 10: Chapter 11: Chapter 12: Chapter 13: Chapter 14: Chapter 15: Chapter 16: Resource Management Strategies Integration of Supporting Activities Project Review Process Impacts and Benefits Performance and Monitoring Data Management Financing Technical Analysis Relation to Local Water Planning Relation to Local Land Use Planning Stakeholder Engagement Coordination Climate Change 20 13 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 240 Table of Contents (cont'd) List of Appendices TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 241 Table of Contents (cont'd) List of Acronyms TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 242 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 243 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 244 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 245 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 246 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 247 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 248 Table of Contents (cont'd) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 249 Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................... I List of Tables TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 250 Table of Contents (cont’d) List of Figures TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 251 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction and Background y y y y TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 252 1.2 Governance (Chapter 1) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 253 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 254 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 255 1.2.2 Stakeholders 1.3 Region Description (Chapter 2) y y y y y TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 256 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 257 1.3.1 Demographics 1.3.2 Biologic Resources and Water Quality TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 258 1.3.3 Reliability: Water Supply - Water Quality - Wastewater Integration y y TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 259 y y 1.3.4 Regional Challenges TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 260 1.4 Objectives (Chapter 3) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 261 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 262 1.5 Resource Management Strategies (Chapter 4) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 263 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1.6 Integration of Supporting Activities (Chapter 5) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 264 1.7 Regional Priorities (Chapter 6) y y y y y y y y y y y y y TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 265 1.8 Impacts and Benefits (Chapter 7) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 266 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 267 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 268 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 269 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 270 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 271 3333333333333333333333333333TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 272 y y y y y y y y y 1.9 Performance and Monitoring (Chapter 8) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 273 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 274 1.10 Data Management (Chapter 9) 1.11 Financing (Chapter 10) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 275 1.12 Technical Analysis (Chapter 11) y y y y y y y y TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 276 1.13 Relation to Local Water Planning (Chapter 12) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 277 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 278 y y y y y y y y  y y y y y y y 1.14 Relation to Local Land Use Planning (Chapter 13) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 279 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 280 1.15 Stakeholder Involvement (Chapter 14) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 281 1.16 Coordination (Chapter 15) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 282 TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 283 1.17 Climate Change (Chapter 16) TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 284 1.18 Conclusion TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 285 Update 2013 Highlights and Executive Summary East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan November 2013 Contra Costa County  November 17, 2001 Creek and Watershed Symposium    East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006. The Update is being funded by the ECWMA agencies and a planning grant from the California Department of Water Resources. An IRWMP is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWMPs cross jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involve multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempt to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The East Contra Costa County IRWMP Update will consist of:  Updating the document to the lastest guidelines and standards, including the development of new integrated projects  Developing a plan for groundwater and salt/nutrient management in the Pittsburg Plain Basin  Continuing public outreach, including to disadvantaged communities More information about IRWMPs may be found at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/. If you would like more information about the IRWMP Update or would like to participate in upcoming public meetings, please contact Marie Valmores at mvalmores@ccwater.com. WATER DISTRICTCONTRA COSTA City of Pittsburg East County Water Management Association TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 286 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 2 Introduction ..................................3 ECCC Region .................................4 DWR IRWM Regional Process ........................5 ECCC Water Management Needs and Issues .................6 Climate Change ................................7 ECCC IRWM Plan Objectives ........................8 ECCC Region Resource Management Strategies ...............9 Establishing Regional Project Priorities ...................9 Benefits and Impacts ............................11 Results and Next Steps ...........................13 CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan CWP 2009 California Water Plan Update 2009 DAC Disadvantaged Community Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon DWR California Department of Water Resources ECCC East Contra Costa County ECWMA East County Water Management Association IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management RAP Regional Acceptance Process RMS Resource Management Strategy RWMG Regional Water Management Group Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board (formerly abbreviated as RWQCB) East County Water Management Association: City of Antioch City of Brentwood Byron-Bethany Irrigation District Contra Costa County Flood Control Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Sanitation District Diablo Water District Discovery Bay Community Services District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy East Contra Costa Irrigation District Ironhouse Sanitary District City of Pittsburg TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 287 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 3 Introduction The East Contra Costa County (ECCC) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning effort is a formal collaborative process convened to support all aspects of water management. It includes integrated planning for water supply, water quality, environmental resources, and flood and stormwater management. The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) members have a long history, extending almost two decades, of cooperation across geographies, political boundaries, and project types. In this ECCC IRWM Plan Update these participants, referred to here as ECCC IRWM member agencies, identify projects and actions for the ECCC region that will create mutually beneficial water management outcomes and produce projects with multiple benefits. Starting in late 2011 and during 2012 and 2013 the ECWMA convened a series of public meetings to work on the DWR Proposition 84 Round 1 Planning Grant-funded East Contra Costa County IRWM Plan Update. This IRWM Plan Update articulates the challenges and issues the ECCC region faces and defines the objectives it hopes to accomplish. The challenges are significant, as is the opportunity to improve the situation by working together and with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). This plan prominently considers the complexities of managing water supply and quality, uncertainty and the needs of Disadvantaged Communities, and focuses on identifying resources to ensure a sustainable future. To this end the ECCC IRWM member agencies developed a website, www.eccc-irwm.org to collect and disseminate information, met with stakeholders, and developed a process to evaluate and prioritize implementation projects. They also successfully fulfilled the requirements of the 2011 IRWM planning grant provided in support of the DWR’s effort. The framework enables the plan to adapt to changing conditions an meet its current and future water management challenges. ECCC IRWM PLAN – UPDATE 2013 HIGHLIGHTS Integrated planning for: l Water supply l Water quality l Environmental resources l Flood and stormwater management Figure 1: East Contra Costa County, as part of, and integral with the Delta, is a socially and environmentally diverse region. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 288 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 4 ECCC Region Bounded by the ridge lines of Mount Diablo to the south and west, and nestled along the meandering banks of the complex historic Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta (Delta) water system to the north and east, ECCC is a geographically distinct region. Its unique footprint both isolates and incorporates complex urban and Delta water management issues and brings with it a unique set of challenges and opportunities. The ECCC region is the largest contiguous land area in Contra Costa County, and includes much of the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range. Home to 300,000+ people and still growing, its four cities are Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. Unincorporated communities include Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. In addition to a highly diverse population, the 350 square miles of ECCC host a wide range of uses, including major industrial activities largely situated along along the San Joaquin River, agriculture, and recreation, as well as fragile habitats and sensitive species. All are dependent on water. The region’s water consumers almost entirely rely on supplies originating from the western Delta, supplemented by relatively small quantities of groundwater and recycled water. The Contra Costa Water District provides untreated and treated water to most of the urban, commercial and industrial usage within the ECC region and until 1998 the primary source of water supply was the Contra Costa Canal system and Rock Slough. The Contra Costa Canal system is owned by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and was constructed in 1939. Residents also benefit from and rely on critical flood and stormwater infrastructure, water treatment facilities, wastewater collection systems and treatment plants, and recycled water systems. The region faces special challenges as many residents (23 percent) reside in economically disadvantaged communities (DAC). These DAC’s are located largely in areas close to the Delta and major industry Figure 2: East Contra Costa County IRWM Region. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 289 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 5 including power and chemical plants. Continued water dependent industrial development near DAC’s may also result in potential environmental justice concerns for these residents. Since most of the region’s water supply is from the western Delta, any impacts as well as improvements to Delta water supply and water quality directly affect DACs. This is very different from other IRWM regions that have access to upstream water resources (e.g., Sierra Nevada reservoirs) and pipelines that bypass the Delta. DACs in these other locations all receive high-quality treated water that are not directly impacted by changes in Delta water quality. A lack of community resources can impact the ability of ECCC IRWM member agencies to obtain additional resources for water-related needs. Yet, even with the recent economic downturn and the attendant issues of disproportionate DAC numbers, community growth is still occurring. All indications point to an increased need for water-based infrastructure and services, now and into the future, and much of this new infrastructure created within the ECCC will benefit DACs. DWR IRWM Regional Process In 2009, DWR instituted a Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into its IRWM grant program. Per these new requirements, the ECCC region successfully submitted a RAP application and was fully recognized by DWR. At a minimum, a region is defined as a contiguous geographic area encompassing the service areas of multiple local agencies. A region is designed to maximize the opportunities to integrate water management activities; and effectively integrates water management programs and projects within a hydrologic region defined in the California Water Plan, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) region, or subdivision or other region specifically identified by DWR. Overlap with Bay Area IRWM Interestingly, the IRWM regional definition creates some complexity. As a contiguous geographic area encompassing multiple member agency service areas, a portion of the ECCC region (all of Pittsburg, Bay Point, and a small portion of Antioch,) overlaps a section of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region Funding Area boundary. The Bay Area region includes all or part of nine counties (including part of Contra Costa and 110 cities), and is coterminous with the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Water Board, Region 2. The ECCC region rests primarily in the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board, Region 5 and a portion overlaps with Region 2 jurisdiction in Contra Costa County. Despite this jurisdictional overlap, the ECCC region has distinct water management differences from the Bay Area and thus was proposed and accepted as a separate planning region. Much of the overlap area within the ECCC region contains DACs, and their water supply and quality issues are planned and managed by ECCC IRWM member agencies. As part of its RAP application, the ECCC IRWM member agencies identified the East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) as the required Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Under the grant guidelines the RWMG or in this case the ECWMA, is responsible for navigating these jurisdictional complexities, coordinating with other planning efforts, and updating and implementing the ECCC region’s IRWM Plan. The ECWMA is well suited Figure 3: The East Contra Costa County IRWM Region and neighboring IRWM regions. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 290 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 6 to this task, having operated as a collaborative body since 1997. Members of the ECWMA frequently attend Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee meetings and Bay Area IRWM members can attend ECCC IRWM meetings. ECCC Water Management Needs and Issues The ECCC RWMG, informed by stakeholder input, identified five overarching needs to address in the IRWM Plan Update: ■Water-quality-related regulations and water supply reliability. ■Restoration and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. ■Funding for water-related planning and implementation. ■Stormwater and flood management. ■Water-related outreach and equitable distribution of resources in the region. The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on Delta water supply and all or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities are located within the statutory Delta. This distinction is important as the Delta is a physical place with legally defined boundaries and requirements, which add to ECCC water management complexity. The Contra Costa Water District has already made substantial investments in water storage and water quality by constructing the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the Old and Middle River intakes and improvements at the Rock Slough intake. Even so, unreliable surface water supply, especially in dry years and when considering future growth, is a continuing concern as is regional dependence on Delta water supplies. Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Ironhouse Sanitary District, and the City of Brentwood are all planning and developing recycled water projects, which will increase water supply reliability, and reduce dependence on Delta supplies. Issues associated with proposed future projects such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a fragile Delta ecosystem, climate change, and/or potential levee failure are expected to impact water quality and water supply reliability within the ECCC IRWM region. An associated concern is the ability of the region to meet future water quality treatment and discharge regulations. Present water demand in the region is driven by a highly diverse population base with a wide range of water needs, including urban and agriculture uses, ecosystem needs, and recreation. Urban and agricultural uses make up a majority of water demand; urban uses account for about 55% of that demand. Changes in future water demands will be driven by rapid increases in population. By 2035 urban uses are projected to increase to about two- thirds of the urban-agricultural water demand. The ECCC IRWM Plan includes projects that address this future demand for water, including increasing the availability of recycled water, increasing conservation efforts, and increasing water supply through integrated water management. Closely linked to Delta water quality and water supply reliability issues is a need for restoration and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. Another set of concerns revolves around preventing, reducing, and mitigating for environmental impacts and restoring historically declining wetland habitats. Additionally, water-infrastructure-related projects within the Delta often require wetland mitigation and these credits can be difficult and costly to obtain. That said, the Region has several integrated ecosystem efforts already underway. For example ECCC IRWM member agencies participated in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan. This plan is intended to provide regional conservation and development guidelines to protect natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit processes. The East Contra Figure 4: Los Vaqueros reservoir increases water supply reliability and improves drinking water quality. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 291 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 7 Costa Habitat Conservancy is a member agency and will oversee implementation. By proactively addressing the long-term conservation needs, the Plan strengthens local control over land use and provides greater flexibility in meeting other needs such as housing, transportation, and economic growth in the area. One example of the types of projects that address regional needs is the Dutch Slough Wetlands Restoration project. A collaborative effort being done in partnership with DWR and others offers an opportunity for large-scale tidal marsh restoration, habitat enhancement and open space preservation in the rapidly urbanizing area of eastern Contra Costa County and adjacent to the unlined portion of the Contra Costa Canal. These types of integrated projects will be essential for ECCC in moving forward. A lack of funding for planning and implementation because of slower economic development and reduced water usage has impacted revenue, creating insufficient or variable revenue streams. Additional funding issues are a result of the competitive nature of receiving State and federal funding, limited available funds, and potential schedule delays associated with grant funding. Given that the ECCC IRWM region includes substantial low-elevation acreage, is within the drainage of Mount Diablo, and sits adjacent to the Delta, both localized flood from stormwater runoff and regional/ catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real and present threats. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one involved storms and flooding. Climate change is only likely to increase these risks. A final set of concerns relates to water-related outreach within the area. The region has a substantial (23 percent) DAC population and it is often difficult to obtain meaningful feedback on potential improvements for these communities. One example is limited access to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation. Climate Change Climate change will increase vulnerabilities for nearly all aspects of water management. The table below outlines some of the ECCC climate change considerations. FACTOR GENERAL OVERVIEW OF VULNERABILITIES Water Demand Changes in water demand due to temperature, both in quantities and patterns. Peak demands for all sectors may be greater. Surface Water Supply Changes in precipitation and temperature in the Sierra Nevada region affect the timing and quantity of tributary flows. This affects the availability of fresh surface water for the region. Groundwater Supply Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the aquifers and the quantity of ground- water that could be pumped sustainably over the long term. Changed weather patterns can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Lack of surface water will increase reliance on local groundwater. Surface Water Quality Rising temperatures increase algal blooms and taste and odor events. A decrease in annual precipi- tation results in higher concentrations of contaminants during droughts and lower dissolved oxygen Groundwater Quality Sea-level rise could increase groundwater salinity. Water quality changes in surface water that is applied as irrigation and that recharges the groundwater could also increase groundwater salinity. Sea Level ECCC infrastructure below mean sea level and land protected by independently maintained levees are at risk for increased levee failure and flood damage. Failures could lead to disruption or changes in water supply reliability, water treatment, and wastewater treatment and disposal. Flooding Vulnerability to unimproved levees, and increased flood risk with sea-level rise, coupled with changes to local precipitation and storm intensity. Expected extreme weather events. Increased flooding could disrupt or change water supply reliability, water treatment, and wastewater treatment and disposal. Ecosystem, Habitat and Restoration Changed temperature and precipitation can dramatically alter native species habitats. A significant recreational economy (boating, fishing, biking, and hiking) could be affected by changes to the ecosystem and wildlife habitat. Energy Increases in peak energy demands throughout California may decrease power supply reliability. A decrease in power supply reliability could alter or disrupt water diversions, water treatment, and wastewater disposal. Region may respond to additional calls for gas generated electricity, creating higher use patterns of regional facilities, and attend air quality and operational issues. Table 1 Climate Change Vulnerabilities TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 292 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 8 ECCC IRWM Plan Objectives With a shared agreement regarding the primary regional water management issues, the ECWMA set its objectives for the IRWM Plan. No single objective was determined to be higher priority than the others; however, there are five sets of related objectives combined to address priority issues. As a result, some objectives address multiple concerns; for example, maintaining Delta levees supports both flood control and Delta ecosystem protection. The RWMG believes this list of combined objectives, when implemented, would address the region’s priority water management issues of water supply and quality, environmental concerns, storm and flood management, outreach and equitable distribution of resources, and adequate funding to meet regional needs. The following outlines the IRWM objective categories. Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality ■Protect/improve source water quality ■Carefully monitor proposed changes to Delta Operations and how those changes impact water supply/quality/availability. ■Pursue additional water supply sources that are less subject to drought and the availability of Delta water supplies. For example, recycled water and desalination ■Increase water conservation and water use efficiency ■Increase water transfers ■Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure ■Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) ■Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality ■Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality ■Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality ■Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta ■Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources ■Work cooperatively with DWR on a plan to protect the Contra Costa Canal while allowing the Dutch Slough Tidal Restoration Project to be developed. ■Enhance and restore habitat and watersheds that contribute to the Delta and connected waterways ■Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources ■Mitigate Delta infrastructure projects with created wetlands as appropriate ■Reduce greenhouse gas emissions ■Protect Delta ecosystem against habitat disruption due to emergencies, such as levee failure ■Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation ■Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water ■Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding ■Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support Stormwater and Flood Management ■Manage local stormwater ■Improve regional flood risk management Water-Related Outreach and Equitable Distribution of Resources ■Collaborate with and involve economically disadvantaged communities in the IRWM process ■Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public In addition, for each of the identified objectives addressing a priority issue, an accompanying set of qualitative or quantitative metrics were identified. These represent the targets the region has identified to meet its requirements and will be used in monitoring the IRWM Plan implementation. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 293 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 9 Establishing Regional Project Priorities ECCC stakeholders were invited to submit projects for consideration in the IRWM Plan. The initial invitation garnered 54 projects for consideration. These were then screened, and scored, to establish priorities. Scoring was based on the ECCC region’s needs and objectives and with consideration of the preferences outlined by the DWR grant guidelines. Four categories of scoring criteria were selected, with each assigned a weighting factor representing the relative importance to the region. The criteria were then used to score each project based on merit and ability to help the region meet its planning priorities. The categories and relative weighting were: 1. Regional Objectives (50 percent). 2. IRWM Program Preferences (30 percent). 3. Statewide Priorities (15 percent). 4. Other factors from IRWM Program Guidelines (5 percent). (This category includes additional DAC and environmental justice considerations, and contribution of the project in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to project alternatives.) The actual scores were highly dependent on the effort and understanding of the IRWM process by project proponents. The RWMG reviewed the projects with scores as a group. ECCC REGION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES After identifying the issues and objectives of the ECCC region, the ECWMA considered the strategies and approaches required to address them. DWR guidelines require the IRWM Plan to document the range of Resource Management Strategy(ies) (RMS) considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMSs were incorporated into the IRWM Plan. RMSs are defined as “a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies and governments manage their water, and related resources.” The list of RMSs was shared with the ECWMA and stakeholders to consider when developing projects. Of the 33 individual tools described in the CWP 2009 RMS section, the ECWMA identified 24 with potential for use in meeting the IRWM Plan objectives, plus three new RMS’s that will be included in CWP 2013 RMSs. The RMSs moved forward for consideration in the ECCC IRWM Plan are listed alphabetically below. 1. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 2. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 3. Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage 4. Conveyance – Delta 5. Conveyance – Regional/local 6. Desalination 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution 8. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) 9. Ecosystem Restoration 10. Flood Risk Management 11. Irrigated Land Retirement 12. Land Use 13. Matching Quality to Use 14. Pollution Prevention 15. Recharge Area Protection 16. Recycled Municipal Water 17. Salt and Salinity Management 18. Surface Storage – CALFED 19. Surface Storage – Regional/Local 20. System Reoperation 21. Urban Runoff Management 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency 23. Water Transfers 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 25. Watershed Management 26. Sediment Management 27. Water and Culture 28. Outreach and Education Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program ECCC = East Contra Costa County RMS = Resource Management Strategy Figure 5: DDSD’s recycled water facility integrates several resource management strategies, helping to achieve IRWM Plan objectives. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 294 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 10 Resource Management Strategies Diversification Considerations Each project was evaluated to determine which RMSs it included then given a total RMS score. Projects with a greater number were considered to contribute more to regional diversification. Diversification did not contribute to the overall project score, but was a separate criteria for the region to use in identifying implementation priorities or proposals for grant funding. Implementation Considerations In addition to the criteria-based scores and RMS diversification criterion, project readiness and implementation considerations were collected for each project. These included: ■The status and completion date of planning, design, and construction/ implementation ■Total project cost and total amount and percent of project funded ■Availability of a project economic feasibility analysis Project Review Steps Project review then followed six sequential steps: 1. Perform initial screening of projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. 2. Review benefits claimed by each project. 3. Integrate and coordinate projects. 4. Evaluate and score projects. 5. Iterate and improve projects. 6. Create a suite of priority projects that, when implemented, will help the region to meet its objectives. Living Document The final result is an initial list of IRWM Plan project priorities. With the Web site and planning framework established, projects may be added, removed, or updated at any time. With a living process, project proponents and stakeholders now have a venue to collaborate and integrate their projects. From time to time, the RWMG may also initiate another formal “Call-for-Projects” to refresh their list or to prepare for a new funding opportunity. For instance, the ECCC region will complete additional planning efforts under the recently awarded Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant. Results of this work may warrant the addition of projects to the list. Future integrated planning will continue to be ongoing, open, transparent, and collaborative. Benefits and Impacts By their nature, IRWM plans are implemented through projects. Those projects are designed to produce benefits but may also have impacts to the region. Benefits and impacts To other funding sources (e.g., Local, Round 3 of Prop 84, future WRDAs, future state water bonds, etc.) To Prop 84 Implementation Grant Application All Identified IRWM Plan Projects and Programs “Screens” to filter out projects/programs that are... • not eligible for Prop 84 Implementation funds • not “ready to go” (e.g., schedule, insufficient local funding, etc.) • not requesting Round 2 Prop 84 funding IRWM Plan Prioritization Process Potential Future Projects Figure 6: Prioritizing various regional projects considering multiple criterion. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 295 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 11 need to be documented in more detail to meet the required environmental compliance laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act, or other local, State, or Federal permits. That said, the region has identified multiple benefits from achieving its objectives. Key benefits are tied directly to the five plan objectives. Benefits Water Supply and Quality Projects that improved water quality or provide reliable water supply are essential to future viability of all aspects of the region’s environment, economy, and culture. Because the regional supply is tied to the Delta, projects to mitigate or reduce variable or negative Delta conditions and anticipate climate change impacts, such as drought and extreme weather, will greatly increase the region’s resilience and ability to adapt to changing conditions. Water supply and quality are linked as improving and maintaining water quality contributes to supply (for humans and the environment) and is a critical factor in cost. CCWD has invested approximately $750 million since 1998 to construct the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and two new Delta intakes primarily to improve water quality and for drought protection. Benefits associated with water supply projects or water quality projects (or both) determine what water may be available for appropriate uses. Specific projects proposed to achieve reliable supply and quality aim to provide the following benefits: ■Improved ability to adapt to changing situations caused by the uncertainty in Delta influences and future operations and climate change (such as recycled water and desalination) ■Reduced per capita consumption creating benefits such as better extension of existing and future infrastructure and supplies ■Increased efficiency of water within the system (through regional water sharing and decreasing leaks and water losses) ■Improved emergency options (through regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure to focus on minimizing the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply, particularly in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island) ■Better understanding and management of the groundwater portfolio as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) to reduce Delta water use and threats to groundwater quality ■Increased ability to respond to the regulatory environment and protect public health by meeting current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta ■Overall improved Delta health from limiting quantity and improving quality of stormwater discharges Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Projects focused on ecosystem and environmental resources recognize the importance of investments in watershed health and sustainability. Specific proposed projects will: ■Provide both local and statewide benefits by enhancing and restoring Delta and connected waterways habitat, as well as conserving valuable ecological habitat for state and federally listed special status species ■Minimize local impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources by maintaining Delta water quality and reducing regional flooding and road runoff impacts, lowering salinity in effluent discharges, minimizing sewer overflows, curtailing disruptive earth movements, and decreasing the amount of water removed from the Delta ■Contributions to the State’s goals for addressing climate change, as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ■Improved accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation and protect public health by reducing mercury levels in fish. Figure 7: Protecting and enhancing riparian, wetland, and Delta ecosystems is an important goal of the ECCC IRWM Plan. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 296 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 12 Stormwater and Flood Management The benefits of proposed stormwater and flood management projects are multiple. Proposed projects will provide benefits such as: ■Reduced risk and damages from excess water flows from storms and floods, resulting in better economic, social, and environmental outcomes ■Reduction of impacts to water quality from excess untreated and polluted flows ■Improved resiliency and faster recovery from storm and flood events ■Increased stormwater and floodwater protection for areas, including DACs, that currently experience flooding and its related issues Water-Related Outreach The ECCC believes engagement with the community is essential to ongoing support for IRWM projects. Outreach educates and promotes actions that residents and businesses can take in support of water management goals. For example, individuals and businesses can reduce pollutants entering waterways and practice water use efficiency. Finally, the community at large is benefited when everyone has access to decision making and the work of the ECCC is transparent. Some other benefits of engaging stakeholders include: ■Better project selection by targeting DACs currently impacted by annual floods, reduced water and sewer services, and hazardous waste sites contributing to unacceptable contaminant levels in water ■Improved community health through improved infrastructure and water management practices ■Increased awareness of water resources management issues and projects by the general public leading to better decisions by the public, water managers, and elected officials ■Increased water quality and reduced sewer system impacts by local actions such as appropriate fat, oils and grease disposal ■Voluntary adoption of renewable energy sources ■Increased appreciation for the environment through access to areas made available for public enjoyment Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Projects that strive to improve funding for planning and implementation fall into several categories. The ultimate benefit of this focus is to make sure money is available to implement projects delivering the benefits already described above and to ensure the public is receiving the best possible value from its investments. Projects meeting this objective: ■Increased regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water. For example, projects to reduce leaks and projects that will reduce costs of running facilities ■Increased competitiveness for grants and other funding sources by leveraging matching funds ■Integrated and increased opportunities for partnering with others to get more outcomes for the same dollar ■Improved the stability of operations, which ultimately results in reduced cost. For example, regularly scheduled maintenance is less costly than system failures caused by a lack of maintenance Figure 8: The Delta and surrounding areas are heavily dependent on aging levees for flood control and water quality protection. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 297 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management / Update 2013 Highlights / 13 Restoration and related projects Tidal marsh restoration projects have a potential to: • Increase mercury methylation. This happens when projects increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in Delta water. Several studies indicate that methylmercury can damage developing embry- os and exposure in adults has been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, tremors, gingivitis, damages to the immune system and other ailments. Humans are primarily exposed by eating mercury contaminated fish. • Increase DOC loads in drainage water • Create temporal impacts from excavation and restoration of marsh area Groundwater projects If improperly implemented can: • Damage the aquifer • Introduce contaminates or allow salinity intrusion • Increase greenhouse emissions (through energy use for pumping) Flood and stormwater management projects • May reallocate risk from the project location to another area in the watershed by changing flow patterns and/or increasing contaminants • May minimize understanding of actual risks from flood by the public Impacts Based on the initial project evaluation, anticipated impacts are primarily local, temporary, and associated with construction. A smaller set of projects may also result in the following types of impacts: Plan Performance and Monitoring As noted earlier, the region’s objectives included qualitative or quantitative metrics. These metrics give the RWMG and its members a way to determine if the region is meeting its intent and to assess the IRWM Plan’s performance. There may be two levels of monitoring: at the project level and at the IRWM Plan level. Levels of monitoring will be reported and shared with the RWMG so it can determine how well the IRWM Plan implementation is proceeding. The reporting is also valuable because it will provide needed signals of implementation progress that will allow the region to reconsider what objectives and approaches may need to be changed, updated, refined, eliminated, or supplemented. Next Steps This IRWM Plan Update establishes a strong foundation for future planning and implementation activities. The ECCC Water Management Group will continue to support regional planning. CCWD will continue to provide water service to much of the region. While IRWM plans do not have regular update schedules, the RWMG and its members working with the ECCC Water Management will use monitoring and be responsive to regional and statewide needs to determine the best time to update the IRWM Plan. An IRWM Plan update could be triggered by: ■New IRWM Program guidelines or requirements ■New stakeholders or participants ■A need to change the region’s boundary, such as contraction, expansion, or consolidation with another region ■Significant environmental changes or other catastrophic events ■Significant updates to local water planning or local land-use planning, such as the completion of planning efforts soon to be underway associated with the Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant awarded to the region in late 2012 ■IRWM Plan monitoring results indicating needed changes The region plans to follow the established IRWM Plan for the next few years. The planning framework allows for results and outcomes of future planning efforts, such as the upcoming Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant effort, to be incorporated into an update of the IRWM Plan. The planning framework will support requests for implementation grant funding in Proposition 84 Round 2 (March 2013) and Round 3 funding requests and other DWR implementation grant programs, as appropriate (e.g., Proposition 1E). Furthermore, the RWMG and it members will reexamine the planning process and its components, as needed, to determine if the IRWM Plan or any of its components (e.g., objectives) need updating or revising. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 298 Contra Costa County  November 17, 2001 Creek and Watershed Symposium    East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006. The Update is being funded by the ECWMA agencies and a planning grant from the California Department of Water Resources. An IRWMP is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWMPs cross jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involve multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempt to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The East Contra Costa County IRWMP Update will consist of:  Updating the document to the lastest guidelines and standards, including the development of new integrated projects  Developing a plan for groundwater and salt/nutrient management in the Pittsburg Plain Basin  Continuing public outreach, including to disadvantaged communities More information about IRWMPs may be found at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/. If you would like more information about the IRWMP Update or would like to participate in upcoming public meetings, please contact Marie Valmores at mvalmores@ccwater.com. WATER DISTRICTCONTRA COSTA City of Pittsburg www.eccc-irwm.org East County Water Management Association THE ECCC REGION CONTINUES TO PROGRESS ON IMPORTANT PLANNING EFFORTS Since completing the region’s first IRWM Plan in 2005, a document that tied together significant past planning efforts, the region has continued its investment in regional integrated and coordinated water management planning, for example: • Regional Acceptance Process was completed in 2009. Approved by DWR • 2010 UWMP Updates (Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, CCWD, DWD, Golden State Water Co – Bay Point) and various related water conservation plans, programs, and projects • Regional scale water supply optimization planning (municipal water purveyors) • Regional water recycling and desalination planning (DDSD, ISD) • Groundwater Management Plans, CASGEM Plans, and Salinity/Nutrient management planning (DWD, Pittsburg) • Regional habitat conservation planning and implementation (ECCCHC) • Long-range regional flood management planning (CCCFCWCD) • Active participant in integrated water management grant programs (all ECWMA members agencies) • Improved outreach, collaboration, and communication (all ECWMA members agencies) CCWD – Contra Costa Water District, DWD –Diablo Water District, DDSD – Delta Diablo Sanitation District, ISD – Ironhouse Sanitary District, ECCCHC – East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, CCCFCWCD – Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, ECWMA – East County Water Management Association. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 299 Contra Costa County TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER, AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 (All Districts) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:  SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: ABSENT: NOES: ABSTAIN: Contact: Mark Boucher (925) 313-2274 MB:cw C:\Users\mgonzalez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Z40G4ORO\TWIC BO for 4-03-14 TWIC Board (pending for 4-29-14 BOS).docx ATTESTE D DAVID TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: M. Carlson, Flood Control, mcarl@pw.cccounty.us M. Boucher, Flood Control, mbouc@pw.cccounty.us C. Windham, Flood Control, cwind@pw.cccounty.us BY: , DEPUTY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT the San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) dated September 2013; AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute documents signifying the FC District’s adoption and continued participation in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the BAIRWMP as needed. ADOPT the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan dated September 2013 (ECCCIRWMP); AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, FC District, or designee, to execute documents signifying the FC District’s adoption and continued participation in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the ECCCIRWMP as needed. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 300 SUBJECT: Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 (All Districts) DATE: April 29, 2014 PAGE: 2 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Some FC District staff time will be required on an ongoing basis. The FC District will benefit from coordination of its projects with those of other water, wastewater, flood management, stormwater quality, and environmental organizations in the Bay Area. (100% Flood Control District Funds) BACKGROUND: In 2002, Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. In November 2002, California voters passed Proposition 50 (Prop 50), “the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,” which provides $500,000,000 (CWC §79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. These bond funds were granted in a statewide application process with a certain amount (40%) guaranteed for areas north of the Tehachapi’s. In November 2006, California voters pass Proposition 84 (Prop 84), “the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act,” which provides $1,000,000,000 (PRC §75001-75130) for IRWM Planning and Implementation. These bond funds were allocated to funding regions based on population and area to be granted in a competitive process within the nine (9) funding regions. Contra Costa is in both the Bay Area funding region and the San Joaquin funding region. In November 2006, California voters pass Proposition 1E (Prop 1E), the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300,000,000 (PRC §5096.800-5096.967) for IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Projects to be funded by Prop 1E were required to be “consistent” with (included in) an IRWM plan. This was a comparative statewide application process. Below is history and background on the FC District’s involvement in the BAIRWMP and the ECCCIRWMP. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan In response to the requirement for IRWM plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) utilized its existing ABAG-CALFED Water Management Subcommittee (subcommittee to the ABAG-CALFED Task Force) to engage Bay Area water agencies, local government representatives, environmental groups, and the general public in developing an IRWM plan that identifies, coordinates, and prioritizes projects within the Bay Area. This began a long-term process of engaging as many water resource agencies as possible to represent the full spectrum of water resource related interests in the Bay Area. The outreach took the form of several established Bay Area organization pulling their members together. Those agencies without membership in organizations began to collaborate like never before. In general, four “functional areas” were identified. These four functional areas are listed below along with the organizations that coordinate their representation in the collaborative efforts related to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning process. 1. Water Supply and Water Quality Functional Area (FA): this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Water Management Agencies Coalition (BAWAC). 2. Wastewater and Recycled Water: this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA). TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 301 SUBJECT: Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 (All Districts) DATE: April 29, 2014 PAGE: 3 of 5 3. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management: this FA is coordinated by the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA), which was formed in response to the need to coordinate in the IRWM planning process. 4. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration: this FA coordinated by the Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN), which is coordinated by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) and under the umbrella of ABAG. Bay Area IRWM Plan Coordinating Committee (CC), which meets monthly and is the forum in which the BAIRWMP consensus decisions are made. In this forum, and through subcommittees that worked on specific issues and tasks, the plan was developed, projects were vetted, grant applications were prepared and the plan updated. A website was developed at http://www.bairwmp.org/ to enhance awareness, openness, and communication of the actions and decisions the CC was making for the region. Through this website, project proponents can submit projects, review other projects, and view and download future, current, and past meeting materials and other files. On March 23, 2004, the Board approved and authorized the Chief Engineer to sign a nonbinding and nonexclusive Letter of Mutual Understanding (LOMU) that memorialized the intent of the FC District and other signatories to participate in the development of the IRWMP. On November 13, 2006, the Board ADOPTED the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Plan (2006 Plan) dated November 6, 2006, and AUTHORIZED the Chief Engineer, or designee, to continue participating in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the IRWM plan and directing the Chief Engineer to participate in an effort with other Bay Area flood control agencies to form an association for coordinating input to the IRWMP. On April 19, 2010, FC District staff requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. As with the 2006 Plan, the 2013 BAIRWMP update was developed through consensus of a large group of representatives from diverse organizations. Several agencies and organizations in each of the FAs provided the leadership necessary to secure participation of peer organizations in discussion of the regional plan. A consultant assisted in the plan update in developing consensus on the Bay Area Region’s goals, strategies, and other information required by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the plan. The consultant also assisted in gathering project information, and independently scoring the projects for ranking in the plan. In order to ensure the transparency of the process, the CC held stakeholder workshops that were open to the public. The updated BAIRWMP presents nearly 300 projects that would be eligible for Proposition 84 grant funding or other funding requiring consistency with an IRWM plan in the Bay Area. Many of these projects will provide water resource benefits to Contra Costa County residents. The full BAIRWMP can be found at http://www.bairwmp.org/. The plan cover, table of contents, and Executive Summary of the BAIRWMP is provided as an attachment. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 302 SUBJECT: Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 (All Districts) DATE: April 29, 2014 PAGE: 4 of 5 East Contra Costa County Integrated Water Management Plan The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) convened in response to the 2002 requirement for IRWM plans. ECWMA members worked together to produce a “functionally equivalent” IRWM plan and was accepted by the State. The functionally equivalent (FE) IRWM plan consisted of combining several existing plans that ECWMA agencies had already created. These were done in a natural, collaborative process in their respective water resources realms. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was included in the FE IRWM plan. Before the IRWM planning effort, the Contra Costa Water Agency (CCWA) was a member of ECWMA. An amendment changed the membership from the CCWA to the County and added the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) to the agreement. The FC District became recognized as a participant in the IRWM planning effort under the County’s membership due to the fact that the FC District is managed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. On April 11, 2005, the FC District requested approval to participate in the East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM planning effort and prepare a Prop 50 and authorization to participate in the cost for professional services to prepare the grant application. This was the first of several requests for authorization to be involved in the ECCC IRWM planning effort. The development environment of the ECCCIRWMP and the update was similar to that of the BAIRWMP in that consultants were hired to assist in the development of the ECCCIRWMP and the update and ECWMA agencies work collaboratively. Unlike the Bay Area, the ECWMA had an MOU that provides organizational structure. The meetings held to discuss the development of the plan were open to the public. The full ECCCIRWMP can be found via http://ecccirwm.org/. The Update 2013 Highlights Executive Summary of the ECCCIRWMP is provided as an attachment. Funding Received through the IRWMP Grants The following tables depict the funding received to date through the IRWM planning effort. IRWM Funding Awards Bay Area ECCC Prop 50 Planning Grants $838,230 Prop 50 Implementation Grants $12,500,000 $12,500,000 Prop 84 Planning Grants $842,556 $901,661 Prop 84 Implementation Grants $52,298,592 Prop 1E Implementation Grants $64,808,000 $12,000,000 Total $131,287,378 $25,401,661 Grand Total $156,689,039 The two Regions (Bay Area and ECCC) overlap. Because of this, three projects in the ECCIRWMP were funded through two different BAIRWMP Prop 84 implantation grants rounds. This was because the Prop 84 funds are allocated to 9 specific regions and the ECCC Region overlaps the San Francisco Funding Region, which is synonymous to the Bay Area IRWM Planning Region. These three projects total $2,205,000 in Prop 84 grant funding. Current IRWM grant program status Due to the drought declaration by the Governor, DWR is administering an accelerated “drought round” to use $200,000,000 of Prop 84 funds (~42% of remaining Prop 84 funds) for drought relief projects. Draft grant TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 303 SUBJECT: Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 (All Districts) DATE: April 29, 2014 PAGE: 5 of 5 proposal documents will be distributed around April 1, 2014, and the anticipated grant proposal due date is August 1, 2014. The remaining Prop 84 funds will be put out in a grant round in 2015 and will likely not be focused on drought relief, though it is too early to tell what the focus of the last Prop 84 round will be. Commitment and CEQA The Guidelines and the procedures developed by the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board mandate that the IRWMP Plans be formally adopted, as evidenced by a resolution or other written documentation. The adoption must be done by the governing bodies of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the IRWM plans and have responsibility for its implementation. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors, as the Governing Board of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, must approve the IRWM Plan in order for the FC District’s projects in the IRWM plans to be eligible for grant funding. The IRWM plans are nonbinding documents. Adoption of the IRWM plans does not entail a direct commitment of resources. Implementation of each project identified in the IRWM plans will be the responsibility of the project proponent and any applicable project partners. There is no joint commitment or responsibility by the IRWMP participants or adopting agencies to implement any or all of the projects. Furthermore, the project proponents and applicable project partners have discretionary authority over project design and implementation and may elect not to implement a project based on changing regional conditions or needs. Upon implementing a project, project proponents will be responsible for ensuring that all regulatory requirements for the project are met. The IRWM plans consist of planning studies and basic proposed project information collection that will not result in the disturbance of any environmental resource. Therefore, the IRWM plans are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262. As such, programmatic environmental analysis under CEQA is not required. Each project ultimately implemented, as a result of this plan, will require independent CEQA analysis. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not adopt the IRWM plans, projects that the FC District proposes for funding through IRWM grant programs will not be ineligible for funding. Further, the Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin has already been awarded $2,000,000 through Proposition 1E, and its funding may be in jeopardy if the ECCCIRWMP is not adopted. CHILDREN’S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. TWIC APRIL 3, 2014 PACKET PAGE 304